Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025 [Part-VIII]

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987Importance of legal representation and particularly for those economically or socially less fortunate – Discussed. (Para 23) Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 213 : 2025 INSC 225Sections 21 and 22E — Challenge to Lok Adalat Award — Maintainability of Writ Petition — Held, the statutory finality attached to a Lok Adalat award leaves no room for an appellate or plenary civil remedy - The validity of such an award cannot be reopened through an ordinary civil suit or by treating execution proceedings as a vehicle for setting it aside - The only recognized avenue of challenge is the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, which is supervisory and exceptional in nature - This applies equally to a party to the award and a third party affected by it. [Relied on State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 660; Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy, (2018) 13 SCC 480; Paras 8-14] Dilip Mehta v. Rakesh Gupta, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1188Section 22(c)(1) provides that the permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in matters where the value of the property in dispute exceeds 10 lakh rupees. (Para 9) Rutu Mihir Panchal v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 503 : 2025 INSC 593Limitation Act, 1963Limitation Act, 1963; Schedule Article 61(a) — Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 52 — Usufructuary Mortgage — Right of Redemption — Limitation Period - Held that in the case of a usufructuary mortgage, the period of limitation for redemption does not commence from the date the mortgage is created - Instead, the right to seek redemption arises only when the mortgagor pays or tenders the mortgage money, or when the debt is discharged from the usufruct of the property - Mere expiry of the prescribed period does not extinguish the mortgagor's right to redeem - The right of the mortgagee to seek a declaration of title remains unaffected until such payment or discharge occurs – Appeal dismissed. [Relied on Singh Ram (Dead) through legal representatives Vs. Sheo Ram and Others (2014) 9 SCC 185; Paras 7-12] Dalip Singh v. Sawan Singh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1252 : 2025 INSC 1498Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 and Article 59 - Suit for possession - Void v. Voidable document – Held, an instrument of sale is not executed by the owner, it is void ab initio and considered a nullity - If a sale deed is executed without the payment of price, it is not a sale at all in the eyes of law, and would be void - In such a case, the owner is not required to seek cancellation of the instrument or a declaration that it is void - A suit for possession based on title can be filed, and it will governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, which provides a limitation period of 12 years from the date the defendant's possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff - Article 59, which provides a 3 year limitation period, applies to fraudulent transactions that are voidable, not void - High Court erred in applying Article 59 of the Limitation Act - When sale deed is void, suit possession governed by limitation period of 12 years under Article 65 instead of Article 59 - Appeal allowed. [Paras 28-31; 34, 39, 40] Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 900 : 2025 INSC 1105Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - State instrumentalities - Public interest - “within such period” – Held, the expression 'within such period' under Section 5 of Limitation Act means the entire period from the date the cause of action accrued until the date of actual filing, not just the period after prescribed limitation expired - A party seeking condonation of delay must explain what prevented them from filing the appeal or application within the statutory period of limitation - If the period of limitation is 90 days, and the appeal is filed belatedly on the 100th day, then explanation has to be given for the entire 100 days - Total lethargy or utter negligence on the part of officers of the State and its agencies should not be given a premium - Condonation of delay is not a matter of right - while a liberal approach is preferred to achieve substantial justice, negligence and inaction cannot be ignored - A delay should not be condoned merely because doing so would benefit the State - the principle of 'public interest' cannot be used to justify the State's inaction and lethargy - The law of limitation is founded on public policy and is based on the maxims interest reipublicae up sit finis litium and vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniiunt. [Paras 41-50, 59-61, 71] Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 899 : 2025 INSC 1104Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 18 - Acknowledgment of Liability - Whether an amount or liability more than the amount or liability acknowledged can be claimed under Section 18 - Appellant claimed entire suit claim and High Court in appeal granted benefit of Section 18 of the Act but...

Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025 [Part-VIII]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025 [Part-VIII]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers