Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Code of Civil Procedure

64 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

P. NAZEER ETC.versusSALAFI TRUST & ANR. ETC.

2022 INSC 36930 March 2022Dismissed

The dispute concerned the management of Salafi Juma Masjid, a waqf registered under the Waqf Act, 1995. The Mahal Committee, claiming to be a local (Sakha) unit of the registered society Kerala Naduvathil Mujahideen, sued the Salafi Trust seeking a declaration that a certificate of registration issued under s.36 of the

PREM CHAND & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA

2010 INSC 18130 March 2010Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by Prem Chand and others against a Delhi High Court award of Rs 39,300 per bigha as compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where the High Court had denied the benefit under Section 23(1A). The Court held that, because the award was made after 30 April 1

PRAHLAD SINGH & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2011 INSC 34429 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants' land in Haryana was notified for acquisition in 2002 and an award was passed in 2004 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They filed writ petitions alleging that the land fell within a green belt under the Regional Plan 2001, that the acquisition violated the National Capital Region Planning Board Act,

SPEAKER HARYANA VIDHAN SABHAversusKULDEEP BISHNOI & ORS.

2012 INSC 43728 September 2012Disposed off

Five Haryana MLAs merged with the Indian National Congress and the Speaker accepted the merger. Kuldeep Bishnoi filed disqualification petitions under Article 191 and the Tenth Schedule, alleging the merger violated paragraph 4(1). The High Court, invoking Order 41 Rule 33 CPC, directed the Speaker to decide the petiti

GANDHE VIJAY KUMARversusMULJI @ MULCHAND

2017 INSC 67827 July 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute involved a landlord‑tenant relationship where the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority both held that the landlord satisfied the bonafide requirement under the Rent Control Act. The High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, set aside those findings, stating it could re‑appreciate the evidence t

K.P. MANUversusCHAIRMAN, SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE

2015 INSC 16326 February 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, K.P. Manu, born to Christian parents, reconverted to Hinduism at age 24 and obtained a Hindu Pulaya caste certificate. The Scrutiny Committee and the Kerala High Court cancelled the certificate, holding that his Christian birth precluded Scheduled Caste status. The Supreme Court examined whether a person

SAROJ AGARWALLA (DEAD) THR. LR ABHISHEK AGRAWALLAversusYASHEEL JAIN

2016 INSC 98624 October 2016Dismissed

The appellant sought probate of a will of her deceased brother, but two respondents—Yasheel Jain, claiming to be the testator's nephew and beneficiary under an alleged earlier will, and Malati Tulshan, claiming to be the testator's second wife—filed caveats. The Calcutta High Court rejected the appellant's prayer to di

VINOD KUMAR SUBBIAHversusSARASWATHI PALANIAPPAN

2015 INSC 35424 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Vinod Kumar Subbiah filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging mental cruelty by his wife, Saraswathi Palaniappan, who later sought restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 and maintenance. The trial court, after examining extensive evidence, found the wife’s abusive conduct—ins

M/S ATLAS CYCLE (HARYANA) LTD.versusKITAB SINGH

2013 INSC 5924 January 2013Dismissed

Kitab Singh, a workman employed by Atlas Cycle (Haryana) Ltd. since 1977, alleged that he was assaulted and forced to resign on 1 October 1992 after being accused of theft. He wrote to the Chief Minister and sent a notice to the company, claiming the resignation was not voluntary. The Labour Court dismissed his claim,

AKKODE JUMAYATH PALU PARIPALANA COMMITTEEversusP.V. IBRAHIM HAJI AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 48523 July 2013Disposed off

The Akkode Juyamath Palli Paripalana Committee, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, filed a suit for a perpetual injunction to prevent interference with the administration, management, and peaceful enjoyment of a mosque, its madrassa, and related wakf assets. The suit was transferred to the Wakf

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC. AND ORSversusK. BALU AND ANR.

2018 INSC 18823 February 2018Disposed off

The Supreme Court was asked to interpret paragraph 7 of its 11 July 2017 order, which dealt with prohibiting the sale of liquor along highways but clarified that it did not apply to licensed establishments within municipal areas. The petitioners sought a further clarification to determine whether the same principle sho

MD. NOOMAN & ORS.versusMD. JABED ALAM & ORS.

