Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Transfer of Property Act, 1882

605 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 401–600.

RAJ KISHORE (DEAD) BY LRS.versusPREM SINGH & ORS.

2010 INSC 87010 December 2010Dismissed

The plaintiff Raj Kishore executed a sale deed in 1974 transferring land to Prem Singh for Rs 6,000, claiming it was a security for a loan and that an agreement for re‑conveyance would revert the land upon repayment by 6 July 1981. He sued for a declaration that the sale deed was void and that he remained the owner. Th

M/S NOPANY INVESTMENTS (P) LTD.versusSANTOKH SINGH (HUF)

2007 INSC 125510 December 2007

M/S NOPANY INVESTMENTS (P) Ltd., the landlord, sought eviction of SANTOKH SINGH (HUF) tenant. The junior HUF member, Jasraj Singh, filed the suit claiming to be the Karta despite the senior brother being alive but residing abroad and having executed a power of attorney. The Supreme Court held that under such exceptiona

M/S. ATMA RAM PROPERTIES (P) LTD.versusM/S. FEDERAL MOTORS PVT. LTD.

2004 INSC 70810 December 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, Mis. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd., filed an eviction suit under the Delhi Rent Control Act alleging illegal sub‑letting by the tenant, Mis. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, which the tenant appealed to the Rent Control Tribunal under Section 38. The Tribunal stayed the evicti

HARBANSversusOM PRAKASH AND ORS.

2005 INSC 56010 November 2005Dismissed

Harbans (plaintiff) and co‑defendants claimed ownership of a suit land on the basis that a usufructuary mortgage created over a century ago had become extinguished because the statutory limitation period for redemption (60 years) had expired. The defendant, Om Prakash, asserted that he had redeemed the mortgage by payi

RASHEEDA KHATOON (D) THROUGH LRS.versusASHIQ ALI S/O LT. ABU MOHD (D) THROUGH LRS.

2014 INSC 70110 October 2014Dismissed

The case concerned an alleged oral gift (hiba) of a house by Abdul Haq, a Muslim, to Rasheeda Khatoon about seven years before his death. After Haq's death, his heirs sought possession, prompting Rasheeda to file a suit for declaration of ownership. The trial court and first appellate court held the oral gift valid, de

NARAMADABEN MAGANLAL THAKKERversusPRANJIVANDAS MANGANLAL THAKKER AND ORS

1996 INSC 102310 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Motilal Gopalji owned a property and executed a gift deed on 15 May 1965 in favour of the first respondent, reserving his right to retain possession and collect rents during his lifetime. Within a month he executed a cancellation deed on 9 June 1965, stating that the conditional gift had not been accepted and that poss

DUNI CHANDversusVIKRAM SINGH AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 51610 July 2024Case Allowed

The plaintiff, Tota Ram, claimed ownership of a land based on a registered Will dated 12‑12‑1988 executed by the deceased Beli Ram, while the defendants relied on a later Will dated 16‑05‑1994 to transfer the land to themselves and subsequent purchasers. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court

YOGESH GOYANKAversusGOVIND & ORS.

2024 INSC 51010 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant purchased farming land from a seller during the pendency of a suit challenging earlier release deeds, and obtained a registered sale deed while fully aware of the litigation. He applied to be impleaded as a defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, but the Additional District Judge dismissed the applica

M/S SHAHA RATANSI KHIMJI & SONSversusPROPOSED KUMBHAR SONS HOTEL P. LTD. & ORS.

2014 INSC 48210 July 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, M/s Shaha Ratansi Khimji & Sons, held a lease over a godown on a portion of land. The respondent, Proposed Kumbhar Sons Hotel Ltd., purchased the lessor's interest, demolished the building and dug a trench that threatened the godown, and asked the appellant to vacate. The appellant claimed that the lease

M/S. L.K. TRUSTversusEDC LTD. & ORS.

2011 INSC 37410 May 2011Dismissed

The appellant L.K. Trust claimed that a concluded contract existed between it and EDC Ltd. for the sale of a mortgaged hotel property, arguing that the mortgagor (Falcon Retreat Pvt. Ltd., respondent No.3) had lost its statutory right of redemption under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Supreme Court hel

SRI M.V. RAMACHANDRASA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRSversusM/S MAHENDRA WATCH COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS & ORS.

2026 INSC 34810 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, the legal heirs of the deceased Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa, sued M/s Mahendra Watch Company and its partners for unlawful sub‑letting of a shop premises in Bengaluru. The trial court held that the original tenant had part‑ed with legal possession to respondents No.2 and No.3, who were strangers to the lease,

R. HEMALATHAversusKASHTHURI

2023 INSC 33610 April 2023Dismissed

The appellant (original defendant) challenged the High Court's order that an unregistered Agreement to Sell, executed on 10‑09‑2013, could be admitted as evidence in a suit for specific performance. The dispute centered on whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2012, which made agreements to sell immovable property of R

MAHENDRA RAGHUNATHDAS GUPTAversusVISHVANATH BHIKAJI MOGUL AND ORS.

1997 INSC 40710 April 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, brother of the original tenant, continued to pay rent after the landlords directed payment to new persons and later sold the property to the respondents without giving the tenant notice of the sale. After a notice dated 29 September 1986 demanding arrears, the appellant tendered the rent by cheque to the

PRATIMA CHOWDHURYversusKALPANA MUKHERJEE & ANR.

2014 INSC 8710 February 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Pratima Chowdhury, a member of a West Bengal cooperative housing society, sought to transfer her flat and membership to Kalpana Mukherjee, claiming the transfer was a gift without consideration. The arbitrator found the transfer invalid, noting that the letters effecting the transfer were likely drafted by Partha Mukhe

MATHEW VARGHESEversusM. AMRITHA KUMAR & ORS.

[2014] 2 S.C.R. 73610 February 2014Disposed off

The case concerned the sale of a mortgaged property by a bank under the SARFAESI Act. The Supreme Court examined whether the bank, as a secured creditor, had complied with Section 13(8) of the Act and Rules 8 and 9, which require a 30‑day individual notice and a public notice before any sale. It held that the sale effe

NARAYANARU THRIVIKRANARUversusV. MADHAVAN POTTY AND ORS.

2000 INSC 6010 February 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant owned agricultural land that was leased to the first respondent. In 1943 a document titled "Otti and Kuzhikanam" was executed in favour of the respondent, which the appellant claimed was a usufructuary mortgage. The trial court held the document to be a mortgage, declared the respondent a mortgagee and de

ALAGAMMAL AND ORS.versusGANESAN AND ANR.

2024 INSC 2810 January 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The sellers (Alagammal and others) entered into a registered agreement of sale on 22‑Nov‑1990 with the buyers (Ganesan and others) for Rs.21,000, stipulating that the balance be paid within six months. The buyers paid only a fraction of the amount and failed to complete the purchase before the deadline, while the selle

PAPILA BAIversusCHAVDAS T. BHORTAKKE (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2005 INSC 2010 January 2005Dismissed

The appellant, daughter of the original landowner, sought redemption of a mortgage executed in 1941. The mortgagee had inducted a tenant, who was entered in revenue records and later received a certificate under s.88C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. After redemption, the appellant attempted to e

NADIMINTI SURYANARAYAN MURTHY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusKOTHURTHI KRISHNA BHASKARA RAO & ORS.

2017 INSC 10159 October 2017Disposed off

The plaintiff (respondent No. I) entered into a genuine sale agreement on 18‑01‑1983 with defendants Nos.1‑5 for a house, paying Rs.1,000 as advance. Instead of executing the sale deed, the defendants sold the same house to defendant No.6 on 09‑02‑1983, relying on a purported earlier agreement dated 04‑01‑1983, which t

T. VIJENDRADAS AND ANR.versusM. SUBRAMANIAN AND ORS.

2007 INSC 10239 October 2007Disposed off

The vendor (RV) sold a municipal property to Sakunthala without notifying the Coimbatore Municipality, which continued to claim property tax arrears. The Municipality sued RV, obtained a decree, and the property was later auctioned; RV's wife bought it and subsequently sold it to a third party, who sold it to the appel

VITHAL TUKARAM KADAM AND ANOTHERversusVAMANRAO SAWALARAM BHOSALE AND OTHERS

2017 INSC 7219 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff executed a deed in 1953 that was styled as a sale of land for a nominal sum of Rs.700, but included a clause that the land would be returned if the amount was repaid within ten years. The parties were long‑time acquaintances, with the plaintiff having repeatedly borrowed money from the defendant, establis

MAHARAJ SINGH & ORS.versusKARAN SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.

