A. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Mutation -- Already sold property – Appropriate remedy -- Revenue authorities refused to record name of the appellants after noticing the fact that the original person, through whom appellants-vendor claim right, had already sold his share and was not left with any land which could be transferred – Issues sought to be raised by the appellants cannot be examined in summary proceedings of mutation -- Remedy of the appellants would be to seek appropriate declaration from the competent Civil Court.

(Para 2-4)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Mutation Proceeding – Nature of -- Any order passed in summary proceedings of mutation remain subservient to a declaration granted by the competent Civil Court.

(Para 4)

A. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Proof of Will -- Legal Principles -- A Will has to be proved like any other document subject to the requirements of Section 63 of the Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Act, 1872, that is examination of at least of one of the attesting witnesses -- However, unlike other documents, when a Will is propounded, its maker is no longer in the land of living -- This casts a solemn duty on the Court to ascertain whether the Will propounded had been duly proved -- Onus lies on the propounder not only to prove due execution but dispel from the mind of the court, all suspicious circumstances which cast doubt on the free disposing mind of the testator -- Only when the propounder dispels the suspicious circumstances and satisfies the conscience of the court that the testator had duly executed the Will out of his free volition without coercion or undue influence, would the Will be accepted as genuine.

(Para 11)

B. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Proof of Will -- Parameters to ascertain ‘suspicious circumstances’ vitiating a Will –

-- Deprivation of a natural heir, by itself, may not amount to a suspicious circumstance because the whole idea behind the execution of the Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession

-- Prudence requires reason for denying the benefit of inheritance to natural heirs and an absence of it, though not invalidating the Will in all cases, shrouds the disposition with suspicion as it does not give inkling to the mind of the testator to enable the court to judge that the disposition was a voluntary act.

(Para 16)

C. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Will in favour of nephew – Wife/ natural heir – Will is completely silent with regard to the existence of his own wife and natural heir, i.e. the 1^st respondent, or the reason for her disinheritance – Nothing has come on record to show the relation between the couple was bitter – Trial Court erroneously observed that non-performance of last rites of testator by 1^st respondent hinted at sour relations between the couple – Ordinarily, in a Hindu/ Sikh family, last rites are performed by Male Sapinda relations – A cumulative assessment of the attending circumstances including this unusual omission to mention the very existence of his wife in the Will, gives rise to serious doubt that the Will was executed as per the dictates of the appellant and is not the ‘free will’ of the testator – Held, non-mention of 1st respondent or the reasons for her disinheritance in the Will, is an eloquent reminder that the free disposition of the testator was vitiated by the undue influence of the appellant.

(Para 19, 20)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 38 -- Permanent injunction – Trespasser’ right – Claim as lessee -- For leasing out a Government land, the officials are required to adhere to the relevant statutory provisions -- Appellant failed to plead and prove as to when the lease was created in his favour and what were the terms -- It is not appropriate for the courts to protect possession of the trespassers while granting injunction against a true owner -- Property belongs to the Government -- Mere production of certain receipts evidencing the payment of certain amount without referring to the particular land would not come to the rescue of the appellant – Permanent  injunction declined by Ld. Appellate Court, upheld.

(Para 1, 5, 6)

A. Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 2(d) – Consideration -- Past consideration is as good as present consideration --  Word ‘consideration’ has been defined in Section 2 (d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which has a wider connotation and includes within its sweep not only the monetary consideration but even promises including promise to render future personal service.

(Para 13)

B. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 54 – Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 201, 202 – Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (45 of 1988), Section 3, 4 -- Sale by Will/ Agreement to Sell/ General Power of attorney/ Affidavit -- PW-1/ S K deposed that her brother/ A.K. was only a Class IV employee and on her request and on her behalf he applied for the house in his name -- A.K/ Brother executed an agreement to sell, General Power of Attorney, registered Will and an affidavit – Hence, Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 could not be invoked -- After the death of A.K. on 14.08.1984, his widow and children never made any attempt to pay the instalments -- All instalments were paid by S.K. and her daughter -- All the documents of the property have been produced by the plaintiff -- Hence, it is proved that there was sale of the house in favour of Ms. S.K. by A.K -- Likewise, the General Power of Attorney will not cease to have effect because Ms.SK has interest in the property in view of agreement and Will -- Case falls under Section 202 and not 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

(Para 13, 18)

C. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 13 -- Agreement to sell of imperfect title – Effect of -- Section 13 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 enables the purchaser to claim specific performance against person with no title or imperfect title -- Clause (a) of Section 13 (1) provides that if the vendor has subsequent to any contract acquired any interest in the property, the purchaser may compel him to make good the contract out of such interest -- If there was any defect in his ownership, the same stood rectified on payment of instalment.

(Para 14)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Will – Proof of -- Suspicious circumstances -- Execution of the Will proved by examining both the attesting witnesses – Despite lengthy cross examination, the defendants failed to impeach their credibility – Will is not surrounded by suspicious circumstances because of various documents executed by A.K. including agreement to sell, General Power of Attorney, affidavit, apart from the Will.