2010 INSC 63522 September 2010Dismissed

The mother of the respondents filed an eviction suit against the father of the appellants, claiming title to a house based on a 1957 sale deed and seeking to evict the defendant as a tenant. The trial court upheld her title but dismissed the eviction because no landlord‑tenant relationship was proved; the appellate cou

SUNITA JUGALKISHORE GILDAversusRAMANLAL UDHOJI TANNA (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 54621 August 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sunita Jugalkishore Gilda, succeeded a mortgagee who had a mortgage over a three‑storied building since 1953. While several suits between the mortgagee and the mortgagors were pending, the mortgagors inducted a third party as a tenant without the mortgagee's consent. The mortgagee sued for possession and

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusM/S DEEPAK ELECTRIC & TRADING COMPANY & ANR.

2011 INSC 77520 October 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India and another appealed against a High Court order that held its objections to an arbitral award were time‑barred. The award was filed on 17‑06‑1996 and a notice of filing was served on the Union of India, but not on the Executive Engineer, who was responsible for the Union’s affairs in the arbitration.

RAMA NARANGversusRAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 92 OF 2008

2021 INSC 2519 January 2021

The case arose from a family dispute between Rama Narang (petitioner) and his sons Ramesh and Rajesh Narang (respondents) who were directors of a company. The Supreme Court had earlier ordered a settlement (Consent Order) requiring joint management of the company, but the petitioner alleged that the respondents violate

RAMDAS BANSAL (D)versusKHARAG SINGH BAID & ORS.

2012 INSC 4419 January 2012Dismissed

The appellant, Ramdas Bansal, held a 21‑year lease of a building (Grace Cinema Hall) on premises in Kolkata and, after the lease expired, the respondents filed a suit for vacant possession and rectification of the lease description. Bansal sought to introduce documents alleging that the respondents were "Thika" tenants

ASHOKversusRAJENDRA BHAUSAHEB MULAK

2012 INSC 47918 October 2012Matter referred to larger bench

In the Maharashtra Legislative Council election, Ashok lost to Rajendra by four votes and filed an election petition alleging that at least five of the fourteen votes counted were improperly received because voters were accompanied by another person, violating Rule 39 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The High Co

DELMA LUBNA COELHOversusEDMOND CLINT FERNANDES

2023 INSC 38918 April 2023Dismissed

The husband filed a divorce petition in the Family Court at Mangaluru, Karnataka. The wife, a permanent resident of Canada now residing in Mumbai, filed a transfer petition seeking to move the proceedings to the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. She argued that traveling to Mangaluru would be difficult, costly, and would

RAJINDER KUMAR BANSAL & ORSversusMUNICIPAL COMMITTEE & ORS.

2021 INSC 40517 August 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned land originally leased to Louis Club for club purposes, on which a pavilion was constructed and later sub‑let to another club and partially transferred to a Municipal Committee. The landlord filed an ejectment petition alleging non‑payment of rent, unauthorised sub‑letting and change of use. The High

HAMEED KUNJUversusNAZIM

2017 INSC 62317 July 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord (appellant) owned eight shops and sought eviction of tenants, including the respondent, under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 on the ground of bona‑fide need. After a protracted litigation spanning more than a decade, the trial court finally passed an eviction order, which was execu

SHREYA VIDYARTHIversusASHOK VIDYARTHI & ORS.

2015 INSC 93416 December 2015Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute over a house purchased in 1961 by Rama Vidyarthi using insurance proceeds and other funds, questioning whether it was joint family property and how the shares should be apportioned. The appellant, Shreya Vidyarthi, argued that the High Court had decided the case ex‑parte and that a

STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.versusGUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATION AND ANR.

2012 INSC 47616 October 2012Dismissed

The State of Gujarat appointed the Secretary to the Government as President of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, a move challenged on the ground that the post is a judicial office and requires the High Court's consultation under Article 234 of the Constitution. The Gujarat High Court held that the Tribunal is a "court" and

KALAWATI (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.versusRAKESH KUMAR & ORS.

2018 INSC 16116 February 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant vendors entered into an agreement to sell land to the respondent purchaser in 1986, with a clause requiring the vendors to obtain a no‑objection certificate and an income‑tax clearance certificate before execution. The purchaser paid an advance but failed to deposit the balance consideration, and the vend

LEELA HOTELS LTD.versusHOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.