2024 INSC 4919 July 2024Case Partly allowed

The case concerned a registered agreement for sale of 2.90 acres of land executed in 1981, which the plaintiffs sought to enforce by specific performance. The defendants argued that the agreement was a sham, forged, and that they were bona‑fide purchasers without notice of the agreement. The Supreme Court held that Sec

DAHIBENversusARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI (GAJRA) (D) THR LRS & ORS.

2020 INSC 4509 July 2020Dismissed

The plaintiffs sold agricultural land to respondent No.1 in 2009 and alleged that only a small part of the sale consideration was paid, seeking cancellation of the sale deed. They filed the suit in December 2014, more than five years after the deed, claiming the cause of action arose only when they discovered alleged f

RAMCHANDRA SAKHARAM MAHAJANversusDAMODAR TRIMBAK TANKSALE (D) AND ORS.

2007 INSC 7329 July 2007Disposed off

Ramchandra Sakharm Mahajan filed a suit for declaration of joint title with defendants 10‑13 and for recovery of possession of a portion of land against defendants 1‑9, relying on a lease deed dated 21‑July‑1875. The trial court dismissed the suit, refusing to allow a belated amendment of the plaint to give better part

SRILEKHA GHOSH (ROY) AND ANR.versusPARTHA SARATHI GHOSH

2002 INSC 2949 July 2002Disposed off

The case involved a dwelling house inherited by a brother (respondent) and his two sisters (appellants) who had received their shares by gift from their mother. The sisters filed a partition suit; during the proceedings the younger sister married and the brother sought to pre‑empt her share under Section 4 of the Parti

R.M. ARUNACHALAM ETC.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS

1997 INSC 5549 July 1997Dismissed

R.M. Arunachalam inherited immovable properties from his adoptive mother, who had received them by will from her husband Ramanathan Chettiar. The assessee sold these properties during assessment years 1966-67 to 1972-73 and claimed that the estate duty paid under the Estate Duty Act, 1953, should be allowed as "cost of

RAJ DADARKAR & ASSOCIATESversusACIT-CC-46

2017 INSC 4579 May 2017Dismissed

The appellant, a partnership firm, obtained lease‑hold rights to a stilt portion of a municipal market through auction and constructed a shopping centre, sub‑licensing shops to traders. The Assessing Officer re‑assessed the income from these sub‑licences under the head "Income from House Property" on the basis that the

TARA CHANDversusSAGARBAI @ CHAIYALIBAI

2007 INSC 5419 May 2007Dismissed

The appellant, a tenant, executed a registered usufructuary mortgage deed with the respondent, the landlord, allowing the appellant to occupy the ground floor in lieu of interest for ten years. After the ten‑year period the respondent filed a suit for redemption and possession, which the trial court dismissed on the gr

RUSSI FISHERIES P. LTD. & ANR.versusBHAVNA SETH & ORS.

2026 INSC 3399 April 2026Dismissed

The case concerns a suit for specific performance of an 1988 agreement to sell agricultural land, where the plaintiff paid Rs.7,75,000 and claimed readiness to execute the sale deed, but the defendants alleged non‑payment of cash and lack of willingness. The trial court dismissed the specific performance claim, but the

M.R. SATWAJI RAO (D) BY L.RS.versusB. SHAMA RAO (DEAD) BY L.RS. & ORS.

2008 INSC 4729 April 2008Dismissed

The appellant mortgagee had taken a usufructuary mortgage on a property in 1948, allowing the mortgagor to remain in possession as a tenant. When the mortgagor defaulted on rent, the mortgagee obtained a money decree for arrears of rent and, in execution, purchased the property at a public auction without instituting a

DELTA INTERNATIONAL LTD.versusSHYAM SUNDER GANERIWALLA AND ANR.

1999 INSC 1729 April 1999Appeal(s) allowed

Delta International Ltd., the successor to Dewar's Garage, entered into a 1970 leave‑and‑license deed with ESSO allowing Shyam Sunder Ganeriwalla to operate a petrol station on premises it leased from Mallika Investment Co. The deed expressly stated it was a licence and not a lease, and any sub‑lease required the landl

SADASIVAMversusK. DORAISAMY

1996 INSC 2149 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Sadasivam sought a declaration that a sale deed executed by his father Marappa in favour of the respondent Doraisamy was a sham and that his interest in the joint family property remained unaffected. The lower courts had held the sale deed valid and the will of the grandfather Karuppanna, bequeathing half

G. RAMASWAMY@ SURYAPRAKASA RAOversusLANKA SUBBARAO PATRUDU AND OTHERS.

1996 INSC 2159 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The grandfather, Gulla Kondala Rao, executed a deed of gift in 1947 in favour of his second wife, Narasamma, and she later bequeathed the same properties to the plaintiffs by a registered will in 1964. The adopted son, Ramarao, later sold the properties claiming they were joint family assets, but the plaintiffs challen

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PORT OF KANDLAversusHARGOVIND JASRAJ & ANR.

2013 INSC 259 January 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The Board of Trustees of Kandla Port terminated a lease of a 1891.64‑sq‑m parcel to Smt. Pushpa Shah after she defaulted on rent, issuing a termination order on 8‑Aug‑1977 effective 13‑Dec‑1978 and taking possession via a panchnama on 14‑Dec‑1978. The lessee’s own letter of 22‑Feb‑1979 admitted that possession had been

DAULAT SINGH (D) THR. LRS.versusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS

2020 INSC 6848 December 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Daulat Singh, the appellant, owned 254.2 bighas of land and gifted 127.1 bighas to his son in 1963, leaving him with 17.25 standard acres below the ceiling limit. The Rajasthan Revenue Ceiling Department later reopened the case in 1982, alleging excess holdings, and the High Court declared the gift deed invalid for lac

T.G. ASHOK KUMARversusGOVINDAMMAL AND ANR.

2010 INSC 8638 December 2010Case Partly allowed

The appellant, T.G. Ashok Kumar, purchased a plot from the second respondent in 1990, unaware of a pending partition suit filed by the first respondent. The partition suit, which was not collusive, was decreed in 1994 and finally divided the property such that three‑quarters went to the first respondent and one‑quarter

SANJAY VERMAversusMANIK ROY AND ORS.

2006 INSC 9798 December 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sanjay Verma, filed a suit for specific performance of a contract concerning a property in 1991. During the suit's pendency, the property was transferred to the respondents, Manik Roy and Ahilya Jha, without obtaining the court's permission. The respondents sought to be impleaded under Order I Rule 10(2)

M/S SIDDAMSETTY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.versusKATTA SUJATHA REDDY & ORS.

2024 INSC 8618 November 2024

The petitioner, Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., entered into two agreements to sell agricultural land with the respondents in 1997, paid a substantial portion of the consideration, and sought specific performance after the respondents refused to execute the sale deed. The trial court dismissed the suit, the High

M/S. HOTEL KINGS AND ORS.versusSARA FARHAN LUKMANI AND ORS.

2006 INSC 8058 November 2006Disposed off

The owners of a plot of land (Hotel Kings) leased the land to a company which assigned the lease to Yashdhir Hotels. The lease deed expressly required monthly rent, but the lessee argued that rent was payable every six months because rates and taxes, payable by the lessee, formed part of the rent. The trial court held

SHASHI KAPILAversusR.P.ASHWIN

2001 INSC 5678 November 2001Disposed off

The landlord sought eviction of a long‑term tenant under Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, claiming bona‑fide need for occupation and rent arrears. The tenant argued that the landlord had entered into a sale agreement with a partnership firm of which the tenant was a partner, invoking Section 53‑A of the

SUZUKI PARASRAMPURIA SUITINGS PVT. LTD.versusTHE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF MAHENDRA PETROCHEMICALS LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS

2018 INSC 9378 October 2018Leave Granted & Dismissed

Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings Pvt. Ltd. (the appellant) was assigned the debt of Mahendra Petrochemicals Ltd. (MPL) by IFCI for a nominal sum and sought substitution as a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act. The Company Judge rejected the application, holding that the appellant was not a bank, financial institution

YELLAPU UMA MAHESWARI &ANR.versusBUDDHA JAGADHEESWARARAO & ORS.