(Para 15, 16)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (45 of 1988), Section 2(8)(9), 4 – Rejection of plaint -- Benami properties -- Whether a property is a benami, has to be considered not in the light of Section 4 of the Benami Act alone but also in connection with Sections 2 (8) and 2 (9) of the said Act i.e. whether the property if benami falls in the exception -- It is only where the property is benami and does not fall within the exception contained in Sub-Section (9) of Section 2 that a suit may be said to be barred -- However, the issue whether the property is benami and is not covered by the exception, is an issue to be decided on the basis of evidence and not simply on mere averments contained in the plaint -- Defendants have to adduce evidence to prove the property to be benami -- Plaint cannot be rejected at the stage of consideration of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

(Para 27-29)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 14 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Absolute property of hindu female -- Plea that plaint is hit by Section 14 of the Act -- No such specific plea was taken by the defendants in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC -- Such a plea was never raised and argued before either of the courts below -- There is no finding by any court on the above aspect -- Defendants cannot be permitted to raise such a plea for the first time in the Special Leave Petition without there being any foundation to that effect.

(Para 30)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 14 – Absolute property of hindu female -- Section 14 of the Act simply provides that the property possessed by a female Hindu shall be held by her as a full owner -- It does not bar or prohibit a suit in respect of such a property -- Therefore, in the absence of any bar contained in the above provision, the suit plaint is not liable to be rejected as barred by law.

(Para 31)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, Section 47 -- Decree for possession with respect to a specific shop identified by the properties located in all the four directions -- Objector purchased the suit property, ten years after the decree was passed -- All the objection petitions are not required to be decided after framing the issues -- Prima facie, merit of the objection petition is to be examined by the Executing Court – Executing Court gave direction for registration of FIR against the judgment debtors and the objector -- FIR already registered by the decree holder will continue and shall remain unaffected – Objection petition dismissed, orders upheld.

(Para 2, 8-12)

Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17, 49 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 10 -- Suit for specific performance -- Un-registered agreement to sell with possession – Dismissal of interlocutory application filed by the appellant seeking permission to place on record a document/ agreement to sell -- Prayer of the appellant in the interlocutory application falls under proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act which provides that an unregistered document affecting immovable property may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance -- Proviso also enables the said document to be received in evidence of a collateral transaction -- Appellant permitted to introduce the said document.

(Para 3, 9-11)

A. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 4, 5, 23 – Maintenance to Senior citizen – Eviction of son – Property already transferred to daughter/ son-in-law – Effect of -- Exfacie Senior citizen ceases to be the owner of the property and it is up to the purchasers to initiate eviction proceedings, if any, against the occupants of any part of it -- Senior citizens are simply entitled to maintenance rather than eviction of their son/ relatives -- It was only in the contingency of son not behaving properly or continuing to humiliate or torture the parents that the eviction proceedings would be necessary against him -- Tribunal was justified in permitting him to continue living therein with the rider of drawing eviction proceedings if he indulges in any untoward behavior or interferes with the life of others.

(Para 26-29)

B. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 4, 5, 23 – Eviction of son -- If son has been living in a small portion of the house, may be of his father, in which he has no share and is continuing with the family business from the shop on the ground floor without interfering with the life of others, it does not appear to be prudent to order for his eviction as after all being a son he also has an implied license to live therein – No necessity for the extreme step for ordering the eviction -- Purpose could have been served by ordering maintenance as provided under Section 4/5 of the Senior Citizens Act and by restraining him from harassing the parents and interfering in their day-to-day life.

(Para 29, 34)

C. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 23 -- Senior citizen case -- Eviction of person – Power of -- Provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, nowhere specifically provides for drawing proceedings for eviction of persons from any premises owned or belonging to such a senior person -- It is only on account of the observations made by this Court in S. Vanitha vs. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors, (2021) 15 SCC 730 that the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act may also order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizens -- The Tribunal thus had acquired jurisdiction to pass orders of eviction while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Senior Citizen Act which otherwise provide for treating the sale of the property to be void if it is against the interest of the senior citizen.

(Para 31)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 122, 123, 126 -- Gift deed – Completion of -- Unilateral cancellation – Permissibility of -- Delivery of possession is not sine qua non to validate a gift or settlement -- Delivery of possession is only one of the methods to prove acceptance and not the sole method – If the original deed was returned after registration, the fact that it was already acted upon, cannot be altered -- Receipt of the original document by the plaintiff and registration of the same, would amount to acceptance of the gift and the transaction satisfies the requirement of Section 122 of the TP Act -- Once the document is declared as “gift”, Donor/ defendant No.1 had no right to cancel the same unilaterally and the Sub Registrar had no right to register the cancellation deed -- Unilateral cancellation of the document is void and as a natural corollary, the sale deed executed by Donor/ Defendant No.1 / father also is invalid.

(Para 18)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 -- Suit for declaration of absolute ownership – Pleadings -- One who comes before the court with a declaration that, he is the absolute owner of the schedule property, he must plead the correct property number, extent and also boundaries before the court with cogent and acceptable evidence.

