Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Transfer of Property Act, 1882

38 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

A.B. GOVARDHANversusP. RAGOTHAMAN

2024 INSC 64029 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant advanced a Rs.10 lakh loan to the respondent, securing it by two registered mortgages and four promissory notes. When the respondent defaulted, he handed over the title deeds of a Chennai property as security under a later agreement, promising to register a sale deed and repay a balance of Rs.2 lakh. The

H. ANJANAPPA & ORS.versusA. PRABHAKAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 12129 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of a sale deed, while the defendants sold portions of the disputed land to Respondents No.1 and No.2 during the pendency of the suit, violating a temporary injunction and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The respondents sought to be impleaded under Order I

PREM PRAKASHversusUNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

2024 INSC 63728 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Prem Prakash was in judicial custody for a separate ECIR (No. 4 of 2022) when the Enforcement Directorate recorded statements from him under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for a new ECIR (No. 5 of 2023). The High Court had denied his bail, relying on those statements, but the

M.S. ANANTHAMURTHY & ANR.versusJ. MANJULA

2025 INSC 27327 February 2025Dismissed

The case involved a dispute over a plot of land originally owned by Muniyappa, who executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) and an agreement to sell in favour of A. Saraswathi in 1986. After Muniyappa's death in 1997, Saraswathi, as GPA holder, executed a registered sale deed in 1998 transferring the property to her

ROHIT KOCHHARversusVIPUL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LTD. & ORS.

2024 INSC 92026 November 2024Dismissed

Rohit Kochhar filed a suit in the Delhi High Court seeking specific performance and a permanent injunction for a commercial property situated in Gurgaon. The defendants contested the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the relief required execution and registration of a sale deed in Gurgaon, which would forc

DOGIPARTHI VENKATA SATISH AND ANR.versusPILLA DURGA PRASAD & ORS.

2025 INSC 104626 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants owned a property that was leased to Aditya Motors, a sole proprietorship of Pilla Durga Prasad. After the lease expired, the appellants filed an eviction suit against the lessee and its assignees. The suit was later amended to substitute the proprietor, Pilla Durga Prasad, in place of the firm. The defen

N. THAJUDEENversusTAMIL NADU KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD

2024 INSC 81724 October 2024Dismissed

The Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board (respondent) sued to confirm its title and recover possession of a property it claimed to have received by a registered gift deed dated 5 March 1983 from the appellant. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the gift deed was never accepted or acted upon,

SHYAMSUNDAR RADHESHYAM AGRAWAL & ANR.versusPUSHPABAI NILKANTH PATIL & ORS.

2024 INSC 73024 September 2024Dismissed

The appellants filed a suit for declaration and injunction, after which the defendant sought impoundment of six agreements for sale on the ground that they effected transfer of possession and were therefore conveyances requiring stamp duty and registration. The trial court and the High Court ordered the documents impou

N.P. SASEENDRANversusN.P. PONNAMMA & ORS.

2025 INSC 38824 March 2025Dismissed

The appellant (son) challenged a decree of the Kerala High Court that declared a 1985 deed executed by his father in favour of his sister (plaintiff) to be a settlement and a valid gift, thereby invalidating a later cancellation deed and sale deed dated 19.10.1993. The core issue was whether the 1985 instrument was a g

SIVAKUMARversusTHE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR.

2025 INSC 55823 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Manager at the Head Office of HDFC Ltd., was charged in an FIR for allegedly suppressing the fact that a mortgaged property had been acquired by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and for cheating the purchaser at a public auction conducted in 2012. He filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking t

RAJEEV GUPTA & ORS.versusPRASHANT GARG & ORS.

2025 INSC 55223 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs, heirs of Dr. Karam Chand, sued the appellants for cancellation of two 1992 sale deeds and recovery of possession of a family house, alleging that the deeds were void because the vendor, Ramesh Chand, had no title and that a will favouring the plaintiffs had been admitted in earlier suits. The trial cour

HUSSAIN AHMED CHOUDHURY & ORS.versusHABIBUR RAHMAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS.