2015 INSC 7558 October 2015Case Partly allowed

In a partition suit, the defendants sought to introduce two unregistered documents (Exhibit B‑21, a deed of memorandum, and Exhibit B‑22, an agreement) to prove the division of property. The trial court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court held the documents inadmissible, reasoning that they were compulsorily registerable

KAMMANA SAMBAMURTHY (D) BY LRS.versusKALIPATNAPU ATCHUTAMMA (D) AND ORS.

2010 INSC 6978 October 2010Dismissed

The vendee, Kammana Sambamurthy, entered into a sale agreement with the vendor, Kalipatnapu Kamaraju, for an entire house, paying an advance of Rs.10,000. The vendor's wife, Kalipatnapu Atchutamma, later claimed a half‑share in the property under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and sought cancellation of the agr

HAR NARAIN (DEAD) BY LRS.versusMAM CHAND (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2010 INSC 7008 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the legal representatives of the deceased Har Narain, entered into an agreement for sale of eight kanals of land with the owner, Mam Chand, who later executed a sale deed in favour of respondents 2‑6 on 2 August 1971. The deed was registered on 3 September 1971, after the appellant had filed a suit for s

SMT. SUDHA RANI GARGversusSRI JAGDISH KUMAR (DEAD) AND ORS.

2004 INSC 5048 September 2004Dismissed

Landlords filed a suit for ejectment against Smt. Sudha Rani Garg under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, claiming the tenancy was at will. The tenants contended that the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 applied, which provides a ten‑year exemption from evict

M/S RAPTAKOS BRETT AND CO. LTD.versusGANESH PROPERTY

1998 INSC 3548 September 1998Dismissed

The landlord, a partnership firm, sued its former tenant for possession of premises after a 21‑year lease expired. The partnership was unregistered when the suit was filed, raising a bar under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act. The trial court and High Court held the suit maintainable and granted possession. On appe

CHANDY VARGHESE AND ORS.versusK. ABDUL KHADER AND ORS.

2003 INSC 3768 August 2003Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by the successors‑in‑interest of Chandy, who claimed that they held a lease of land on which a saw‑mill shed had been erected before 20 May 1967 and therefore were protected from eviction under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The lower courts and the Kerala High Co

SARLA GOEL & ORS.versusKISHAN CHAND

2009 INSC 8918 July 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether a tenant who tendered rent by money order, which the landlord refused to accept, was required to deposit the rent with the Rent Controller under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Court held that the word "may" in Section 27 is to be read as mandatory, i.e., the tenan

NALAKATH SAINUDDINversusKOORIKADAN SULAIMAN

2002 INSC 2848 July 2002Case Partly allowed

The tenant, Nalakath Sainuddin, held a single tenancy over a shop with two doors and sublet one door to Koorikadan Sulaiman, who later purchased the entire property from the original owners. The landlord filed an eviction suit invoking three grounds under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965: arrears

USHA SUBBARAOversusB.E. VISHVESWARIAH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6978 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Usha Subbarao, the widow of B.N. Subbarao (one of five sons of Dr. N.S. Nanjundiah), claimed a one‑fifth share in the properties left by her father‑in‑law under a 1935 will. The will divided the estate into Schedules A, B, C and D, gave management rights to the testator’s wife, and stipulated that sons could demand par

MAHARAJI EDUCATIONAL TRUSTversusHOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.

2017 INSC 12888 May 2017Disposed off

Maharaji Educational Trust borrowed Rs.75 crore from HUDCO and mortgaged six properties. It later exchanged 21 acres of one mortgaged property with Avas Parishad and entered into a sale agreement for the entire 63.45 acres (including the exchanged land) with SGS Constructions, which was subject to an interim injunction

V.N. DEVEDOSSversusCHIEF REVENUE CONTROL OFFICER-CUM-INS. AND ORS.

2009 INSC 7488 May 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant purchased 60.86 acres of land belonging to Dunlop India Ltd, a sick company, through an open‑market tender conducted by an Asset Sales Committee appointed under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The sale deed was executed at Rs 24.34 crore and registered. The revenue authoritie

DR. AMBICA PRASADversusMD. ALAM AND ANOTHER

2015 INSC 2998 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Dr. Ambica Prasad filed an eviction suit against Abdul Karim, claiming ownership of the tenanted premises through exchange deeds executed with his brother, the original owner. The trial court held that the appellant was not the landlord, but the appellate court reversed this, finding him to be the landlord based on ren

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF MUMBAIversusM/S BYRAMJEE JEEJEEBHOY PVT. LTD. & ANR.

2011 INSC 2848 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai, as landlord, sued M/s Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt. Ltd. (tenant) and its sub‑tenant Wadi Sunder Cotton Press Co. for eviction on the ground of unlawful sub‑letting under the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. The trial court and the High Court held that the sub‑lease breached the lease deed

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABADversusSOLID & CORRECT ENGINEERING WORKS & ORS.

2010 INSC 2028 April 2010

The case concerned whether the erection of an Asphalt Drum/Hot Mix Plant using duty‑paid components constitutes the manufacture of excisable goods under Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether the manufacturers of the plant’s parts were eligible for exemption under Notification No.1/93‑CE. The Supreme

MARDIA CHEMICALS LTD. ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

2004 INSC 2448 April 2004Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, enacted to facilitate speedy recovery of non‑performing assets. The Court held that the Act is valid and serves a public‑interest goal of improving liquidity, but

RAKESH & ORS.versusBOARD OF REVENUE U.P. & ORS. ETC.

2019 INSC 3368 March 2019Case Partly allowed

Pursottam, a Sirdar, deposited twenty times the land revenue and applied for Bhumidhari rights for three plots, subsequently executing a sale deed. His applications for two plots were rejected and a revision petition was pending when the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1977 (la

SADASHIV PRASAD SINGHversusHARENDAR SINGH & ORS.

2014 INSC 178 January 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute arising from the public auction of Plot No.722, attached in a debt recovery proceeding against a partnership firm. Sadashiv Prasad Singh, the highest bidder, was confirmed as the purchaser, took possession and obtained mutation of the property. Harendar Singh, brother of the origina

GOPAL SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS.versusSWARAN SINGH & ORS.

2018 INSC 11687 December 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The land in question was sold under a restricted auction pursuant to the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 and later the sale was cancelled by an order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 28 March 1985, which became final. The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming they were bonafide purchasers and seeking a d

M/S. GOVIND IMPEX (P) LTD. AND ORS.versusAPPROPRIATE AUTHORITY, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

2010 INSC 8567 December 2010Dismissed

The appellants leased premises for nine years with a clause allowing the lessee to extend the lease for a further nine years, subject to conditions. The Income Tax Department treated the lease as exceeding twelve years, invoking Chapter XXC of the Income Tax Act and requiring filing of Form 37‑1. The appellants contend

SAMIULLAHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 12927 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants challenged the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 amendments that introduced sub‑rules (xvii) and (xviii) to Rule 19, which made the production of jamabandi or holding‑allotment proof a condition precedent for registering sale or gift documents. The High Court of Patna dismissed the writ petitions, holding t

M/S. KRISHNA FOOD & BAKING INDUSTRY P. LTD.versusM/S. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

2008 INSC 12667 November 2008Disposed off

Krishna Food & Baking Industry Ltd. and its sister concern operated bakery units in Srinagar that were destroyed by a terrorist fire in 1991. The companies had three insurance policies covering terrorism and fire and claimed full loss for building, plant, machinery, raw materials and stocks. The National Consumer Dispu

VASU DEV SINGH AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 7977 November 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, tenants in Chandigarh, challenged a 7 November 2002 notification issued by the Administrator under Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, which exempted buildings and rented land with monthly rent exceeding Rs.1500 from the Act's provisions. The High Court had upheld the notifica

PREM AGGARWALversusMOHAN SINGH & ORS.