(Para 11)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 54 – Allotment in favour of two brothers -- Transfer of ownership to facilitate loan – Effect of -- UT Administration transferred the plot to facilitate the plaintiff to obtain loan --  Both the courts decreed the suit of mandatory injunction directing the defendant/ brother to leave and vacate two rooms – Property worth more than Rs.100/- cannot be transferred from one to another without registered instrument -- Once, there is documentary evidence to prove that the allotment was made in favour of two brothers and it was the plaintiff who applied for transferring the plot exclusively in his name because he wanted to borrow the loan, the courts erred in relying upon the oral evidence – Judgments passed by both the courts below, set aside -- Suit filed by the plaintiff dismissed.

(Para 9-15)

A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 58, 100 -- Equitable mortgage – Rights in personam -- Where ‘equitable mortgages’ have been created based on deposit of part-deeds or documents purporting title or evincing intention of parties to create an interest, all such deposits will be a valid mortgage in equity and the charge that might have been created prior in time will assume priority over any subsequent charges or mortgagors --  However, since such a mortgage is an ‘equitable mortgage’ any rights flowing from such mortgages are only of personal character and only rights in personam and as such will not operate against any strangers or subsequent incumbrancers unaware of such equitable mortgage -- Right of the lender to apportion or appropriate the subject property for repayment of loan only a right to take such an action rather than a right in the property itself.

(Para 43)

B. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 58, 100 -- Equitable mortgage – Legal mortgage – Right of --  Legal mortgage would have assumed priority in charge, yet an equitable mortgage may still be enforceable as secondary charge, provided the other considerations such as notice of such mortgage is fulfilled.

(Para 53)

C. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 58, 100 -- Equitable mortgage – Charge -- ‘equitable mortgages’ are very much recognized in India under the nomenclature of “charge” in terms of Section 100 of the Act, 1882, and the same will be enforceable as far as possible in terms of the procedure and provisions application to a simple mortgage except those without notice of such charge.

(Para 56)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 12 -- Part performance of contract -- It is not open to the High Court to direct specific performance of a part of contract except otherwise provided in the section in absence of any of the exigencies available under the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 12 so as to decree the suit.

(Para 10)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 12 -- Part performance of contract -- Relinquishment of claim to further performance of the remaining part of the contract and all rights to compensation -- Relinquishment could be made at any stage of the litigation including the appellate stage.

(Para 18, 21)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Will – Suspicious circumstances -- Mere exclusion of the natural heirs from any benefit is not of such suspicious circumstances as to create legitimate doubts on the genuineness of the Will -- Will is executed only to alter the mode of succession and by the very nature of things it is bound to result in either reducing the share or depriving the share of the natural heir.

(Para 7)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 54 – Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17 -- Agreement to sell – Whether, it is transfer of title? -- Agreement for sale in respect of an immovable property does not transfer title in favour of the purchaser under the agreement -- An agreement for sale does not create any interest in the property -- The only mode by which an immovable property worth more than Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred) can be sold is by a sale deed duly registered in accordance with the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

(Para 6)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34, 37, 38 -- Suit for simpliciter injunction – Maintainability of -- Plaintiffs failed to pray for any declaration and their suit simpliciter for injunction -- High Court dismissed the suit being maintainable -- Held, if the defendants do not dispute the title of the plaintiffs then the suit should not fail only on the ground that the matter has been filed only for injunction simpliciter and no main relief in the form of declaration has been prayed for -- Judgment and order passed by the High Court set aside, matter remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration of the Second Appeal in accordance with law.

(Para 13-23)

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Coparcener property -- By definition, an ancestral property is a coparcenary property, where "coparceners" are legal heirs with an inherent interest in the property from birth -- Such properties remain undivided within joint families, with legal heirs enjoying their shares.

(Para 16)

B. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Coparcener property -- Family settlement – Effect of -- Suit property could not have been held to be an ancestral property, as the same was received by the erstwhile owner by way of a family settlement, wherein, the two brothers divided two equally measuring plots between themselves -- Hence, the property could not have been said to be delved on the father by virtue of him being a coparcener in that property.

(Para 19)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Regular Second Appeal – Scope of -- Section 100 of the CPC confers a limited jurisdiction on the High Court to deal only with any legal error apparent on the face of the record -- Since there arises no substantial question of law to be adjudicated, the appeal dismissed.

(Para 20, 21)

Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17(2)(vi) – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 3, Article 22 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 23 Rule 3 -- Compromise decree for immovable property – Pre-existing right -- Stamp duty -- Registration – Requirements of -- If a compromise decree involves immovable property other than the property for which a decree is prayed for, such a property would not be exempted and would require registration -- To avail the exemption from compulsory registration, the compromise decree arrived must be only in respect of the property that is the subject-matter of the suit -- Compromise arrived at before the Lok Adalat and the award passed by the Lok Adalat thereto assume the character of a decree passed under Order XXIII Rule 3 and would also come within the ambit and purview of sub-section (2) of section 17 of the Act, 1908 -- In order to fall under the exception of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act, 1908, the following conditions must be satisfied:

(i)There must be a compromise decree as per the terms of the compromise without any collusion;

(ii)The compromise decree must pertain to the subject property in the suit; and

(iii)There must be a  pre-existing right over the subject property, and the compromise decree should not create a right afresh.