2011 INSC 80015 November 2011Appeal(s) allowed

Leela Hotels Ltd. entered into a sub‑lease with HUDCO for a hotel project, which was later cancelled, leading to arbitration. The arbitrator awarded HUDCO to pay Leela Hotels a principal sum plus interest. HUDCO deposited Rs 89.78 crores, claiming it was towards the principal, while Leela Hotels argued it should first

KAPIL MUNI KARWARIYAversusCHANDRA NARAIN TRIPATHI

2012 INSC 9215 February 2012Dismissed

In the 51‑Phulpur Lok Sabha election, Kapil Muni Karwaria was declared elected after the Returning Officer rejected Chandra Narain Tripathi's nomination for lacking the required ten proposers under Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, because the second proposer, Pramod Kumar, had been deleted from

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusSABAL SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

2019 INSC 114114 October 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs, successors of an ex‑Zamindar, sued the State of Madhya Pradesh seeking declaration of Bhumiswami rights and a permanent injunction, claiming that the disputed land was Khud‑kasht (personally cultivated) and therefore exempt from vesting under the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act. The revenue record

RAJIB RANJAN & ORS.versusR. VIJAYKUMAR

2014 INSC 71714 October 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board rejected R. Vijaykumar's tender after a performance report, prepared by the appellants (public servants), found his equipment unsatisfactory. Vijaykumar unsuccessfully pursued civil remedies, withdrew his suit, and then filed a criminal complaint alleging forgery and conspiracy

CHRISOMAR CORPORATIONversusMJR STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

2017 INSC 90514 September 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Chrisomar Corporation supplied bunkers to the vessel M.V. Nikolaos‑S owned by Third Element Enterprises and sued for unpaid invoices, leading to the vessel's arrest. The parties entered a settlement on 18 January 2000, but the vessel was re‑arrested on 2 May 2000 when payment was still outstanding. Respondent No. 1 (MJ

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusM/S. K.C. SHARMA & CO. & ORS.

2020 INSC 48814 August 2020Dismissed

The Union of India appealed against a Delhi High Court order that set aside a 1989 decree passed under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which had awarded 87% of compensation to the respondents and 13% to the Gaon Sabha. The appellants alleged that the decree was obtained by fraud, claiming that the

R.L. KALATHIA & CO.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

2011 INSC 4714 January 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The partnership firm R.L. Kalathia & Co. was awarded a contract by the Gujarat State Government to construct the Fulzer Dam. During execution, the Executive Engineer ordered several additions and alterations, for which the contractor performed extra work and later submitted a consolidated claim. The contractor accepted

STANDARD CHARTERED BANKversusDHARMINDER BHOHI AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 61913 September 2013Case Partly allowed

Standard Chartered Bank granted a home loan which the borrower defaulted on, leading the bank to invoke the SARFAESI Act and sell the mortgaged property at auction. The borrower challenged the sale before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (ORT) and later before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), which, after a four‑

INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCHversusT.N. SANIKOP & ANR. ETC. ETC.

2014 INSC 102712 November 2014Case Partly allowed

The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) sought to acquire 40 guntas of land in Belgaum for a medical research centre, and the Land Acquisition Officer initially fixed compensation at Rs 1,050 per gunta. The reference court enhanced this to Rs 7,000 per gunta, and the Karnataka High Court further raised it to Rs 9

VINEETA SHARMAversusRAKESH SHARMA & ORS.

2020 INSC 48711 August 2020Directions issued

The Supreme Court examined the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. It held that the amendment confers coparcenary status on daughters—whether born before or after the amendment—on and from 9 September 2005, giving them the same rights a

STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.versusFAKIR CHARAN SETHI DEAD THROUGH LRS AND ORS.