2025 INSC 12147 October 2025Dismissed

The appellant, Prem Aggarwal, entered into an agreement to purchase a property in 1989, paid Rs.25,000 as earnest money and later sued for specific performance, which the Supreme Court dismissed on the ground of bar under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, but awarded her Rs.2 crore as compensation. The respondents deposited

DHARMRAO SHARANAPPA SHABADI AND OTHERSversusSYEDA ARIFA PARVEEN

2025 INSC 11877 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Syeda Arifa Parveen, claimed ownership of 24 acres of agricultural land on the basis of being the sole daughter of Khadijabee and of an oral gift (hiba) of 10 acres made by her mother. The trial court rejected the oral gift but granted her a 3/4 share of the remaining land, while the Karnataka High Court

K. NAINA MOHAMED (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusA.M. VASUDEVAN CHETTIAR (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

2010 INSC 3727 July 2010Dismissed

The testator’s 1951 Will gave life interest in two houses to her sisters and, after their deaths, vested absolute title in the male heirs, subject to a clause that any sale must be to the other male heirs at market price and not to strangers. After a partition, Rukmani Ammal and her son sold one house (property B) to K

M/S. T.T.G. INDUSTRIES LTD., MADRASversusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR

2004 INSC 3797 May 2004Appeal(s) allowed

T.T.G. Industries Ltd. entered into a contract with Bhilai Steel Plant to design, supply, and erect hydraulic mudguns and tap‑hole drilling machines. Components were imported and some were manufactured at its Chennai factory, then shipped to the steel plant where they were assembled on a concrete platform 25 feet above

GAJRAJ JAINversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

2004 INSC 3807 May 2004Leave Granted & Allowed

The appellant, Gajraj Jain, a director of Mis Katihar Flour Mills, challenged the sale of the company's flour mill assets by Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd (BICICO) to Stichworth Exports Pvt Ltd. BICICO, as the first charge holder under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, had taken possession

MIS. R.S. REKHCHAND MOHOTA SPINNIKG AND WEAVING MILLS LTD.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1997 INSC 4907 May 1997Disposed off

The appellant, a spinning and weaving mill, installed pumps in 1989 to draw water from the river Wana for industrial use. The Maharashtra Government, under Section 70 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, issued a resolution fixing rates of water cess for non‑agricultural purposes, and the Tehsildar levied cess o

KARAM KAPAHI & OTHERSversusM/S. LAL CHAND PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST & ANOTHER

2010 INSC 2007 April 2010Dismissed

The Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust leased property to the South Delhi Club and later terminated the lease for non‑payment of rent. The Trust sued for possession; the Club contested the Trust’s title and sought relief under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, while also admitting non‑payment of rent in its s

C.S. VENKATESHversusMURTHY (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

2020 INSC 1437 February 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, C.S. Venkatesh, appealed a High Court order that had declared a 1975 sale deed executed by the deceased plaintiff, A.S.C. Murthy, as a nominal security transaction and directed specific performance of a reconveyance agreement. The Supreme Court examined whether the sale deed was an outright sale or a mor

LAKSHMI ALIAS BHAGYALAKSHMI AND ANR.versusE. JAYARAM (D) BY LR.

2013 INSC 807 February 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs claimed ownership of a property purchased from the defendant, although the sale deed was unregistered, and filed a suit for permanent injunction together with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for interim relief. The trial court granted an interim injunction protecting the plaintiff

RAHEJA UNVIERSAL LIMITEDversusNRC LIMITED & ORS.

2012 INSC 777 February 2012Dismissed

NRC Ltd, a sick industrial company, entered into a memorandum of understanding and subsequent agreements with K. Raheja Universal Ltd for the sale of 344 acres of land to raise funds for restructuring. The sale was only partially paid and the company later sought a corporate debt restructuring (CDR) scheme, which was a

BIRMA DEVI & ORS.versusSUBHASH & ANR.

2024 INSC 9496 December 2024Dismissed

The petitioners, who claim to be subsequent purchasers of a suit property, challenged a High Court order directing the execution court to grant possession to the decree‑holders (plaintiffs) in a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement. The trial court had decreed specific performance but did not expressly awa

BIBI ZUBAIDA KHATOONversusNABI HASSAN SAHEB AND ANR.

2003 INSC 6086 November 2003Dismissed

Bibi Zubaida Khatun purchased the suit property in 1996 during the pendency of two cross‑suits (one for redemption of mortgage and another for specific performance) without obtaining leave of the court as required by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. She filed three applications seeking her impleadment as a p

SHRI TULSIversusSMT. PARO (DEAD)

1996 INSC 12976 November 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Paro, sued Tulsi for possession of agricultural land, alleging Tulsi was merely a licensee who cultivated the land on her behalf. Tulsi contended he was a tenant at will, a status reflected in revenue records from 1951‑52 to 1971‑72 where he was listed as "Gar Marusi" and he had enjoyed uninterrupted po

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.versusSUDERA REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED

2022 INSC 9286 September 2022Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute between Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (appellant) and Sudera Realty Private Ltd. (respondent) over a lease of three floors in a Kolkata building. It held that the 1968 agreement and the 1969 supplementary deed constituted a valid 21‑year lease, with possession of the 2nd and 3rd floor

NAVANEETHAMMALversusARJUNA CHETTY

1998 INSC 3496 September 1998Appeal(s) allowed

Navaneethammal, the plaintiff, purchased land and sued Arjuna Chetty, the tenant, for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The tenant claimed he had surrendered the lease, re‑entered the land and acquired title by adverse possession, contending that the suit was barred by Article 139 of the Limitation Act.

KARAN KAPOORversusMADHURI KUMAR

2022 INSC 6616 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Karan Kapoor, was a tenant of a residential property owned by the respondent, Madhuri Kumar, under lease agreements from 2011 to 2014. After the lease expired, the appellant stopped paying rent and the respondent filed a suit for possession, rent, and mesne profits. The appellant claimed that subsequent

TRILOKI NATH SINGHversusANIRUDH SINGH (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.

2020 INSC 3856 May 2020Dismissed

The appellant, who purchased land by a sale deed in 1984, filed a suit seeking a declaration that a compromise decree passed by the High Court in 1994 in a partition suit was illegal, fraudulent and void. The decree was passed in a second appeal concerning parties other than the appellant, who was a stranger to the com

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusDINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI & ORS.

2014 INSC 3616 May 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned a 0.90‑acre parcel of land in Pune Cantonment held under an 1827 government grant. The respondents had purchased the lease‑hold rights and the superstructure on the land, while the Union of India (Pune Cantonment Board) issued a resumption notice in 1971 claiming the land remained government prope

M/S. YASHA OVERSEASversusCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX & ORS.

2008 INSC 5866 May 2008Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a batch of six appeals concerning the taxability of Replenishment Licences (REP licences) and the Duty Entitlement Passbook (DEPB) scheme under various State sales tax statutes. The appellants argued that the three‑judge decision in Vikas Sales Corporation v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,

SITARAM AGARWAL & ANR.versusSUBARATA CHANDRA & DAMKRISHNA DHARA & ORS.

2008 INSC 5996 May 2008Dismissed

The father of the respondents purchased land as the shebait of the deity Sri Sri Durgamata Thakurani and later sold it to the appellants. The appellants sought to enforce the sale, while the respondents claimed the land was a debutter (charitable endowment) and that the shebait could not validly sell it. The trial cour

PRADEEP OIL CORPORATIONversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR.

2011 INSC 2786 April 2011Dismissed

Pradeep Oil Corporation was granted land by the Government under the Government Grants Act to erect petroleum storage tanks and related structures. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi assessed property tax on the tanks, treating them as "buildings". The corporation argued the grant was a lease, making the corporation li

KISHORSINH RATANSINH JADEJAversusMARUTI CORP. & ORS.

2009 INSC 4576 April 2009Disposed off

The appellants, owners of agricultural land, entered into an agreement in 1980 for a cooperative housing project that later failed, leading the respondent Maruti Corp. to sue for specific performance in 1999. While the Gujarat High Court admitted the appeal and initially ordered that any dealing with the property would

DWARIKA PRASADversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

2018 INSC 2106 March 2018Disposed off

The appellant, a guarantor, created an equitable mortgage over his property to secure a loan that later defaulted. The bank invoked the SARFAESI Act and initiated auction proceedings, which the appellant attempted to halt by offering partial payment and filing writ petitions. The High Court stayed the sale until the ap

BIR SINGH AND ORS.versusPYARE SINGH AND ORS.

2000 INSC 1216 March 2000Dismissed

The appellants, heirs of a zamindar who had mortgaged a parcel of khudkasht land, sued the mortgagee (later his heirs) for possession under Sections 43(3) and 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The district authority and revenue boards ruled in favour of the appellants, declaring them khatedar kashtkar, but the Rajastha

PALANI AMMALversusVISWANATHA CHETTIAR (DEAD) AND ORS.

