#Possession

The Chhattisgarh High Court held that a District Magistrate's role under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is strictly ministerial and does not extend to adjudicating third-party rights or title disputes arising from subsequent sales. The court set aside the DM's order rejecting the secured creditor's application on the ground of a subsequent sale, directing fresh disposal within 30 days.

A partition suit is not maintainable if plaintiffs lack actual or constructive possession and do not seek possession relief, the Delhi High Court ruled, placing the burden on challengers of registered documents to prove invalidity.

The Gauhati High Court ruled that a mutation entry based on an unregistered sale deed cannot extinguish the original vendor's title, and clarified that a suit for declaration coupled with consequential injunction relief falls outside the Section 34 Specific Relief Act proviso bar. This protects property owners from losing title through mere revenue entries and preserves access to declaratory relief with ancillary protections.

The Delhi High Court ruled that a claim of residence under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act does not stay a civil suit for possession, as the Act offers only protective relief, not a bar to eviction. Property owners can therefore proceed with eviction even when the occupant invokes a residence right under the DVA. This clarifies the limited scope of Section 17 in property disputes.

Calcutta HC held that the limitation for specific-performance begins when the plaintiff first learned of the predecessor’s refusal in 2007, making the suit time-barred, while the defendants’ 2016 possession counter-claim fell within the 12-year period under Article 65 and was upheld, clarifying limitation start-points in property-sale disputes.

The Delhi High Court held that a permissive licence does not create adverse possession or trigger the Limitation Act’s time bar, leaving the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the lease-hold suit property. Licensees cannot claim possession on that basis, clarifying rights in lease-hold disputes.

The Bombay High Court held that purchasers of assets auctioned under the SARFAESI Act have locus standi to file a writ petition for possession, directing state authorities to enforce the magistrate’s order. The decision empowers auction buyers to obtain physical possession directly, without relying on the secured creditor’s enforcement.

NCDRC rules that developmental authorities cannot levy non-construction fees unless physical possession of the property is handed over. Buyers retain consumer status until possession, reinforcing protections against unjust financial burdens under the Consumer Protection Act.

The Patna High Court has ruled that recovery of liquor from a joint family home cannot sustain a charge under the Bihar Excise Act after the 2018 amendment eliminated deemed possession. Without evidence linking the accused to exclusive control or knowledge of the contraband, mere presence in a shared dwelling is insufficient for prosecution - a critical safeguard for innocent family members caught in excise raids.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that long-standing or affectionate possession by a caretaker, without any legal title or lease, cannot justify an injunction against the true owner. Possession must be surrendered upon demand, reinforcing that mere physical control does not equate to lawful right under property law - a critical clarification for landlords, property managers, and tenants in urban disputes.

The Kerala High Court granted bail to an accused under the NDPS Act after the prosecution could not establish direct or constructive possession of hashish oil and ganja, reinforcing that Section 37’s stringent bail conditions cannot override the fundamental requirement of evidentiary linkage. This ruling clarifies that mere proximity to contraband, without proof of control or intent, is insufficient to deny liberty under the law.

Patna High Court grants bail in a prohibition case where liquor was recovered from a house, not the accused’s person, emphasizing the absence of conscious possession and non-compliance with BNSS Sections 103 and 105. The ruling underscores that procedural defects and lack of direct possession can override recovery evidence in bail considerations.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that civil stay orders cannot halt criminal proceedings when cognizable offences like theft and trespass are alleged, even if the dispute stems from a civil agreement. The Court emphasized that lawful possession, as established by revenue records, overrides civil litigation stays, reinforcing the primacy of criminal law in such cases.

The Gauhati High Court has ruled that taking possession after filing a title suit does not create any legal right to retain it, even if criminal allegations of forgery are pending. This reinforces that civil courts must preserve the status quo under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, ensuring that possession is determined by title, not by who got there first after litigation begins - a critical safeguard for lawful owners awaiting adjudication.

Patna High Court rules that mere naming in an FIR without recovery from possession or criminal antecedents does not justify denying anticipatory bail under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, even where Section 76(2) imposes restrictions. The ruling reinforces that bail under Section 438 CrPC remains a judicial discretion where allegations fail to establish a prima facie offence.