2014 INSC 6969 October 2014Disposed off

The respondents claimed tenancy rights over a 4.16‑acre plot based on a 1942 lease (Hatapatta) from the ex‑ruler and alleged continuous possession and cultivation even after the land vested in the State under the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951. The State contested the authenticity of the lease, rent receipts, tenanc

ADDISSERY RAGHAVANversusCHERUVALATH KRISHNADASAN

2020 INSC 4188 June 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The tenant, Addissery Raghuvan, occupied two shop rooms in a building owned by the landlord, Cheruvalath Krishnadasan, who filed eviction petitions under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(8) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, claiming a bonafide need for additional accommodation. The trial cou

NILESH LAXMICHAND AND ANOTHERversusSHANTABEN PURUSHOTTAM KAKAD (SINCE DECEASED) BY LRS

2019 INSC 6508 May 2019Dismissed

The landlords sued the tenants for eviction under sections 16(1)(c), 16(1)(e) and 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, alleging illegal sub‑letting, nuisance from a food‑stuff business and non‑use of the premises as a book‑shop for more than six months before the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit, but t

S.J. COKE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ETC.versusCENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. ETC.

2015 INSC 2988 April 2015Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered appeals by several coal traders (including S.J. Coke Industries) seeking a refund of excess amounts paid under a government‑mandated e‑auction scheme for coal, which had been declared ultra vires and void by the Court in the Ashoka Smokeless Coal case. The Central Coalfields Ltd. (CCL) oppo

DR. AMBICA PRASADversusMD. ALAM AND ANOTHER

2015 INSC 2998 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Dr. Ambica Prasad filed an eviction suit against Abdul Karim, claiming ownership of the tenanted premises through exchange deeds executed with his brother, the original owner. The trial court held that the appellant was not the landlord, but the appellate court reversed this, finding him to be the landlord based on ren

SANTOSHversusJAGAT RAM & ANR.

2010 INSC 838 February 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a widowed woman, filed a suit in 1990 seeking declaration of ownership of land inherited from her deceased husband and alleging that a consent decree dated 26‑03‑1985, which transferred the property to the respondents, was procured by fraud. The trial court, after evaluating testimonies of four witnesses

CHATII KONATI RAO & ORS.versusPALLE VENKATA SUBBA RAO

2010 INSC 8607 December 2010Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a civil appeal arising from a suit for recovery of possession of land. The plaintiffs claimed title based on inheritance, while the defendants asserted ownership either through a purported sale or by adverse possession. The High Court, in a Letters Patent appeal, held that a Division Bench ma

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusK.M. CHIKKATHAYAMMA & ORS.

2018 INSC 7987 September 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) had undertaken a land acquisition scheme which was later challenged by several writ petitioners. The Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court quashed the acquisition proceedings, prompting MUDA to file intra‑court appeals before the Division Bench. The respondents filed an

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusGOPU & ANR.

2025 INSC 5117 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased, a junior public health nurse, died in a 2000 motorbike accident. Her husband and two minor children filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.6,53,000. After ten years, the children alone appealed to the Kerala High Court,

SHIV CHANDER MORE & ORS.versusLIEUTENANT GOVERNOR & ORS.

2014 INSC 9347 March 2014Dismissed

The appellants were heirs of a grantee who received a 30‑year land grant under the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Land Tenure) Regulation, 1926, which could be renewed once for a total of 60 years. After the 60‑year period expired in 1994, the administration sought possession. The appellants repeatedly sought a fresh gra

PRATEEK GUPTAversusSHILPY GUPTA & ORS.

2017 INSC 11956 December 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Prateek Gupta (father) appealed a Delhi High Court order that directed him to hand over his five‑year‑old son Aadvik, a U.S. citizen, to his wife Shilpi Gupta (mother) after she filed a writ of habeas corpus. The father had taken the child to India in 2015 without the mother’s consent, and the mother obtained custody o

M/S. MARTIN & HARRIS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.versusRAJENDRA MEHTA & ORS.

2022 INSC 6636 July 2022Dismissed

The suit for eviction and recovery of rent was filed in 2002 under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Old Act). The suit was decreed in 2016 and affirmed on appeal, but the parties remained in dispute over mesne profits during the stay of execution. The tenants argued that Section 20 of th

RATTAN BAI & ANR.versusRAM DASS & ORS.