1998 INSC 1366 March 1998Dismissed

Palani Ammal (appellant) occupied an open piece of land with a granite foundation on which she erected a fuel depot under a lease from the original landlords (plaintiffs I and II). The landlords later sold the land to a third plaintiff (plaintiff III). Ammal denied plaintiff III's title and filed an application under S

SARWAN KUMAR AND ANR.versusMADAN LAL AGGARWAL

2003 INSC 686 February 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Sarwan Kumar and another, were heirs of a commercial tenant in a premises governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The landlord, Madan Lal Aggarwal, obtained an ex‑parte decree for ejectment and mesne profits from a civil court, which the appellants challenged on the ground that the civil court lac

DWARIKA NATH ACOOLIversusDULAL CHANDRA BAYEN AND ORS.

2009 INSC 36 January 2009Disposed off

The appellant, claiming ownership of a property at 18/1 Ramesh Mitra Road, Kolkata, sought eviction of the respondent who alleged he was a Thika tenant under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981. The respondent filed a Return under Rule 3(a) of the 1981 Rules, which the Thika Controller pro

BALWANT VITHAL KADAMversusSUNIL BABURAOI KADAM

2017 INSC 11705 December 2017Dismissed

The respondent sued the appellants for specific performance of two agreements to sell a share of land, having paid earnest money but no deed was executed. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court set aside that decree and ordered specific performance. The appellants appealed, arguing that the a

REVANASIDDAYYAversusGANGAMMA @ SHASHIKALA & ANR.

2017 INSC 11715 December 2017Disposed off

The appellant purchased land from the original owner, Veerabasayya, and was given possession after paying earnest money, but the owner died before the sale deed was executed. The respondents, as legal heirs, sued for a declaration of ownership and possession, and the trial court declared them owners but denied possessi

VINOD KUMARversusASHOK KUMAR GANDHI

2019 INSC 8605 August 2019Directions issued

The appeal arose from tenants of a non‑residential shop challenging an eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and seeking to have the Supreme Court’s decision in Satyawati Sharma case referred to a larger bench. The petitioners contended that the Satyawati Sharma judgment was per inc

SHYAM LALversusDEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB DASS

2016 INSC 4965 July 2016Appeal(s) allowed

Shyam Lal held an agricultural lease from 29 May 1996 to 28 May 2005, but the lease was not registered. After the lease expired he continued to occupy the land and filed a suit for injunction to restrain the landlord from ousting him. The landlord cross‑claimed a mandatory injunction for vacation, arguing that the tena

ITC LTD.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2011 INSC 4585 July 2011Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the cancellation of leases and allotments of commercial plots in Noida granted to hotel developers under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. It held that a lease governed by a statute can be cancelled only if

VINOD SETHversusDEVINDER BAJAJ AND ANR.

2010 INSC 3475 July 2010Case Partly allowed

The plaintiff, a builder, sued the owners of a residential property for specific performance of an alleged oral collaboration agreement to develop the land. The High Court, noting the suit's low chance of success and heavy court dockets, ordered the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking to pay Rs.25 lakhs as damages if h

HAFEEZA BIBI & ORS.versusSHAIKH FARID (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS

2011 INSC 3575 May 2011Appeal(s) allowed

In a partition suit governed by Sunni law, the defendant claimed that his father had gifted him immovable property by a written hiba deed dated 5‑2‑1968 and that the deed, though unregistered, was valid. The trial court held the gift valid, but the High Court set it aside on the ground that an instrument of gift of imm

STANDARD CHARTERED BANKversusANDHRA BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. & ORS

2006 INSC 2915 May 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerns the ownership of Rs. 50 crore 9% tax‑free bonds (the "suit bonds") issued by Nuclear Power Corporation Ltd. (NPCL). Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd. (ABFSL) sold the bonds to Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) on 26‑27 February 1992, and SCB paid consideration and received a Banker's Receipt. Canbank Mu

RAMESH CHAND ARDAWATIYAversusANIL PANJWANI

2003 INSC 2765 May 2003Case Partly allowed

Anil Panjwani purchased a vacant plot from Shri Niwas Vaidhya under a sale agreement dated 1‑Dec‑1985 and took possession, erecting a boundary wall. The defendant, R.C. Ardawatiya, later attempted to erect a hut on the plot. Panjwani sued for declaration of title, restoration of possession and injunctions. The trial co

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.versusP. KESAVAN AND ANR.

2004 INSC 2285 April 2004Appeal(s) allowed

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPC) sought renewal of a lease originally granted to Burmah Shell in 1967, which contained a renewal clause. The Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act, 1976 transferred Burmah Shell's rights to the Central Government and subsequently to BPC, creating a legal fiction that BPC

INTERNATIONAL COACH BUILDERS LTD.versusKARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPN.

2003 INSC 1475 March 2003Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether State Financial Corporations (SFCs) could exercise their statutory power under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 to sell mortgaged assets of a company that had been ordered to be wound up, without involving the Company Court. The Court held that once a winding‑up

ASGAR & ORS.versusMOHAN VARMA & ORS.

2019 INSC 1445 February 2019Dismissed

The appellants, Asgar and others, were lessees occupying a large tract of land in Kerala and sought a declaration that they could remain in possession and claim compensation for improvements under the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1958. They first raised this claim in an execution application under

DHARMA NAIKAversusRAMA NAIKA AND ANR.

[2008] 2 S.C.R. 4515 February 2008Dismissed

The case concerned a 2‑acre land granted by the Government of Karnataka to a Scheduled Caste grantee with a condition that it not be alienated for fifteen years. After the restriction period, an agreement to sell was executed on 5 July 1976, but the sale deed was executed and registered on 13 October 1986, after the Ka

MOTILAL OSWAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITEDversusSANTOSH CORDEIRO AND ANOTHER

2026 INSC 55 January 2026Dismissed

The dispute arose from a Leave and License Agreement between Motilal Oswal Financial Services Ltd. and Santosh Cordeiro, which contained an arbitration clause in Clause 33. The respondent filed a Section 11 application under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator, which the Hi

OM PRAKASH (DEAD) TH. HIS LRS.versusSHANTI DEVI & ORS.

2015 INSC 15 January 2015Dismissed

The appellant claimed ownership of a disputed immovable property on the basis of a registered Gift Deed dated 15‑05‑1970, asserting that Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872 would give a presumption of proper execution because the deed was over thirty years old. The trial court, and subsequently the High Court, rejecte

INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT BANK OF INDIA LTD.versusM/S JAIN CABLES PVF. LTD. & ORS.

2011 INSC 145 January 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India (IRBI) sanctioned a loan to Jain Cables Ltd., which defaulted. After the Industrial Reconstruction Bank (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal) Act, 1997 transferred IRBI's undertakings to the Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd. (IIBL), the latter issued a notice under s.38

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.versusSHREYAS PAPERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS

2006 INSC 155 January 2006Dismissed

The State of Karnataka appealed against Shreyas Papers Pvt. Ltd., which had purchased the land, building, plant and machinery of a defaulting company after the Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation took over those assets under the State Financial Corporation Act. The Commercial Tax Officer i

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusM/S. BABULAL AGRAWAL

2004 INSC 135 January 2004

The Food Corporation of India (FCI) invited tenders to hire plinths for grain storage and awarded the contract to Mis. Babulal Agrawal, who constructed the plinths and handed them over on 24‑Jan‑1987. The agreement provided that FCI would lease the plinths for three years (extendable by one year) and that a formal leas

HARBHAJAN SINGH ETCversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 13154 December 2019Dismissed

The appellants, tenants of shops in a Gurudwara, challenged the Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997 on the ground that it withdrew the protection afforded to them under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949 and violated Article 14. The Supreme Court held that the State

UNITECH LTD. &ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2015 INSC 8264 November 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Vidarbha Engineering, a lessee of three plots of land, entered into a collaboration agreement with Unitech to develop a commercial complex, whereby Unitech would construct the building, retain 78% of the built‑up area and transfer 22% to Vidarbha. The parties filed a statement under Section 269UC stating a consideratio

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXversusBALBIR SINGH MAINI

2017 INSC 10024 October 2017Dismissed

The respondents, members of a cooperative housing society, entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with developers to develop 21.2 acres of land. Only two instalments were paid and 7.7 acres were conveyed, for which capital gains tax was paid. The Assessing Officer and the ITAT treated the unreceived considera

HASTHIMAL AND SONS AND ORS.versusP. TEJ RAJ SHARMA

2007 INSC 10024 October 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The suit involved a property mortgaged to the defendant under a deed dated 19‑03‑1980, which expressly provided that on redemption the mortgagee would revert to being the lessee of the mortgagor. A subsequent partial‑release deed dated 21‑09‑1981 gave the mortgagee a right of first option to purchase the property. The

BISWANATH AGARWALLAversusSABITRI BERA & ORS.

