Case Analysis

23rd Aug, 2018

Single co-owner cannot terminate tenancy for seeking recovery of possession when other co-owners object.

The Delhi High Court held that when there are various co-owners/co-landlords, only one co-owner/co-landlord cannot terminate the tenancy for seeking possession of the tenanted property and/or mesne profits. The observation was pronounced by an order […]
22nd Aug, 2018

It is for the Plaintiff to prove his case and Plaintiff cannot call upon the Court to order investigation by appointing expert under Order XXVI Rule 10-A

In a recent judgment, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, held that taking into consideration any dispute which does not require a local or scientific investigation, the Plaintiff cannot call upon the Court to order investigation […]
22nd Aug, 2018

There cannot be any oral gift of an immovable property, it can only be done by a registered instrument

The Delhi High Court has laid down that there cannot be any oral gift of an immovable property and that a gift becomes legally effectively only when a registered instrument is executed in the manner […]
22nd Aug, 2018

Children born out of a void marriage are entitled to a share only in the separate property and not to the joint family properties of their father

The Bombay High Court held that though Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 confers legitimacy upon an offspring born out of a void marriage, such offspring is not entitled to a share in […]
21st Aug, 2018

Once the title of the Plaintiff seeking possession is proved, onus shifts upon the defendant to plead and prove his right to remain in the occupation of the said property.

In a recent judgment, the High Court of Delhi held that once it is established that the appellant/plaintiff has title to the property, it was for the respondent/defendant to plead and prove the right, if […]
21st Aug, 2018

Oral averments in deposition of partition having taken place is not discharge of onus of proof by the person alleging partition

The Delhi High Court in Veeru Parshad Gupta vs Jogeshwari Devi RFA 586/2018 on 25.07.2018 laid that oral averments in deposition of partition having taken place is not discharge of onus of proof by the […]
21st Aug, 2018

Limitation for the buyer to seek recovery of earnest money would begin from the date when forfeiture has been pleaded by the seller

The Delhi High Court has held that limitation of the appellant/ buyer to claim the amounts under the Agreements to Sell, and which are paid to the respondent/ seller, would only commence if the respondent/seller […]
20th Aug, 2018

Convict confined in open prison can be released on furlough without surety from relatives.

The Bombay High Court has held that a convict confined to open prison can be released on furlough by the sanctioning authority by doing away with the requirement of execution of bond by the relatives […]
20th Aug, 2018

Civil Courts in Muslim divorce proceedings can grant incidental reliefs of maintenance and right in the matrimonial property

The Bombay High Court took a view that reliefs of maintenance and right in the matrimonial property are incidental to the main relief of ‘dissolution of marriage’ hence, they are required to be considered in […]
16th Aug, 2018

Share of a coparcener after partition is ancestral property qua his male heirs but separate property qua other relations

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that upon partition, a coparcener’s share in the ancestral property is ancestral property as regards his male issue in which such male issue will have an interest by birth. As regards […]
6th Aug, 2018

Prior Notice to other party before filing application to set aside arbitral award not mandatory

  The Supreme Court has held that the requirement [under Section 34(5)] of Arbitration and Conciliation Act of prior notice to the other party before filing an application to set aside an arbitral award is […]
4th Aug, 2018

Proprietor of a Trade Mark cannot enjoy monopoly over the entire class of goods

The Supreme Court in M/S. Nandhini Deluxe vs. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2943-2944 OF 2018], decided on 26.07.2018 has held that the proprietor of a trade mark cannot enjoy monopoly […]