Topic
A second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, allows challenge to a first appellate decree in a High Court on substantial questions of law, not factual errors.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a clerical error in revenue records does not bar court jurisdiction under Section 57 of the Consolidation Act when the dispute arises from that error, protecting landowners’ title and injunction rights.
Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that a gram panchayat cannot remove encroachments without following Section 56 procedure, restoring trial court’s injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
The Gujarat High Court held that an ST woman who inherited property from her husband may bequeath it by will absent proof of any tribal custom prohibiting such disposition. This confirms Act's inapplicability to STs absent a prohibiting custom.
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.
When a sale certificate evidences ownership, the Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that factual findings on land title cannot be disturbed, and that jamabandi entries alone do not constitute proof of title. This safeguards owners relying on registered sale deeds against adverse claims based solely on revenue records.
Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench allows stay of auction proceedings for a money decree without requiring deposit of decretal amount, where the property is alleged to be benami. The ruling emphasizes that courts must examine pleadings and burden of proof in benami transactions before attaching assets, offering relief to defendants in property disputes.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that when a defendant raises plausible doubt about the authenticity of a promissory note, the burden shifts entirely to the plaintiff to establish actual consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Failure to do so renders the suit unsustainable, reinforcing that a mere document is not enough-proof of value exchanged is mandatory for recovery.
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.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that a plaintiff's entitlement to specific performance under Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act is established by proving the agreement of sale and payment endorsements, even if the property was subsequently sold to others in a collusive manner. The Court emphasized that witness admissions and documentary evidence outweigh technical denials, setting a precedent for land dispute resolutions.
Bombay High Court reinforces that a declaration suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act cannot be converted into a conveyance decree without an explicit prayer for specific performance. The ruling underscores procedural compliance, protecting landowners from unintended property transfers in co-operative housing disputes.
Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench holds that failure to amend the memorandum of appeal to include legal representatives does not abate the appeal if substantive merits have already been heard. The ruling distinguishes between procedural lapses and substantive rights, ensuring justice prevails over technical defects in property and asset disputes.
Allahabad High Court rules that Section 4 of the Benami Transactions Act, 1988, operates retrospectively, barring the real owner from claiming defense in suits filed after 1988, even if the transaction predates the law. The judgment upholds concurrent findings on ownership and licensee status, reinforcing the prohibition on benami defenses in post-enactment disputes.
MP High Court rules that a revision under Section 50 of the MP Land Revenue Code is barred if a statutory second appeal lies to the Commissioner. The ruling clarifies jurisdictional hierarchy, preventing bypass of appellate remedies and ensuring procedural discipline in revenue disputes.
Madhya Pradesh High Court clarifies that under the MP Land Revenue Code, 1959, a second appeal to the Additional Commissioner is not maintainable unless the original partition proceedings are reversed or varied. Aggrieved parties must instead invoke revisional jurisdiction, ensuring compliance with statutory appellate remedies.
MP High Court reinforces statutory timelines under the RTI Act by directing the State Information Commissioner to dispose of five pending second appeals within 90 days. The ruling underscores judicial intervention to curb administrative delays in RTI proceedings, ensuring public accountability and timely access to information.