(Para 7-10, 13)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 53A – Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17 – Transfer of property by unregistered document -- Part performance of contract – Object of Section 53A of T.P.A. – Interpretation of -- Section 53-A was inserted principally for the protection of ignorant transferees who take possession or spend money in improvements relying on documents which are ineffective as transfers or on contracts which cannot be proved for want of registration -- The effect of this section, is to relax the strict provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act in favour of transferees in order to allow the defence of part performance to be established -- Section 53-A is an exception to the provisions which require a contract to be in writing and registered and which bar proof of such contract by any other evidence -- Consequently, the exception must be strictly construed.

(Para 13, 14)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 20 -- Specific performance of contract – Hardship -- Rise in price – Inadequacy of price -- Mere rise in price subsequent to the date of the contract or inadequacy of price is not to be treated as a hardship entailing refusal of specific performance of the contract -- Hardship involved should be one not foreseen by the party and should be collateral to the contract -- Issue of hardship would come into play only if it is established by cogent evidence that, who executed the Agreement of Sale was unable to foresee the hardship at the time of entering into the contract.

(Para 29-34)

A. Violation of building approved plan – Regularisation of construction – Construction(s) put up in violation of or deviation from the building plan approved by the local authority and the constructions which are audaciously put up without any building planning approval, cannot be encouraged -- In the event of any violation being brought to the notice of the Courts, it has to be curtailed with iron hands and any lenience afforded to them would amount to showing misplaced sympathy -- Delay in directing rectification of illegalities, administrative failure, regulatory inefficiency, cost of construction and investment, negligence and laxity on the part of the authorities concerned in performing their obligation(s) under the Act, cannot be used as a shield to defend action taken against the illegal/unauthorized constructions – Regularization schemes must be brought out only in exceptional circumstances.

(Para 20)

B. Building approved plan – Occupation certificate – Amenities -- In the larger public interest, directions issued, in addition to the directives issued by this Court in Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291:

(i) While issuing the building planning permission, an undertaking be obtained from the builder/applicant, as the case may be, to the effect that possession of the building will be entrusted and/or handed over to the owners/beneficiaries only after obtaining completion/occupation certificate from the authorities concerned.

(ii) The builder/developer/owner shall cause to be displayed at the construction site, a copy of the approved plan during the entire period of construction and the authorities concerned shall inspect the premises periodically and maintain a record of such inspection in their official records.

(iii) Upon conducting personal inspection and being satisfied that the building is constructed in accordance with the building planning permission given and there is no deviation in such construction in any manner, the completion/occupation certificate in respect of residential / commercial building, be issued by the authority concerned to the parties concerned, without causing undue delay. If any deviation is noticed, action must be taken in accordance with the Act and the process of issuance of completion/occupation certificate should be deferred, unless and until the deviations pointed out are completely rectified.

(iv) All the necessary service connections, such as, Electricity, water supply, sewerage connection, etc., shall be given by the service provider / Board to the buildings only after the production of the completion/occupation certificate.

(v) Even after issuance of completion certificate, deviation / violation if any contrary to the planning permission brought to the notice of the authority immediate steps be taken by the said authority concerned, in accordance with law, against the builder / owner / occupant; and the official, who is responsible for issuance of wrongful completion /occupation certificate shall be proceeded departmentally forthwith.

(vi) No permission /licence to conduct any business/trade must be given by any authorities including local bodies of States/Union Territories in any unauthorized building irrespective of it being residential or commercial building.

(vii) The development must be in conformity with the zonal plan and usage. Any modification to such zonal plan and usage must be taken by strictly following the rules in place and in consideration of the larger public interest and the impact on the environment.

(viii) Whenever any request is made by the respective authority under the planning department/local body for co-operation from another department to take action against any unauthorized construction, the latter shall render immediate assistance and co-operation and any delay or dereliction would be viewed seriously. The States/UT must also take disciplinary action against the erring officials once it is brought to their knowledge.

(ix) In the event of any application / appeal / revision being filed by the owner or builder against the non-issuance of completion certificate or for regularisation of unauthorised construction or rectification of deviation etc., the same shall be disposed of by the authority concerned, including the pending appeals / revisions, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than 90 days as statutorily provided.

(x) If the authorities strictly adhere to the earlier directions issued by this court and those being passed today, they would have deterrent effect and the quantum of litigation before the Tribunal / Courts relating to house / building constructions would come down drastically. Hence, necessary instructions should be issued by all the State/UT Governments in the form of Circular to all concerned with a warning that all directions must be scrupulously followed and failure to do so will be viewed seriously, with departmental action being initiated against the erring officials as per law.

(xi) Banks / financial institutions shall sanction loan against any building as a security only after verifying the completion/occupation certificate issued to a building on production of the same by the parties concerned.

(xii) The violation of any of the directions would lead to initiation of contempt proceedings in addition to the prosecution under the respective laws.

