Civil Law
Member Of Joint Hindu Family Can Acquire Separate Property From Own Funds; Other Coparceners Can't Claim Interest: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that the mere existence of a joint Hindu family does not raise presumption that a particular holding is a joint family property. It held that a member of a joint Hindu family can acquire and hold property exclusively in his own name. It held that other members cannot be granted co-tenancy rights over such a holding unless they prove that it was acquired from...
'Evaded Payment For 16 Years': Kerala High Court Rejects Cop's Appeals Against Compensation Award To Lawyer He Assaulted
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed two second appeals preferred by a police officer, who was directed to pay compensation to a lawyer who he had assaulted in 2010. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 379]Justice Easwaran S. observed that there are no substantial questions of law raised in the regular second appeals and that the same were bereft of merits.“The dispute started in the year 2010. For...
Ex-Parte Administrative Order Can't Undo Mutation Carried Out Pursuant To Competent Court's Decree: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that an order recording a mutation (Parwana Amaldaramad) which gives effect to a decree of a competent court that has attained finality, cannot be recalled by an administrative order. While dealing with a case where the order of mutation was set aside ex-parte after lapse of 24 years, without issuing notices to the party, Justice Prakash Padia...
How To Prove A Will As Genuine? Supreme Court Explains Tests
In a significant ruling on the law governing wills, the Supreme Court has explained the principles courts must apply while determining whether a will is genuine. Reiterating settled legal principles, the Court said that although a will is proved like any other document, the law imposes additional safeguards because the maker of the will (the testator) is no longer alive to testify about...
Art. 226 | High Courts Cannot Reweigh Evidence Or Interfere With Factual Findings In Certiorari Jurisdiction : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that the Writ of Certiorari cannot be issued by the High Court to review or reweigh the evidence based on which subordinate courts decided a matter. The Court reiterated that such a jurisdiction is issued only to correct errors of jurisdiction committed by Courts or Tribunals, but not for reappreciation of evidence or acting as a Court of appeal. Holding so, a bench...
S.47 CPC | Executing Court Can Correct Clerical Misdescription Of Suit Property In Decree: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that an executing court can correct a clerical or typographical misdescription of the suit property in a decree in exercise of its powers under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It held that such correction is not confined to the court which passed the decree. Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held, “Where the terms of the decree are clear and...
Tehsildar Cannot Compel Production Of Documents At Instance Of Private Respondents In Land Dispute: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a Tehsildar has no authority under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code to compel a party to produce documents merely on an application filed by a private respondent. The Court observed that, at the most, the Tehsildar may draw an adverse inference against a party for non-production of documents, but cannot compel their production against the party's...
Failed Contingent Contract Doesn't Defeat Claim For Services Actually Rendered: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that although a contingent employment contract failed because the agreed condition precedent never occurred, the failure of the contract did not deprive a consultant of remuneration for services actually rendered and accepted by the employer. Applying the doctrine of quantum meruit embodied in Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the Court held...
Civil Court Can Examine Territorial Jurisdiction Afresh Even If High Court Granted Leave Before Suit Transfer: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that the grant of leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent by the High Court before transfer of a suit does not prevent the Bombay City Civil Court from examining the issue of territorial jurisdiction afresh after the suit is transferred on account of enhancement of its pecuniary jurisdiction. The Court observed that, by virtue of Section 4A(2) of the...