2009 INSC 10124 August 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents filed a title suit for eviction of the appellant, claiming ownership and landlord status over a shop in Purulia. The appellant denied being a tenant, asserting that he entered possession under a sale agreement and later pleaded adverse possession, claiming over twelve years of possession. The trial cour

SHEIKH NOOR AND ANR.versusSHEIKH G.S. IBRAHIM (DEAD) BY LRS.

2003 INSC 3644 August 2003Dismissed

The original landlord, Mohammad Yahya, had authorized Fatimabi to collect rent. When municipal taxes remained unpaid, the Municipal Council attached the house and sold it at public auction to Fatimabi, who later transferred the title and the right to recover rent arrears to Sheikh G.S. Ibrahim. The tenants refused to r

AMEER MINHAJversusDIERDRE ELIZABETH (WRIGHT) ISSAR AND ORS.

2018 INSC 5784 July 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a 2003 agreement to sell land, relying on an unregistered sale deed, a registered power of attorney, and an earlier unregistered 1995 agreement. The respondents challenged the admissibility of these documents, arguing that the 2003 deed required registration under

MRS. SARADAMANI KANDAPPANversusMRS. S. RAJALAKSHMI & ORS.

2011 INSC 4464 July 2011Disposed off

The appellant entered into an agreement of sale for immovable property, paying an advance and agreeing to pay the balance in three instalments, with clause 6 expressly making timely payment the essence of the contract. The respondents cancelled the agreement when the appellant failed to pay the second and third instalm

DAMODHAR NARAYAN SAWALE (D) THROUGH LRSversusSHRI TEJRAO BAJIRAO MHASKE & ORS

2023 INSC 4914 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant sought possession of a 3‑acre agricultural field based on a registered sale deed dated 21‑04‑1979. The defendants argued that the deed was a sham, executed as collateral for a money‑lending transaction, and that the sale violated the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Ac

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATORversusUJJAIN NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM & ORS

2023 INSC 4894 May 2023Dismissed

The Official Liquidator (OL) of IISCO Ujjain Pipe and Foundry Co. Ltd., wound up under the Companies Act, sold the company's assets on an "as is where is whatever there is" basis. Ujjain Nagar Palika Nigam (respondent No.1) claimed arrears of property tax and water tax for the period from the winding‑up order (10 July

SEENIVASANversusPETER JEBARAJ & ANR.

2008 INSC 4574 April 2008Dismissed

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a sale and later sought to implead a third party, SA, who had already purchased the suit property. SA subsequently sold the property to the respondents, and an ex‑parte decree was passed against the appellant before SA was served with summons. The respondents later

DHANNA SINGH AND ORS.versusBALJINDER KAUR AND ORS.

1997 INSC 3724 April 1997Leave Granted & Dismissed

The respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from constructing, filling, alienating, and transferring possession of a specific property. The first defendant did not lead any evidence, and the trial court closed his evidence. The appellant, a subsequent purchaser from the first defend

BONDAR SINGH AND ORS.versusNIHAL SINGH AND ORS.

2003 INSC 1414 March 2003Dismissed

The plaintiffs claimed ownership of land by adverse possession, relying on an unstamped, unregistered sale deed dated 9 May 1931. The defendants denied the deed, asserted they had regained possession in 1957‑58, and pleaded that the plaintiffs were merely sub‑tenants (shikmi). The High Court, on appeal under Section 10

THAKUR PRASAD (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusRAJ KARAN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2003 INSC 1434 March 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a suit land in the former Banaras State that had been granted rent‑free (Krishnarpan) and later mortgaged by the mortgagors, who subsequently sold one‑sixth of the land to the mortgagees and the rest to other purchasers. After the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was applied to

THE COSMOS CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.versusCENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 2434 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Cosmos Co. Operative Bank Ltd. (appellant) challenged a High Court order that held Central Bank of India (respondent No.1) had the first charge over a flat mortgaged by the original borrowers. Both banks had received security documents: the appellant bank held the share certificate of ownership, while the responden

RENU DEVIversusMAHENDRA SINGH AND ORS.

2003 INSC 574 February 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved a partition suit of a joint Hindu family where a compromise decree dated 13‑Feb‑1978 allocated specific parcels of land to each party by metes and bounds, but it was not engrossed on stamp paper. A later decree dated 24‑May‑1979, executed on stamp paper, merely reproduced the earlier decree and cured

C. CHANDRAMOHANversusSENGOTTAIYAN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2000 INSC 24 January 2000Dismissed

The appellant, C. Chandramohan, derived ownership of three shops from his father’s release deed but did not inform the long‑standing tenants of this transfer. He later demanded higher rent and sought eviction for demolition, alleging wilful default in rent, denial of his title, and the need for reconstruction. The tena

SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2020 INSC 6763 December 2020Dismissed

Skill Lotto Solutions Pvt. Ltd., an authorised agent for Punjab lotteries, filed a writ petition under Art.32 challenging the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) on the grounds that the definition of ‘goods’ in s.2(52) – which includes actionable claims – is unconstitutional and that taxing lottery, bet

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.versusLALJI TANDON (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

2003 INSC 5943 November 2003Dismissed

The State of Uttar Pradesh leased a 5‑acre government parcel for 50 years in 1887 with a covenant allowing the lessee to renew for another 50 years. The original lessee transferred his interest to Lalji Tandon, who, as assignee, exercised the renewal option and obtained a fresh lease on 20‑Feb‑1945 that incorporated al

THE STATE OF KERALA & ORSversusM/S JOSEPH & COMPANY

2021 INSC 4423 September 2021Disposed off

The Kerala government auctioned 246.26 acres of forest land in 1953 and later executed a lease deed in 1979 in favour of K.K. Joseph, who represented the partnership firm M/s Joseph & Company. The lease prohibited sub‑letting or assignment without the lessor’s written consent (clause 14). In 1983 the lessee sold 50 acr

CANBANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.versusTHE CUSTODIAN AND ORS.

2004 INSC 4943 September 2004Appeal(s) allowed

Canbank Financial Services Ltd., a subsidiary of Canara Bank, purchased CANCIGO units worth Rs 33 crore from a stock broker (Respondent 2) who had applied for the units through two other banks (Respondents 3 and 4) that held the certificates in their names but transferred possession to the broker. The Special Court hel

N. KAMALAM (DEAD) AND ANR.versusAYYASAMY AND ANR.

2001 INSC 3413 August 2001Dismissed

The appellants filed a partition suit claiming title to a half of a property based on a will executed by Masane Gowder in favour of two sisters. The respondents contested the will, arguing that the property was joint family property and that the will was not properly attested. The trial court held the will unproved; th

TRUSTEES OF SAHEBZADI OALIA KULSUM TRUSTversusCONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, A.P.

1998 INSC 2803 August 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The Nizam of Hyderabad, Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan, executed two deeds of trust in 1953 creating wakf‑al‑aulad for his granddaughter Oalia Kulsum and his daughter‑in‑law Anwar Begum, with benefits flowing to their descendants and ultimately to a holy shrine. After his death in 1967, the estate duty authorities treated the

D. N. JOSHI (D) THR. LRS. & OTHERSversusD. C. HARRIS & ANOTHER

2017 INSC 5783 July 2017Dismissed

The appeal concerned a suit for eviction filed by D.C. Harris (respondent) against tenants D.N. Joshi and others (appellants) who challenged the respondents' title to the premises. The title derived from a 1949 gift deed by Akhtari Begum to her brother Zamir Ahmad, followed by a 1965 sale deed to the respondents. The l

A. NAWAB JOHN & ORS.versusV.N. SUBRAMANIYAM

2012 INSC 2633 July 2012Dismissed

The appellants filed a suit for specific performance but initially paid only a deficient court fee. After multiple representations and condonation of delay, the trial court allowed the deficit fee to be paid well beyond the limitation period. The second defendant, a pendente‑lite purchaser, was impleaded and challenged

CHANDER BHAN (D) THROUGH LR SHER SINGHversusMUKHTIAR SINGH & ORS.