2025 INSC 55323 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs, heirs of Siraj Uddin Choudhury, claimed title to land based on a 1958 registered Gift Deed executed by their grandfather. The defendants later executed a sale deed on 5 May 1997, which the plaintiffs alleged was void because the vendors lacked title. The trial court and first appellate court upheld the

RAMAKANT AMBALAL CHOKSIversusHARISH AMBALAL CHOKSI & OTHERS

2024 INSC 91322 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs, a group of brothers and their wives, sued the defendants, their brothers and sons, to cancel a sale deed and obtain a permanent injunction after the defendants allegedly transferred the jointly owned property to a son for a nominal consideration using a power of attorney that was not intended for sale.

VINOD INFRA DEVELOPERS LTD.versusMAHAVEER LUNIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 77222 May 2025

Vinod Infra Developers Ltd., the owner of agricultural land, sued Mahaveer Lunia and others for declaration, possession and injunction after the respondents executed sale deeds despite the appellant's revocation of a power of attorney and board resolution. The respondents filed an Order VII Rule 11 application seeking

MANSOOR SAHEB (DEAD) & ORS.versusSALIMA (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 92319 December 2024Dismissed

The case concerned a dispute over agricultural and house property owned by Sultan Saheb, who died in 1978. The plaintiffs claimed they were entitled to a one‑sixth share as heirs, while the defendants alleged that Sultan had partitioned the land among his sons during his lifetime and later gifted two portions to them.

MEERA DEVI (D) THR. LR.versusDINESH CHANDRA JOSHI (D) THR. LRS.

2024 INSC 72519 September 2024Appeal(s) allowed

Meera Devi, the owner of a house in Jhansi, filed an eviction suit against tenant Dinesh Chandra Joshi for non-payment of rent. The trial court ordered eviction and payment of compensation, but the High Court later set aside the suit. During the pendency of the appeal, the Supreme Court directed the tenant to pay rent

GANGUBAI RAGHUNATH AYAREversusGANGARAM SAKHARAM DHURI (D) THR. LRS AND ORS.

2025 INSC 35516 March 2025Disposed off

The plaintiff, Gangubai Raghunath Ayare, sued for administration of her father‑in‑law's estate and sought to declare a sale deed by her brother Vishnu null and void. The trial court dismissed the administration claim for lack of necessary parties but declared the sale deed void and ordered possession of half the proper

PNB HOUSING FINANCE LIMITEDversusSH. MANOJ SAHA & ANR

2025 INSC 84715 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, PNB Housing Finance Ltd., took symbolic and later physical possession of a premises that had been offered as security for a loan to the borrower (2nd Respondent) after the borrower defaulted. The 1st Respondent claimed to be a tenant of the premises since 1987 under an unregistered lease and sought resto

P. RAVINDRANATH & ANR.versusSASIKALA & ORS.

2024 INSC 53315 July 2024Case Allowed

The plaintiffs entered into an agreement to sell a Bangalore property in 1981, paying an advance but failing to execute the sale deed within the stipulated three‑month period, citing a government restriction on registration. The defendants sent multiple notices demanding payment of the balance and eventually forfeited

THE CORRESPONDENCE, RBANMS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONversusB. GUNASHEKAR & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 49015 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The R.B.A.N.M.S. Educational Institution, a charitable trust in possession of a Bangalore property since 1905, was sued by respondents who claimed a right to prevent the institution from alienating the land based on an alleged 2018 agreement to sell and an advance cash payment of Rs.75 lakh. The institution filed an ap

SHINGARA SINGHversusDALJIT SINGH & ANR

2024 INSC 77014 October 2024Dismissed

Daljit Singh filed a suit on 24‑12‑1992 seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 17‑08‑1990. While the suit was pending, Janraj Singh (defendant No.1) executed a sale deed on 08‑01‑1993 in favour of Shingara Singh (defendant No.2/appellant). The Trial Court dismissed the specific‑performance claim but

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND OTHERSversusVIVEK V. GAWDE ETC. ETC.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 84313 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned eviction proceedings initiated by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai against occupants who held premises on a licence basis. The respondents challenged the Inquiry Officer's authority and the High Court's order that framed nine specific points for the Officer to determine, alleging violation

RAMESH MISHRIMAL JAINversusAVINASH VISHWANATH PATNE & ANR.