(Para 21)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 -- Joint land – Sale of specific khasra Number – Legality of -- Even if specific Khasra numbers are sold out of joint land, the same still is sale of share in the joint holding -- It is not disputed by the plaintiffs that subject matter of sale deed challenged in the suit, is less than the entitlement of K.S. – Held, suit seeking declaration to the effect that sale deed executed by K.S. in favour of the defendants itself was not maintainable once the share sold by him was less than the share of K.S.

(Para 15, 16)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6, 8 – Co-parcenary property – Sole-coparcener – Alienation of property – Right of -- Sole surviving co-parcener is entitled to dispose of the coparcenary property as his separate property as long as he remains a sole surviving coparcener and he may sell or mortgage the coparcenary property even though there is no legal necessity or family benefit or may even make a gift of the coparcenary property -- When the sons and grandchildren are born to the family, then automatically by birth they acquire the right over the ancestral and joint family property and cannot dispose of the same.

(Para 22, 23)

Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Land) Rules, 1971, Rule 27 – Allotment of land --– Violation of rules -- There has to be transparency in matters of allotment of land by the government, adherence to the rules and regulations becomes important in the cases of allotment -- Not only MRCHS’ proposed members found ineligible, but the society was allowed to change its members frequently, starting from the point when it accepted the Letter of Intent in its favour – Land is a precious material resource of the community and therefore the least which is required from the State is transparency in its distribution -- There has been a complete arbitrariness in the allotment in favour of MRCHS -- Allotment of the plot in favour of MRCHS is not proper, as it is violative of the procedure as well as eligibility criteria -- Civil appeal allowed,  Letter of Allotment in favour of MRCHS stands quashed.

(Para 7, 11-13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13 -- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 53 -- Maintenance to wife – Charge over property – Preferential right of wife -- No objection of any secured creditor, operational creditor or any other claim shall be entertained opposing the entitlement of the respondents for maintenance -- This right is a subset of the right to dignity and a dignified life, which in turn flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Right to maintenance being equivalent to a fundamental right will be superior to and have overriding effect than the statutory rights afforded to Financial Creditors, Secured Creditors, Operational Creditors or any other such claimants encompassed within the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or similar such laws.

(Para 11, 12)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 22, 28(3) – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 55 -- Suit for specific performance – Possession not part of decree – Execution of – Whether the relief of possession may be granted by the executing court in a case where the suit has been decreed for specific performance simpliciter and no express relief for the transfer of possession of the suit property has been granted – High Court directed Executing Court to issue a warrant of possession of the suit property in favour of plaintiff-decree holder – Plaintiff can amend the plaint to include a claim for the relief of possession, partition, etc. at any stage of the proceeding, includes the stage of execution of the decree by the executing court -- Order upheld, SLP dismissed. Babu Lal’s case (1982) 1 SCC 525 & Rohit Kochhar’s case 2024 INSC 920 relied.

(Para 14)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 16(1)(d) -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 22, 28 – Territorial jurisdiction of Court -- Suit for specific performance – Possession not prayed specifically – Effect of -- It is clear from the terms of the contract between the parties that the transfer of possession of the suit property is implicit in the said contract and absence of a specific prayer seeking transfer of possession would not have any bearing on the character of the suit, which is one covered by Section 16(d) of the CPC.

(Para 33)

Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17(2)(xii) – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), First Schedule, Article 18, 23 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 94 -- Auction sale – Sale certificate -- Stamp duty – Requirement of -- Sale certificate issued to the purchaser in pursuance of the confirmation of an auction sale is merely evidence of such title and does not require registration u/s 17(1) of the Registration Act -- Mere filing u/s 89(4) of the Registration Act itself is sufficient when a copy of the sale certificate is forwarded by the authorised officer to the registering authority – However, Articles 18 and 23 respectively of the first schedule to the Stamp Act respectively makes it clear that when the auction purchaser presents the original sale certificate for registration, it would attract stamp duty in accordance with the said Articles -- As long as the sale certificate remains as it is, it is not compulsorily registrable -- It is only when the auction purchaser uses the certificate for some other purpose that the requirement of payment of stamp duty, etc. would arise.

(Para 7, 13-20)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 10 -- Suit for specific performance of agreement -- Evidence of attorney -- One of the purchasers and plaintiff in his suit for specific performance throughout present in the transaction held the Power of Attorney from the other plaintiffs – He was examined as PW-1 in each of the suits whether in his capacity as plaintiff or as Power of Attorney from other plaintiffs -- It was not necessary for each of the plaintiffs in separate suits to appear and prove the transaction -- Trial Court had examined this aspect and had found favour with the plaintiffs – Adverse inference drawn by the High Court for the reason that the plaintiffs did not enter the witness box to prove the Agreement to Sell, was completely misplaced.

(Para 28)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 10 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 54 -- Suit for specific performance of agreement – Limitation -- Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.1990 did not mention any date for the performance, nor did owner refused at any point of time and soon after the death of owner in December 1992, the plaintiffs having come to know of the mutation proceedings by her legal heirs, they proceeded to file the suit, after giving notice in May 1995, which was well within a period of three years -- Second part of Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act would be applicable once there was no date fixed for performance in the Agreement to Sell.