2024 INSC 3773 May 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant entered into an agreement to sell 16 kanals of land with respondent No.3, paid earnest money and later obtained a temporary injunction against alienation of the property on 28 July 2003. On the same day respondent No.3 executed a release deed in favour of his son (respondent No.4), who subsequently sold t

PRAMOD KUMAR JAISWAL AND ORS.versusBIBI HUSN BANO AND ORS.

2005 INSC 2463 May 2005Dismissed

The appellants, tenants of a building, argued that having acquired the rights of some co‑owner landlords in 1988 extinguished their lease under the doctrine of merger, invoking Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and therefore the order directing them to deposit fair rent under the Bihar Buildings (Le

THE CORPORATION OF CALICUTversusK. SREENIVASAN

2002 INSC 2593 May 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The Kerala Corporation of Calicut owned a building that it let to K. Sreenivasan as a licensee for a lodging house and restaurant. When Sreenivasan defaulted on the licence fee, the licence was terminated on 13 January 1989, but he continued to occupy the premises. The Estate Officer, under the Kerala Public Buildings

GOPALAKRISHNA (D) BY LRS. & ORS.versusNARAYANAGOWDA (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

2019 INSC 4593 April 2019Dismissed

The case concerned the ownership of property originally belonging to Ramanna, who died in 1907 leaving a widow Seethamma and a daughter Venkamma. The appellants claimed title based on a 1955 sale deed executed by Jankamma, the granddaughter of Ramanna, while the respondents asserted possession derived from an earlier 1

HARSHAD GOVARDHAN SONDAGARversusINTERNATIONAL ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

2014 INSC 9553 April 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, who were tenants of premises mortgaged to banks, challenged the seizure of those premises by the secured creditors under the SARFAESI Act. The Supreme Court examined whether a lease made by the mortgagor, either before or after the mortgage, remains valid and binding on the secured creditor, and whether

S. SIVAPRAKASAMversusB.V. MUNIRAJ AND ORS.

1997 INSC 3613 April 1997Dismissed

The Catholic Syrian Bank, as mortgagee, obtained a preliminary decree (1951) and a final decree (1952) against mortgagor Manickam Mudaliar. While objections to the final decree were pending, a money creditor obtained a separate money decree, and the mortgaged property was sold in execution to Kandaswamy, who later tran

REKHA MUKHERJEEversusASHIS KUMAR DAS AND ORS.

2005 INSC 1153 March 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Rekha Mukherjee, the owner of a property, filed a title suit for eviction against Ashis Kumar Das and others. The respondents filed a suit for specific performance of three sale agreements, which the appellant later cancelled; the trial court dismissed the specific‑performance suit. The respondents obtained a partial r

KN ASWATHNARAYANA SETTY (D) TR. LRS. & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

2013 INSC 8012 December 2013Dismissed

The petitioners purchased land that had been subject to a Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, while the de‑notification of that acquisition was under appeal before the Supreme Court. The Court held that a purchaser after such a notification cannot challenge the acquisition and, under the doctri

NARENDRA GOPAL VIDYARTHIversusRAJAT VIDYARTHI

2008 INSC 13852 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose from a Will executed by Bishan Sahai Vidyarthi in 1965, which set aside Rs.30,000 for the benefit of his widowed daughter‑in‑law Chandramukhi and her son Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi. Within a month the testator purchased an immovable property with that amount. After the testator's death, the property was

INDU KAKKARversusHARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.

1998 INSC 4562 December 1998Dismissed

The Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) allotted an industrial plot to York Printers under an agreement that required the allottee to commence construction within six months, complete it within two years, and start production within three years, failing which the plot could be resumed. York Printer

BABY AMMALversusRAJAN ASARI

1996 INSC 14222 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Baby Ammal, owned a property in Trivandrum and filed a suit for possession and a declaration that the respondent, Rajan Asari, was merely a licensee. The trial court decreed in favour of the appellant, but the Kerala High Court reversed the decision, holding that a deed executed in 1966 was a valid gift

CITY MONTESSORI SCHOOLversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2024 INSC 5702 August 2024Dismissed

The dispute concerned a garden lease of a Nazul plot in Lucknow that vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh. City Montessori School (CMS) had the highest bid in a 1995 auction, but the State cancelled its bid and later converted the leasehold to freehold in favour of the alleged lessee for a nominal sum. CMS challenged t

SHABBIR MOHAMMAD SAYEDversusMRS. NOOR JEHAN MUSHTER SHAIKH & ORS.

2022 INSC 7842 August 2022Dismissed

The plaintiff obtained a decree declaring her as tenant of a premises in Mumbai and ordered the landlord to hand over possession. The appellant, Shabbir Mohammad Sayed, claimed he had acquired leasehold rights from the alleged lawful tenant and also from the landlord on 24 January 2014, and sought execution of the decr

SHEHAMMALversusHASAN KHANI RAWTHER AND ORS.

2011 INSC 5332 August 2011Dismissed

The case concerned the intestate estate of Meeralava Rawther, a Muslim who had executed deeds of relinquishment with five of his children (excluding his youngest son, Hassan) in exchange for consideration. After his death, Hassan claimed an oral gift of the entire property, while the other children and the petitioners

SARVINDER SINGHversusDALIP SINGH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 8172 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Sarvinder Singh filed a suit for declaration of ownership of land based on a registered will of his mother dated 26 May 1952, also relying on an earlier decree granting him possession. He obtained an interim injunction against the defendants, which was later vacated. The defendants, heirs of Rajender Kaur, alienated th

SHYAM NARAYAN PRASADversusKRISHNA PRASAD AND ORS.

2018 INSC 5562 July 2018Dismissed

The case concerned a partition of ancestral Hindu Mitakshara property of Gopalji Prasad among his sons, after which the share allotted to defendant No.2 was claimed to be ancestral for his sons and grandson. The plaintiffs sought to set aside an exchange deed executed between defendant No.1 and No.2, arguing that it in

N.K. RAJENDRA MOHANversusTHIRVAMADI RUBBER CO. LTD. & ORS.

2015 INSC 4712 July 2015Dismissed

In 1918 the plaintiffs leased 963.75 acres of land to Mr. Campbell Hunt for 36 years, allowing the lessee to cultivate any crop and clear forests. The lease later passed to Thiruvamadi Rubber Co., which continued possession after the lease expired, paying rent until 1978 and establishing a rubber plantation. The plaint

VATHSALA MANICKAVASAGAM & ORS.versusN. GANESAN & ANR.

2013 INSC 4112 July 2013Appeal(s) allowed

A family of five members disputed the ownership of three houses. The mother, two sons and a daughter filed a partition suit against the eldest son, claiming a 4/5 share in the properties. The trial court, relying on the mother’s testimony and a letter (Ex.A‑17) written by the eldest son, held that all three houses were

G. VIKRAM KUMARversusSTATE BANK OF HYDERABAD & ORS.

2023 INSC 4752 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The borrower (G. Vikram Kumar) failed to repay a loan to State Bank of Hyderabad, which invoked Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and attached the borrower's properties. The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) allowed the bank to sell the properties but excluded seven flats; Flat No.6401 was not among them. The borrower enter

PATEL RAVJIBHAI BHULABHAJ (D) THR. LRS.versusRAHEMANBHAI M .. SHAIKH (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.

2016 INSC 11812 May 2016Dismissed

The parties executed a deed on 30‑December‑1960 titled a conditional sale for Rs 10,000, containing a clause that if the plaintiffs repaid the amount within five years the defendants would return possession of the land, and after five years the plaintiffs would have no right to claim it back. The plaintiffs later sued

BABULAL BADRIPRASAD VARMAversusSURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.

2008 INSC 5742 May 2008Dismissed

The appellant, a tenant of a plot acquired for a road‑widening scheme, challenged the final allotment of re‑allotted plots on the ground that he had not been served a special notice as required by Sections 52 and 53 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act. The Court held that Rule 26 of the Gujarat Town

KIRAN BALAversusSURINDER KUMAR

1996 INSC 6132 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Kiran Bala sold her residential house to relatives to pay debts, but the sale was declared null and void as a fraudulent transfer under the Transfer of Property Act. The decree-holder sought to attach and sell the house in execution of a money decree, while the appellant claimed exemption under Section 60(1)(ccc) of th

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITEDversusRAMA CHANDRASHEKHAR VAIDYA AND ANR.

