Law Made Easy

Law Made Easy From the experiences of -
Rakesh Verma, Civil Advocate
303/8, Civil Court,G. Noida
Email : [email protected]
Ph: 9560824198

22/02/2026

Law cares for ink.
Not for words.

22/02/2026

Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Developer Only Liable For Delay In Delivery Of Possession.

Not The Owner Of Land.

No Joint Liability Can Be Fixed.
Landowners Not Liable for Developer's Delay in Handing Over Possession of Flats Despite Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney

The Supreme Court held that landowners cannot be held jointly and severally liable for delay in handing over possession of flats, as the obligation to complete construction rested solely with the developer under the Joint Development Agreement.

The Court clarified that merely executing a General Power of Attorney in favour of the developer does not create principal-agent liability for construction delays, and landowners are only responsible for transferring title, not for the developer's deficiencies in construction.

Supreme Court of India

Sriganesh Chandrasekaran & Others v. M/S Unishire Homes LLP & Others

Date Of Judgement: February 20, 2026

22/02/2026

Statement of Advocate without consent of his client is not binding on the client.

Allahabad High Court has dismissed a contempt application, ruling that a statement made by a counsel before the court without specific instructions from him is not acceptable.

Ram Shanker Shukla And Another Vs. Madhukar Shukla And 7 Ors.

Case Number: Contempt Application (Civil) No. 99 of 2010

Judge: Justice Manish

21/02/2026

Injunction

1. In a case for injunction plaintiff to prove that he is an owner in possession of the property.
2. Weakness of the case of the defendant is not relevant.

2021(152) RD 84
Hanuman Mandir vs Kanpur Development Authority

21/02/2026

Ex-parte decree-
Restoration - Appeal -

1 Restoration as well as appeal can be filed simultaneously against the ex- party decree.

2. When appeal is filed against ex-parte decree during pendency of the restoration application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC, it cannot be said that appeal is not maintainable.

3. But if the appeal is decided, the restoration application shall stand rejected.

2021(153) RD 420

Suresh vs Board of Revenue

20/02/2026

Tenancy of joint property.

The joint property cannot be leased out by only one joint co-owner.

If property is let out by one co-owner its boundary must be given as to which portion of joint property has been let out.

If not, the possession of the tenant shall be unlawful

In the absence of any description of the property leased out to the respondent-defendant (first set) by the respondent-defendant (second set) and the property being a joint property of petitioners-plaintiffs and respondent-defendant (second set), the possession of the respondent-defendant (first set) on the strength of said lease deed prima facie cannot be said to be lawful for the reason that the property being joint property, it has to be leased out by all co-sharer and the description of the property has to be given in the lease deed specifying which portion of the property has been leased out to respondents-defendants (first set).

Sadare Alam and Ors. vs. Ram Awadh and Ors. (25.07.2022 - ALLHC) :
MANU/UP/1982/2022

20/02/2026

Court Fee

When defendant is not licensee and suit for possession is filed, ad velorum court fee to be paid

The suit has not been filed by the licensor, but by a subsequent purchaser, who is not bound by the terms of the license in view of Section 59 of the Indian Easement Act.

There was no relationship of licensor and licensee between the plaintiffs and the defendant and, thus, in view of above, the court fees was payable under Section 7(v) of the Act.

Sudhir Bansal and Ors. vs. Girish Bansal (26.05.2015 - ALLHC) : MANU/UP/0526/2015

20/02/2026

CPC ORDER 1 RULE 10

Court has no jurisdictional power to add a person as a party who is neither a necessary party nor a proper party.

Ruma Chakraborty vs. Sudha Rani Banerjee and Ors. (04.10.2005 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0919/2005

19/02/2026

Specific Performance.

Determinable contract.

A contract which can be revoked unilaterally is a determinable contract.

For a Contract to become determinable, it has to be shown by defendant that its clauses and terms are such that it would become possible for either of the parties to determine and terminate it without assigning any reason.

The Kerala High Court in T.O. Abraham v. Jose Thomas, 2017 SCC OnLine Ker 19872, defined what is meant by determinable Contract. It was observed that for a Contract to become determinable, it has to be shown by defendant that its clauses and terms are such that it would become possible for either of the parties to determine and terminate it without assigning any reason.

Delhi High Court
Rohit Malhotra vs Gurvinder Singh Toor on 28 June, 2024
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna

19/02/2026

Rakesh Verma Advocate.
🔲🔲

CPC Oreder 21 Rule 97.
Law in a nutshell.

a. Even a stranger can file objection under Order 21 Rule 97.

b. The executing court to decide all question raised in the objection under Order 21 Rule 97 after taking evidence.

c. The Judgement under Order 21 Rule 97 amounts to decree and applicable under Order 21 Rule 100.

d. Objection Under Order 21 Rule 97 cannot be rejected summarily. It is to be decided on merit.

e. Any person in valid possession can file objection under Order 21 Rule 97 and can pray that the decree is not executed against him and he is entitled to protected his possession unless a valid decree is passed against him.

Hashme vs. Ali Ahamad.
2015(127) RD 357
&

Sameer Singh vs. Abdul Raw
2015(128) RD 412 SC,

17/01/2026

2024(167) ALR 675
U.P Awas Vikas Parishad vs Sirajuddin

1. When location/ survey/ identification of a plot is in question, survey commission necessary to be issued.
Relied-
2000(40) ALR 534
Shripal vs Rajendra Prasad

2. Survey commission to be carried out after locating the "fixed points".
3. But when survey not possible, " total station method" that is laser method should be allowed. This is a modern way to locate the property.

15/02/2025

Every defence need not be considered.

Only such defence as give rise to clear and bona fide dispute or triable issues should be put to trial.

And not illusory or unnecessary or mala fide based on false or untenable pleas, to delay the suit to be considered.

it is a notorious fact that to drag the case, a litigant often takes all sorts of false or legally untenable pleas and itg was held that legal process should not be allowed to be misused by such persons

Zulfiquar Ali Khan Vs Straw Products Ltd. 87(2000) DLT 76, w

Address

Greater Noida
201306

Telephone

+919560824198

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Law Made Easy posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Law Made Easy:

Shortcuts

Share

Category