#property law

The Supreme Court ruled that a Gazette notification under the Wakf Act, 1954 creates a presumptive title to wakf property that becomes unchallengeable after the one-year limitation period. This restored a permanent injunction for the Telangana Wakf Board over Mafi Inam lands adjoining the Qutub Shahi Mosque, prevailing over later revenue records and pattadar passbooks.

The Bombay HC ruled that permissive use by a relative cannot mature into adverse possession regardless of duration, placing the burden of proof squarely on the claimant. The court also held that an encroachment suit survives technical defects in property description and that the limitation period does not commence against permissive possession.

The court held that a family settlement deed merely recording an earlier agreement already acted upon need not be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. This clarifies that such deeds are exempt from compulsory registration, helping parties relying on informal family arrangements avoid registration hurdles.

The Delhi High Court held that a buyer’s awareness of existing mortgage defeats a fraud claim for refund of sale consideration. The court applied caveat emptor, holding that knowledge of encumbrances negates fraud claims and bars vexatious suits.

The Delhi High Court held that a gift deed between family members is not a 'transfer' under Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, barring eviction claims based on such deed. It also clarified that a review petition under Section 114 CPC lies only for errors apparent on the face of the record, affecting landlords and tenants in family-settlement disputes under rent control law.

The Supreme Court held that a gift of temple inam land by a temporary trustee is void under Section 41(1) of the TN HRCE Act, 1959 because the Act permits no sanction for such gifts. It directed the government to pay enhanced lease rent of ₹31,000 per month from March 8, 2019, with arrears payable in three months and ₹1 lakh costs within eight weeks.

A partition suit is not barred by limitation if the plaintiff was unaware of his exclusion from joint family property, the Bombay HC held, stressing that knowledge of exclusion is essential for a limitation defence.

Delhi HC held that the defendant-wife could reside in the suit property under Section 39 TPA, noting that a Mohammedan will bequeathing over one-third share needs heir consent and an unregistered surrender declaration is void. This clarifies spousal residence rights in property disputes.

The Delhi High Court held that a widow's right to reside in the matrimonial home under Section 17 of the DV Act is independent of the husband's ownership, requiring alternate accommodation or ₹15,000/month rent before eviction. This strengthens protection for widows against arbitrary dispossession.

The Calcutta HC held Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 inapplicable to partition suits where co-sharers have unity of possession, overturning the lower court’s order and clarifying that such suits must be decided on merits in partition proceeding.

The Madras High Court upheld the trial court’s specific performance decree, holding that an unregistered resale agreement is enforceable under the proviso to Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, and that the party alleging forgery bears the burden of proof. It further held that the suit was not barred by limitation.

Only the sanctioned basement area (59.02 sq.m.) qualifies as a flat under the MCS Act for membership, as held by the Bombay HC. It directed such area be treated as residential for redevelopment, impacting developers and flat owners seeking membership.

The Delhi High Court held that a tenant’s unequivocal denial of the landlord-tenant relationship triggers forfeiture under Section 111(g) TPA, overcoming the Section 50 DRC Act bar. The decision lets landlords regain possession on repayment of the security deposit, impacting tenants who deny the tenancy.

A transfer after execution notice does not defeat execution under Section 52 TPA, Delhi HC upheld the auction sale of an undivided share for ₹84.5 lakh. The ruling confirms pendente lite transfers cannot stall execution, affecting judgment debtors and transferees.

The Madras High Court held that a temple’s letter lacking title proof cannot trigger the Section 22-A bar to registration. It also ruled that final orders of the Minor Inams Tribunal are binding and cannot be challenged collaterally.