Topic
Property disputes in India involve legal conflicts over ownership, possession, or use of land and immovable property, often governed by state land laws, the Specific Relief Act, and civil procedure codes.
Delhi HC confirms tenancy rights over ownership claims, upholds eviction decree and awards Rs. 5,000/month mesne profits from Feb 2022. Landlords can enforce possession even if tenant disputes title transfer.
Kerala High Court sets aside eviction orders under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, ruling that landlords must substantiate 'bona fide need' with concrete evidence-documents, witness corroboration, or material proof-beyond oral assertions. The decision reinforces the burden of proof in eviction proceedings, impacting landlords and tenants across Kerala.
The Supreme Court ruled that customary law, particularly agnatic succession among Oraon tribes, must be strictly proved under Section 48 of the Evidence Act. The judgment sets aside concurrent lower court findings, reinforcing that daughters have no inheritance rights under the custom and the nearest male agnate inherits in the absence of direct heirs. This ruling clarifies the burden of proof in tribal property disputes and limits appellate interference under Article 136.
Bombay High Court quashes a deemed conveyance certificate under MOFA, holding that summary proceedings cannot adjudicate disputes involving forged documents, rival claimants, or prior conveyances. Parties must now pursue civil suits for title declaration, reinforcing MOFA’s procedural limits in complex property disputes.
Himachal Pradesh High Court rules that amendments to pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC after trial commencement require strict due diligence. Unexplained delay is fatal, and Article 227 cannot override the trial court’s discretion, reinforcing procedural discipline in property disputes.
The Karnataka High Court affirmed that mere assertions of readiness and willingness to perform a contract are insufficient under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act - plaintiffs must produce contemporaneous documentary proof such as bank statements, correspondence, or payment records. This sets a clear evidentiary standard for property buyers seeking specific performance, shifting the burden beyond oral claims to verifiable paper trails.
Andhra Pradesh High Court rules that a subsequent purchaser of property during a pending specific performance suit cannot be excluded from proceedings, as they are a necessary party under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The judgment sets aside the trial court's dismissal of the impleadment application, reinforcing procedural fairness in property disputes.
The Patna High Court has ruled that no administrative or writ court authority can order disconnection of essential utilities like electricity and water based solely on disputed possession. Only a civil court, after adjudicating title and possession, may declare occupancy unlawful - safeguarding fundamental rights under Article 21 and reinforcing the separation between civil remedies and writ jurisdiction.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that in suits for specific performance, a plaintiff’s readiness and willingness to perform must be demonstrated not just at filing, but continuously from the date of contract execution through to the final decree. This sets a strict evidentiary standard for buyers seeking equitable relief, especially in property disputes where delays or inconsistent conduct can derail recovery.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that appointment of a Court Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC is compulsory when disputes over property identity, location, or measurement arise. The trial court's refusal to appoint a commissioner was set aside, reinforcing that local inspection is essential for resolving such disputes, not merely a tool for evidence collection.
Andhra Pradesh High Court rules that police protection for religious processions under Waqf Board orders cannot be withheld due to pending property disputes. The judgment underscores that administrative permissions remain valid unless overturned by a competent court, ensuring uninterrupted religious practices.
Bombay High Court rules that a Court Receiver appointed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot be discharged without first adjudicating substantive disputes arising from a Consent Award, even after 23 years of custody. The decision underscores that equitable considerations override procedural delays in property disputes under arbitration.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that an unregistered will surrounded by suspicious circumstances cannot override a registered will unless the propounder removes all doubts. The judgment reinforces the burden of proof on the propounder to satisfy the court's conscience, impacting will validity disputes under succession law.
Andhra Pradesh High Court affirms that the plaintiff’s continuous readiness to perform the contract shifts the burden of proof onto the defendant to disprove coercion or non-compliance. The ruling clarifies procedural compliance under the Specific Relief Act and protects the rights of subsequent purchasers in property disputes.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a plaintiff’s delayed suit filing does not negate readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, reinforcing that procedural delays alone cannot defeat a claim for specific performance. The Court also rejected belated additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, emphasizing strict compliance with appellate procedural rules in property disputes.