(Para 27, 30)

C. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) -- Agreement to sell – Possession with original title deed – Effect of -- A purchaser who has paid the full consideration and received the original title deeds from the seller would have taken possession under normal circumstances -- Any possession taken by any other party thereafter would be unauthorised and illegal.

(Para 32)

D. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) -- Violation of Injunction order – Alienation of the property in violation of the injunction order -- Sale deed would be a void document. 

(Para 33)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 10, 16 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 54 – Suit for specific performance – Limitation -- Limitation prescribed by Article 54 sets in from the date when the petitioner received the reply refusing performance.

(Para 31)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 10, 16(c) – Specific performance of agreement – Readiness and willingness – Purchaser paid a sum of Rs.11,30,00 as earnest money and paid Rs.13,00,000 on the same day by cheque and paid another Rs. 5,00,000 by Demand Draft -- If the petitioner was unwilling to perform the contract, he would not have paid nearly 75 percent of the sale consideration -- Petitioner with the payment of the additional sum above the earnest money, has proved his readiness and willingness to perform the contract -- Fit case for to exercise discretion to direct specific performance.

(Para 42)

C. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 – Lis panders -- Doctrine of lis pendens that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act encapsulates, bars the transfer of a suit property during the pendency of litigation -- The only exception to the principle is when it is transferred under the authority of the court and on terms imposed by it -- Where one of the parties to the suit transfers the suit property (or a part of it) to a third-party, the latter is bound by the result of the proceedings even if he did not have notice of the suit or proceeding.

(Para 47)

D. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 – Object of doctrine of lis pendens -- Purpose of lis pendens is to ensure that the process of the court is not subverted and rendered infructuous --  In the absence of the doctrine of lis pendens, a defendant could defeat the purpose of the suit by alienating the suit property.

(Para 49)

E. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 – Lis pendens – Review -- Pendency means -- Review proceedings were “instituted” within the period of limitation of thirty days –  Doctrine of lis pendens kicks in at the stage of “institution” and not at the stage when notice is issued by this Court -- Argument of the respondents that the doctrine of lis pendens does not apply because the petition for review was lying in the registry in a defective state cannot be accepted.

(Para 49)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Adverse possession against co-sharer -- Possession of the plaintiffs was in a representative capacity being co-sharer -- Merely because a particular co-sharer is not in possession and is residing out of the village is not sufficient to prove ouster -- Concurrent findings of fact with regard to plaintiffs' failure to prove their ownership by way of adverse possession not interfered – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 12)

Waqf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995), Section 6, 7, 83 – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11 -- Waqf property – Jurisdiction of Waqf Tribunal -- Gair Mumkin Khangah and Takia -- Tribunal decided the issue of jurisdiction and held that the question of title would be decided by the Collector under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, however decided the other issued on merits – Tribunal would not be excluded from adjudicating the matter -- Tribunal having held that it did not have the jurisdiction to try and decide the suit, the findings on merits on other issues could not have been rendered by it -- Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal set aside and the matter remanded to the Tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law.

(Para 1, 3, 6-8)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27, Article 65 -- Suit for specific performance -- Agreement to sell -- Adverse possession – Plea of – Permissive possession -- Once the defendant himself pleaded that he is in possession under the agreement to sell and to retain possession relies on the part performance of contract to sell, he cannot plead adverse possession – Held, possession of a proposed vendee  under agreement to sell always is a permissive possession under the vendor till he pleads and proves that he gave up the permissive possession and re-entered into possession which was open and hostile to the knowledge of the true owner.

(Para 3, 28)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 8 -- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 9 -- Agreement to sell – Minor’s interest – Suit for specific performance -- Agreement to sell executed by defendant-respondent No.1/ one of heir of deceased -- No power of attorney executed by the other heirs in favour of defendant-respondent No.1 -- Power of attorney produced was executed after the execution of the agreement to sell -- Further, defendant-respondent Nos.6 and 7 were minors, without any permission from the Guardian Court their share could not in any case be sold, no such permission by the Guardian Court is forthcoming – Ld. Appellate Court held “said agreement being opposed to public policy and law could not be treated as a valid agreement to give rise to the cause of specific performance” – No ground to interfere, appeal dismissed.

(Para 9, 10)

A. Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 4(3)(5)(6) – Landlord -- Tenant -- Gair marusi tenant -- Merely because appellant is recorded as ‘Gair Maurusi’ in the revenue record, does not mean that he is a tenant over the suit property – There can be no tenancy unless there is a condition of payment of rent, though the rent may be payable in cash, kind or service etc. -- Held, it is inconceivable that there can be any tenancy without the condition of payment of rent, unless there is a contract to the contrary, absolving the tenant the liability to pay rent.

(Para 14, 15)

B. Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 4(3)(5)(6) – Gair marusi tenant – Trespasser -- Adverse possession -- A party to the litigation cannot be allowed to take contrary stands to suit his convenience -- When in the earlier two litigations, it was ordered by the courts that appellant could be dispossessed in due course of law, he changed the stand in next litigations taking contrary plea that he had become owner of suit property by adverse possession -- In none of the earlier litigations decided earlier, he has been held to be tenant in the suit land, though his plea of possession has been upheld with further direction that he cannot be dispossessed except in due course of law – No evidence that tenancy was ever created and as such, his possession over the suit land is nothing less than that of a stranger / trespasser.

(Para 19)

C. Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 4(3)(5)(6) – Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 9 --  Tenant of land – Eviction -- Jurisdiction of civil court --  When the person is inducted as a tenant on payment of rent and the rent is not paid --  Civil Court will not have jurisdiction and the landlord will have to seek his remedy before the Revenue Authorities to seek ejectment of such tenant or a tenant holding over, under the provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 to be read with the provisions Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act.

(Para 22)

D. Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 4(3)(5)(6) – Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 9 --  Gair marusi tenant – Suit for possession – Jurisdiction of civil court --  When the possession of person concerned on the suit land is without payment of rent, such as person is no more than a stranger or trespasser over the suit property -- In such a situation, his possession, howsoever long it may be, cannot be considered in the capacity of tenant in view of the definition of ‘landlord’, ‘tenant’ and ‘rent’ -- In this eventuality, it is only the Civil Court, which will have the jurisdiction to pass the decree of possession in favour of the landlord – Suit for possession decreed.

(Para 22, 23)

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (Maharashtra Act No. XXXVII of 1966), Section 2, 126(1) -- Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991, Regulation 3(7), 33, 34 -- Constitution of India, Article 300A – Compensation for surrendering land and developing amenities -- Abandonment of claim -- Delay and laches – Writ petitioners constructed Development Plan Roads at their own cost and voluntarily surrendered the reserved lands to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation – Writ petitioners were granted Floor Space Index (FSI) and/or Transferrable Development Rights (TDR) in the form of Development Rights Certificates (DRC) equal to the gross area of the plots surrendered by them – Writ dismissed on delay and laches by High Court.

-- Held, once the compensation is determined in the form of FSI/TDR, the same is payable even in the absence of there being any representation or request being made -- In fact, a duty is cast on the State to pay compensation to the land losers as otherwise there would be a breach of Article 300-A of the Constitution -- Neither the doctrine of delay and laches nor the principle of abandonment of claim or waiver would apply in these cases.

(Para 2, 4.13, 18)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 121 -- Partition of land – Value and location of land -- It is well-settled that besides the possession of the co-sharers over the portions in the joint land holding, the value and location as well as the nature of such land have also to be taken into consideration at the time of affecting the partition so that all the co-sharers get the portions of the land without any prejudice to their entitlement as per their respective shares in the total land under partition.

(Para 8)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 121 -- Partition of land – Value and location of land -- Entire portion of the subject land abutting the road allocated to the appellants – Respondent No.5 has not been given even an inch of land out of the same which, by no stretch of imagination, can be termed to be justified and equitable at all.

(Para 8)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 44 -- Co-sharer – Sale of whole property by one of co-sharer – Permissibility of -- Said sale deed may be a valid document to the extent of the share of Vendor in the property and buyer/ appellant is free to take remedies to claim appropriate relief either by suit of partition or by suit of compensation and damages against his Vendor.

(Para 21)

A. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 21 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 18, 19 -- Offer of possession made on 04.02.2014 -- ADA issued reminders to the appellant on 22.09.2014, 21.11.2014 and 17.01.2018 -- Additionally, ADA accepted the appellant's payment of Rs. 3,43,178/- on 20.06.2019 without any reservations -- NCDRC correctly applied Sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which extend the limitation period where part payments or acknowledgments are made -- Consequently, the cause of action continued to exist, and the filing of the complaint in July 2020 is within the limitation period.

(Para 16)

B. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 21 -- Pecuniary jurisdiction -- Respondent ADA challenged the pecuniary jurisdiction of the NCDRC, contending that the total payment made by the appellant amounted to Rs. 59,97,178/-, which was less than Rs. 1 crore -- Claim made by the appellant also included compensation for mental agony, harassment, and loss of income, which brought the total claim well above Rs. 1 crore -- In consumer disputes, the value of the claim is determined not just by the amount deposited but by the aggregate relief sought, which includes compensation and other claims -- NCDRC rightly held that it had the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and this Court affirms that finding.

(Para 18, 19)

C. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 21 -- Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (16 of 2016), Section 19(10) -- Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010 (U.P. Act No. 16 of 2010), Section 4(5) -- Offer of possession -- Completion certificate -- Firefighting clearance certificate – Requirement of -- A developer must obtain these certificates before offering possession -- Possession offered without the requisite completion certificate is illegal, and a purchaser cannot be compelled to take possession in such circumstances -- ADA’s failure to provide the required certificates justifies the appellant’s refusal to take possession --  Entire amount deposited by the appellant ordered to be refunded with interest 9% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of refund, the ADA is directed to pay an additional amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs only) to the appellant.

(Para 20-23)

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 22A(B), 22C – Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 6 -- Lease of the Gram Panchayat land – Public Utility Service – Maintainability of proceedings before Permanent Lok Adalat -- Lease of the Gram Panchayat land to any bidder is not a part of the Public Utility Services defined under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 -- Proceedings at the first instance could not have been maintainable before the Permanent Lok Adalat.

(Para 5, 6)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 14 – Limited estate of lady – Property of female Hindu to be her absolute property -- Defendant no.1 was married in the year 1959-60, much after coming into force the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, on 17.06.1956 -- As such, her limited estate enlarges into absolute estate and she becomes full owner on the date of coming into force the Hindu Succession Act.

(Para 41)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9, Section 151 – Appointment of Local Commissioner – Suit for declaration -- No allegation in the plaint that defendants had encroached the suit land -- Suit itself was for declaration simplicitor that plaintiff had become owner of some portion of suit land by adverse possession & remaining portion of suit land by purchase -- It was for the plaintiff to prove his case by leading cogent evidence -- Plaintiff cannot be permitted to involve the Court in an exercise to hunt for evidence – Application dismissed.

(Para 1, 5)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 118, 121 -- Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (1 of 1913), Section 3(1) (2) and (3), 8, 15, 16 -- Pre-emption decree – Partition of land – Naksha bey – Naksha jeem -- Severance of co-sharer status -- Prior to the passing of the judgment and decree by the trial Court not only the 'naksha bey' had been sanctioned but even the 'naksha jeem' had been prepared and thus, on the date of the judgment and decree, there was severance of the relationship of co-sharers between the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 and thus, the plaintiffs had no right of pre-emption on the date of the passing of the judgment by the trial Court.

(Para 18)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). Section 145, 146 – Issue of possession – Decree of civil court – Effect of -- Proceedings u/s 145/146 Cr.P.C. pertain to the factum of possession of a party and not the right to possess which is to be determined by the Civil Court -- Once the factum of possession and right to possess both have been adjudicated upon by the appropriate Civil Court, the question of initiation of proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. does not arise.

(Para 12, 13)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Schedule - Article 54 -- Specific performance of contract – Limitation -- In the agreement dated 17.12.1989, it is specifically mentioned that the sale deed would be executed within one month from the date of the said agreement -- One month would expire on 16.01.1990, limitation period would be three years from the said date, which would expire on 16.01.1993 – Suit filed  in September, 1993 -- Suit liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone – Advance of Rs. 80,000/- ordered to be returned to the plaintiffs along with 12% simple interest.

(Para 9-12)

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 33, 35 -- Suit for specific performance – Insufficient stamp on agreement – Penalty of 10 times – Trial court imposed 10 times penalty -- Imposition of penalty to the extent of ten times, is not mandatory and discretion lies with the authority -- Parties entered into agreement to sell, without having knowledge of the amendment carried out by the State of Punjab -- Petitioner-plaintiff shall be liable to pay the deficient stamp duty, along with equivalent amount of penalty, within a period of 30 days. Amit Kumar’s case 2022(3) Law Herald 2472 relied – Revision allowed.

(Para 1, 13-17)

Haryana Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 23 -- Possession of new holding -- Petitioners continued in possession of the old khasra numbers and the effect to the consolidation proceedings has not been given, though revenue record may have been corrected -- Writ petition disposed to give effect to the consolidation proceedings qua the petitioners by way of handing over the physical possession of the land to which they are entitled.

(Para 3, 4)

Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (31 of 1973), Section 5 – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 20, 21 -- Eviction of unauthorised person – Right under consolidation – Ground of -- Final authority came to the conclusion that petitioner had encroached upon the land in dispute, auction whereof had taken place on 10.05.1993 -- Question of entitlement, as such, could not be raised and which is now contended on the strength of consolidation proceedings.

(Para 5)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11D – Shamilat deh – Ownership dispute – Framing of issues -- Summary procedure – Sustainability of -- Statutory authorities in a most summary manner declined the espoused declaratory decree – No issue struck on the contentious pleadings -- It was imperative for the authorities concerned, to formulate issues for the relevant evidence adducing onus becoming cast upon the litigants concerned -- Petition allowed, impugned order set aside, matter remanded back to Collector.

(Para 8-10)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Temporary injunction – Interference in appeal – Permissibility of -- Relief of injunction is an equitable and discretionary relief, based on well-established principles of prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience -- At the same time, once discretion is exercised by the trial judge of the first instance, the interference by the Appellate Court is not justified, unless the exercise is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, perverse or ignoring the settled principles of law.

(Para 12)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 20A -- Temporary injunction – Stalling Infrastructure project – Permissibility of – A person, who seeks equity must do equity -- Defendant No.2 after paying huge consideration has purchased the suit land from the two brothers i.e. plaintiff & defendant and their sister -- Ultimately after trial, if it is found that plaintiff was entitled to the entire suit land, he would be entitled to the proportionate sale consideration, but for that reason, the infrastructure project worth Rs.100 crore cannot be stalled -- No prohibitory injunction can be granted involving such a project as per Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act – Application for temporary injunction dismissed.

(Para 17-19)