2025 INSC 21313 February 2025Dismissed

The appellant, Ramesh Mishrimal Jain, entered into an agreement to sell dated 03‑09‑2003 with the mother of respondent No.1 concerning a house in Khed. The agreement stipulated that the appellant was already in possession of the property as a tenant and that ownership possession would transfer only after execution of a

SHANTI DEVI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. GORANversusJAGAN DEVI & ORS.

2025 INSC 110512 September 2025Dismissed

The plaintiffs claimed a one‑third share in agricultural land and sought a permanent injunction and joint possession, alleging that a sale deed dated 14‑06‑1973 was fraudulent and void because they never executed it and received no consideration. The trial court dismissed the suit as time‑barred; the First Appellate Co

SMT. NARESH KUMARI & ORS.versusSMT. CHAMELI & ORS.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 69311 December 2024Dismissed

The appellants, heirs of Rai Bahadur Randhir Singh, claimed that a 1953 oral gift of 38 Bighas of land to the respondents was conditional on the donees rendering lifelong services to the donor and his heirs, and that the cessation of such services entitled the donors to resume possession. The trial court and first appe

RUPA AND CO. LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusFIRHAD HAKIM AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 24511 February 2025Directions issued

The appellants Rupa & Co. Ltd paid Rs.4,00,92,000 for a plot of land in New Town, Kolkata, based on HIDCO's promise to convey it on a free‑hold basis. HIDCO later altered the terms to a 99‑year lease and subsequently demanded additional payment at market rates, prompting the appellants to file a writ petition which the

M/S SIDDAMSETTY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.versusKATTA SUJATHA REDDY & ORS.

2024 INSC 8618 November 2024

The petitioner, Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., entered into two agreements to sell agricultural land with the respondents in 1997, paid a substantial portion of the consideration, and sought specific performance after the respondents refused to execute the sale deed. The trial court dismissed the suit, the High

SAMIULLAHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 12927 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants challenged the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 amendments that introduced sub‑rules (xvii) and (xviii) to Rule 19, which made the production of jamabandi or holding‑allotment proof a condition precedent for registering sale or gift documents. The High Court of Patna dismissed the writ petitions, holding t

PREM AGGARWALversusMOHAN SINGH & ORS.

2025 INSC 12147 October 2025Dismissed

The appellant, Prem Aggarwal, entered into an agreement to purchase a property in 1989, paid Rs.25,000 as earnest money and later sued for specific performance, which the Supreme Court dismissed on the ground of bar under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, but awarded her Rs.2 crore as compensation. The respondents deposited

DHARMRAO SHARANAPPA SHABADI AND OTHERSversusSYEDA ARIFA PARVEEN

2025 INSC 11877 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Syeda Arifa Parveen, claimed ownership of 24 acres of agricultural land on the basis of being the sole daughter of Khadijabee and of an oral gift (hiba) of 10 acres made by her mother. The trial court rejected the oral gift but granted her a 3/4 share of the remaining land, while the Karnataka High Court

THE COSMOS CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.versusCENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 2434 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Cosmos Co. Operative Bank Ltd. (appellant) challenged a High Court order that held Central Bank of India (respondent No.1) had the first charge over a flat mortgaged by the original borrowers. Both banks had received security documents: the appellant bank held the share certificate of ownership, while the responden

RAMESH CHAND (D) THR. LRS.versusSURESH CHAND AND ANR.

2025 INSC 10591 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff claimed title to a Delhi property on the basis of an agreement to sell, a general power of attorney, a receipt of consideration, an affidavit and a registered will executed by his father, Kundan Lal. The trial court and High Court had upheld his claim, but the Supreme Court examined whether these document

SMT. UMA DEVI AND ORS.versusSRI. ANAND KUMAR AND ORS.

2025 INSC 4341 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs, grandchildren of Shivanna, filed a suit for partition of ancestral immovable property in 2023, alleging denial of their share. The defendants moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, contending that the property had been orally partitioned in 1968 and that registered sale deeds executed in

SRI MAHESHversusSANGRAM & ORS

2025 INSC 141 January 2025Case Partly allowed

The appellant, an adopted son, claimed entitlement to half of his adoptive mother's joint family property and challenged two alienations— a sale deed (2007) and a gift deed (2008) executed by the adoptive mother after his adoption. The dispute hinged on whether the adoption of a widow’s son relates back to the husband'

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