2012 INSC 766 February 2012Appeal(s) allowed

Respondents 1‑3 instituted a suit for specific performance of a sale of immovable property. They later filed an application (P‑2) and a joint statement (P‑4) claiming a compromise and seeking dismissal of the suit, but subsequently respondent 1 filed an affidavit (P‑5) alleging that he had never filed the suit and that

SHANTI DEVI ALIAS SHANTI MISHRAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2020 INSC 6325 November 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Shanti Devi, sought to revive a writ petition filed by her late husband, a retired Coal India employee, challenging the stoppage of his pension and a demand for repayment of over Rs 8 lakhs. The earlier petition for refund of a smaller amount had been dismissed by the Patna High Court on the ground of la

T. K. DAVIDversusKURUPPAMPADY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ORS.

2020 INSC 5765 October 2020Dismissed

The petitioner, a former employee of Kuruppampady Service Co‑operative Bank, challenged his compulsory retirement through a series of proceedings, including a writ petition, writ appeal and a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in 2015, all of which were dismissed. He later filed a review petition in the Kerala High Court aga

M.R. KRISHNA MURTHIversusTHE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & OTHERS

2019 INSC 3175 March 2019Disposed off

The appellant, an 18‑year‑old student from a family of senior Supreme Court lawyers, suffered a 40% permanent disability in a motor accident. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs 8,48,000 compensation with interest; the Delhi High Court added a Rs 50,000 lump‑sum and later enhanced the award by Rs 24,000 on r

MALATI SARDARversusNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.

2016 INSC 125 January 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased Diganta Sardar was killed in a bus accident in Hooghly, West Bengal, and his widow filed a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Kolkata, where the insurer had its business office. The Tribunal awarded Rs.16,12,200 as compens

DUSHYANT N. DALAL AND ANOTHERversusSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

2017 INSC 10044 October 2017Disposed off

The petitioners, Dushyant N. Dalal and his wife, were ordered by SEBI to disgorge unlawful gains of Rs.4.05 crore and pay a penalty of Rs.6 crore, with a debarment of seven years if unpaid. They challenged the SEBI order, arguing that interest could not be levied retrospectively under Section 28A of the SEBI Act and th

ANITA INTERNATIONALversusTUNGABADRA SUGAR WORKS MAZDOOR SANGH - AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 4894 July 2016Dismissed

Deve Sugars Ltd. was ordered to be wound up and its assets were taken over by an Official Liquidator. The State Bank of Mysore sought to recover a debt under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and obtained leave from the Company Court (High Court, Madras) on 10 March 2000, subject t

SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD.versusMUSIC BROADCAST PVT. LTD.

2012 INSC 2004 May 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Copyright Board, under Section 31(1)(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957, could grant an interim compulsory licence while a complaint was pending. The Board had earlier held it lacked such power, but the Delhi High Court reversed that view and directed the Board to grant an interim lice

CINE EXHIBITION PVT. LTD.versusCOLLECTOR, DISTRICT GWALIOR AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 64 January 2013Dismissed

Cine Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. filed Interlocutory Applications No.5 and 6 under Order XVIII Rule 5 seeking clarification or modification of a Supreme Court judgment dated 11 January 2012. The applications aimed to alter specific paragraphs, obtain official records, and modify operative directions concerning the Gwalior Dev

ORISSA OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION TH. GENERAL SECRETARYversusSTATE OF ORISSA & ANR.

2017 INSC 3103 April 2017Directions issued

The Orissa Olympic Association (OOA) was granted a lease of 20.808 acres for a stadium but later constructed 23 shops and a Kalyan Mandap (Barabati Palace) on land the State claims lies outside the lease. The Supreme Court, after a committee measured the leasehold area, found that the shops and part of the Mandap are o

N.ANANTHA REDDYversusANSHU KATHURIA & ORS.

2013 INSC 8022 December 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit against the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and the Assistant City Planner challenging a notice issued under Section 452 of the GHMC Act, 1955. The plaintiff's neighbour (appellant) sought to be impleaded, claiming infringement of his right to light and air. The trial court allowed th

RAJNI SANGHIversusWESTERN INDIAN STATE MOTORS LTD. & ORS.

2015 INSC 8741 December 2015Disposed off

The case involved four brothers who owned a family business and entered into an arbitration agreement in 1984 to partition the business. An arbitrator issued an award in 1987, but subsequent litigation in the Bombay, Rajasthan and Delhi High Courts resulted in family settlement schemes in 1994 and an amended settlement

RAM BALAK SINGHversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

2024 INSC 3601 May 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ram Balak Singh, claimed possession of 0.32 decimal of land that had been settled in favour of his adoptive father Makhan Singh by an ex‑landlord and later recorded in his name by the Consolidation Officer under the Bihar Consolidation Act. After the consolidation proceedings closed, the State of Bihar a

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search