2013 INSC 2072 April 2013Dismissed

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (the appellant) occupied land under a 1955 lease that granted a unilateral right to renew for another 25 years. After the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976 came into force, the appellant gave notice of renewal in October 1979 but no fresh lease deed was exec

SWARN K. JAINversusRAVI MAHAJAN AND ORS.

2008 INSC 4442 April 2008Dismissed

Swarn K. Jain filed a suit for possession of his land alleging that the defendants had encroached upon it and erected a boundary wall. The defendants contended that the plaintiff was estopped from suing because he had received the full sale consideration and deliberately omitted when the cause of action arose. The Jamm

MUSHIR MOHAMMED KHAN (DEAD) BY LRS.versusSMT. SAJEDA BANO AND ORS.

2000 INSC 1162 March 2000Disposed off

The plaintiff, who had bought a house for Rs 3,000, sold it to the defendant for Rs 1,000 by a sale deed, and shortly thereafter executed an agreement to reconvey the property on repayment of Rs 1,000 within two years, also executing a rent note to pay rent to the defendant. The plaintiff sued for redemption, claiming

BAINI PRASAD (D) THR. LRS.versusDURGA DEVI

2023 INSC 952 February 2023Dismissed

The respondent, Durga Devi, owned an 11‑biswas land parcel in Kullu and sued the appellant, Baini Prasad, for possession and demolition of a verandah he had constructed on that land in 1986, claiming he believed it to be his own. The trial court ordered demolition and restoration of possession to the respondent; the Fi

HARDEV SINGHversusGURMAIL SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS.

2007 INSC 932 February 2007Dismissed

Harcharan Singh transferred property to his wife Udham Kaur for maintenance. Udham Kaur claimed absolute ownership, which was upheld by the appellate court. During the pendency of her suit, Harcharan Singh sold the land to Gurmail Singh, who took possession. After Udham Kaur's death, Gurmail Singh sought ownership unde

JANARDHANAM PRASADversusRAMDAS

2007 INSC 942 February 2007Case Partly allowed

Janardhanam Prasad (appellant) entered into a sale agreement with M. Manoharan (defendant No.1) for a piece of land. The same land was later agreed to be sold by the same defendant to Ramdas (respondent No.1) without a fixed time for performance. The respondent paid part consideration but, within 20 days of the agreeme

PHILOMINA JOSEversusFEDERAL BANK LTD. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 572 February 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Philomina Jose and others, sought to exercise their right of redemption under Order 34 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) after sale decrees were passed in 1985 and 1989. The Kerala High Court dismissed their petitions, holding that the mortgage debt merged into the sale decree and that the ame

RAMVILAS (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ANR.versusKARIM KHAN & ANR.

2016 INSC 10851 December 2016Dismissed

The respondent-plaintiff obtained a loan from the appellants and executed a deed titled a Sale Deed on 14‑06‑1972, which was later alleged to be a mortgage by conditional sale. The parties also signed an agreement that the sale would be cancelled and the land returned if the loan (Rs.5,000) was repaid by 14‑06‑1973; th

MOHIDEEN ABDUL KHADAR (DEAD)THROUGH LRS.versusRAHMATH BEEVI (D) THR. HER LRS. AND ORS.

2023 INSC 9691 November 2023Dismissed

The petitioners, legatees of the deceased Mohideen Abdul Khadar, challenged a Madras High Court judgment that upheld the title and possession of Rahmath Beevi over a second scheduled property measuring 15 × 18 feet. The dispute arose from earlier suits where Mohideen claimed title to a first scheduled property and soug

SHAKEEL AHMEDversusSYED AKHLAQ HUSSAIN

2023 INSC 10161 November 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent filed a suit for possession and mesne profits of a property relying on an unregistered power of attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit and will, while the appellant, who was in possession, claimed title through an oral gift (Hiba) from his brother. The trial court decreed possession in favour of the resp

KORUKONDA CHALAPATHI RAO & ANR.versusKORUKONDA ANNAPURNA SAMPATH KUMAR

2021 INSC 5861 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose from a partition of family property where the respondent sought a declaration of title and eviction of the appellants. The appellants relied on a family settlement document (Khararunama) dated 15‑04‑1986 and a receipt of Rs.2,00,000 as evidence of the parties' past arrangements. The trial court admitt

BHARAT PETROLEUM LTD. AND ANR.versusN.R. VAIRAMANI AND ANR.

2004 INSC 5691 October 2004Appeal(s) allowed

Bharat Petroleum Ltd occupied a premises under a lease that expired in 1978 and sought an extension, which the landlord refused. The landlord filed a writ petition for eviction, which the High Court allowed on the basis of Hindustan Petroleum v. Dolly Das, ignoring the tenant's rights under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants'

SMT. GOMTIBAI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.versusMATTULAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

1996 INSC 11361 October 1996Dismissed

The dispute concerned a partition suit filed by Mattulal against his brother Govinddas, wherein Govinddas claimed that the land had been gifted to their cousin sister Kasturibai. The lower courts held that the alleged gift was not valid because no registered deed, signed by the donor and attested by two witnesses, exis

RAMESH CHAND (D) THR. LRS.versusSURESH CHAND AND ANR.

2025 INSC 10591 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff claimed title to a Delhi property on the basis of an agreement to sell, a general power of attorney, a receipt of consideration, an affidavit and a registered will executed by his father, Kundan Lal. The trial court and High Court had upheld his claim, but the Supreme Court examined whether these document

YADAIAH AND ANR.versusSTATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS

2023 INSC 6641 August 2023Dismissed

The case concerned land allotted in the 1960s to landless Scheduled Caste/Tribe persons in Manchirevula village, which the assignees later transferred through a General Power of Attorney to a third party who sold the land. The State of Telangana issued a second show‑cause notice (SCN) alleging violation of the Andhra P

EIH LIMITEDversusNADIAVIRJI

2022 INSC 7741 August 2022Dismissed

The landlord (EIH Ltd.) and tenant (Nadia A. Virji) entered into a tenancy agreement for a commercial showroom with a fixed rent of Rs 10,000 per month, while the tenant also agreed to pay municipal taxes separately. The landlord terminated the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and filed an evic

RAM NIWAS (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusSMT. BANO AND ORS.

2000 INSC 3671 August 2000Dismissed

The appellant, a tenant, entered into an agreement to purchase a shop from the vendor for Rs.9,200 and paid part of the price. The vendor later sold the shop to purchasers for Rs.20,000. The appellant sued for specific performance of the original agreement against both the vendor and the purchasers. The trial court rul

GUJARAT COMPOSITE LIMITEDversusA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED & ORS.

2023 INSC 4701 May 2023Dismissed

Gujarat Composite Ltd. entered into a licence agreement with A Infrastructure Ltd. in 2005 that contained an arbitration clause, and later entered into a tripartite loan agreement with the same party and Bank of Baroda that lacked any arbitration provision. Disputes arose over possession, loan repayment, and conveyance

THULASIDHARA & ANOTHERversusNARAYANAPPA & OTHERS

2019 INSC 6031 May 2019Disposed off

The original plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, claiming ownership of a property based on a registered sale deed. The defendants contended that the property had become part of a joint family and that the sale deed was merely a security instrument, not an operative transfer, and th

RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARDversusNEW PINK CITY NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. & ANR.

2015 INSC 3751 May 2015Disposed off

The Rajasthan Housing Board and the original Khatedars appealed against a Division Bench order that granted the New Pink City Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. (the Society) a right to compensation and 25% of the developed land after the State acquired the land under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953. The Court held th

GURUSWAMY NADARversusP. LAKSHMI AMMAL (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

2008 INSC 5661 May 2008Dismissed

The plaintiff entered into a sale agreement with the first defendant, paid earnest money but failed to pay the balance, and filed a suit for specific performance on May 3, 1975. Two days later the first defendant sold the same property to the appellant for a higher price and gave possession. The trial court dismissed t

PARWATI BAIversusRADHIKA

2003 INSC 2721 May 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a lessee of a non‑residential municipal premises, sub‑let the property to the respondent and later served a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to terminate the tenancy for non‑payment of rent and self‑occupation. The respondent filed an eviction suit which was dismissed by the trial

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search