S.K.Deshpande Associates

S.K.Deshpande Associates For the People who required legal assistance

09/02/2026

DALIP SINGH V/S SAWAN SINGH, SC 2025 (CIVIL APPEAL-3358/2010) BENG AN ADVOCAT
RIGHT TO REDEMPTION

SECTION 61(a)_LIMITATION ACT AND SECTION
52 TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT: - When there is a usufructuary mortgage, period of limitation does not run from date of creation of mortgage but from the date of payment of mortgage, either out of usufructuary or partly out of usufructuary or partly on payment of deposit by mortgager, as provided under Section 52 of TPA.
Till then, period of limitation would not start under Section 61(a) of Schedule to Limitation Act. As such mere expiry of period prescribed thereunder can not extinguish mortgager's right of redemption and thereby right of mortgagee to seek declaration of title and ownership over mortgage property stands untouched.

18/11/2025

AMIT SETHI V/S LALIT SETHI & ORS., DELHI HC
2025(CSOS) 936/2024)

HINDU SUCCESSION ACT

SECTION 8 OF HSA: - By operation of provisions under Section 8 HSA, property of father, who dies intestate, devolves on his son in his individual capacity and not as Karta of his own family. Therefore, so long as the father is alive, son cannot claim any right in his father's property, since Section 8 HSA excludes the concept of survivorship or birthright in case of intestate succession. A cause of action in favour of son would arise only upon father's death, intestate, when succession actually opens under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

18/11/2025

AMIT SETHI V/S LALIT SETHI & ORS., DELHI HC
2025(CSOS) 936/2024)
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT
SECTION 8 OF HSA: - By operation of provisions under Section 8 HSA, property of father, who dies intestate, devolves on his son in his individual capacity and not as Karta of his own family. Therefore, so long as the father is alive, son cannot claim any right in his father's property, since Section 8 HSA excludes the concept of survivorship or birthright in case of intestate succession. A cause of action in favour of son would arise only upon father's death, intestate, when succession actually opens under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

25/10/2025

CHAUDHARY DEVINDER SINGH VIS BALBIR KAUR AND OTHER, PHr 2025
(CR- 888-2021, 0 & M)
AD VALOREM COURT FEE
LAW SUMMED UP

If a non- executant is not in possession and he seeks not only a declaration that sale deed is invalid, but also a consequential relief of possession, he is to pay ad valorem Court fee, as provided u/s 7 (iv) (c) Court Fees Act and such valuation in case of immovable property shall not be less than the value of property, as calculated in manner provided for by Clause (v) of Section 7 of Court Fees Act.

27/08/2025

🙏🏻🌸🌺गणपति बाप्पा मोरया 🌺🌸🙏🏻

19/07/2025

LAWS(SC) -2023 - 11 - 13

Supreme Court Judgment

Production of electronic evidence can be produced at any stage of the trial. S.65B of the act is not required if electronic record is used as a primary evidence.
A. Evidence Act - S.65B - Facilitates the admissibility of electronic evidence through a flexible provision allowing its certification at any trial stage. This flexibility accommodates the dynamic nature of legal proceed-ings, enabling litigants to introduce electronic evidence with the requisite certificate conveniently. Such adaptability enhances trial efficiency, aligning with a pragmatic legislative intent that recognizes evolving technology and the need for a modern legal framework. This provision empowers litigants to judiciously use electronic evidence, contributing to a streamlined adjudi-cative process.
B. S.65B of the Act becomes dispensable when an electronic record serves as primary evidence, obviating the need for certification. In instances where electronic evidence takes precedence, the statutory requirement for a certificate under S.65B is superseded, allowing for the direct admissibility of such records without additional formalities.

10/07/2025

Vinod Infra Developers Ltd
Versus
Mahaveer Lunia & Ors

The Supreme Court held that a plaint cannot be dismissed in its entirety merely becnuse one of the reliefs sought is legally untenable, provided that other reliefs are maintainable and arise from independent causes of action.

29/06/2025

SMT. SEEMA BANSAL V/S SH. DURGA DASS BANSAL AND ORS.

-SUIT FOR POSSESSION-
EVICTOIN OF Daughter- in- law from matrimonial home. suit property is self acquired property of Father-in- law.

Suit filed by parents- in- law against son and daughter- in- law dismissed.
Daughter- in- law is a member of Joint Family under DV Act irrespective of whether household is a HUF or a self acquired property and thus, cannot be excluded from Shared Household, except in accordance with procedure established by law.

28/06/2025

Celebrating my 3rd year on Facebook. Thank you for your continuing support. I could never have made it without you. 🙏🤗🎉

31/05/2025

Gift Cannot Be Revoked for Non-Performance of Unconstitutional Condition

T. P. Act - S.126, 127, 122 & 123

- In a suit seeking resumption of gifted land, the donor had executed a gift deed in 1953 transferring the property allegedly in consideration of lifelong services by the donees and their heirs. The resumption was sought on the ground that the defendants discontinued rendering service to the donor's successors, allegedly breaching the condition of the gift. The Court held that a condition requiring perpetual service without remuneration amounts to forced labour or begar, which is not only illegal but also unconstitutional. Such a stipulation violates Art.14 and 21, and more specifically Art.23 of the Constitution, which prohibits forced labour in any form. As the gift deed was executed after the Constitution came into force, any condition requiring lifelong unpaid service cannot be enforced as it offends fundamental rights. The Court further observed that no equitable or moral consideration can validate a condition that is inherently unconstitutional. The High Court's dismissal of the suit while allowing the second appeal was found to be legally sound and required no interference. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that constitutional mandates override any such oppressive clauses in private ar-
rangements.

31/05/2025

Judgment on Admission under 0.12R.6 CPC Can Be Passed at Any Stage, Even Without Formal Application: Supreme Court Clarifies

CPC - 0.6R.5, 0.10R.1 & R.2, 0.12R.6 - Evidence Act - S.23 - 58 & 17

- The Supreme Court clarified the scope of 0.12R.6, holding that a judgment based on admission can be rendered at any stage of the suit. No separate or formal application is required to invoke this provision. Admissions can arise from statements recorded under O.10R.1 & 2, whether oral or in documents, and are binding. If admissions are clear and unambiguous, a judgment can be passed without a trial. The Court upheld the eviction of a tenant's son who occupied premises beyond the permissible period under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The defendant's admission of paying rent up to May 2021 in the deceased tenant's name confirmed the tenancy had not been transferred or renewed in his name. The trial court and High Court held that these admissions justified a decree under O.12R.6. The Supreme Court con-curred, stating that clear admissions established the plaintiff's right to recovery of possession. Discretion under O.12R.6 was rightly exercised, rendering a full trial unnecessary. The judgment emphasizes the importance of clear and unequivocal admissions in determining the outcome of a suit.

06/03/2025

Supreme Court Judgment

Recovery of Possession - Adverse Possession

A. CPC - S.100 & 96 - Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act - S.4 - Limitation Act - Art.65, 64, 142 & 144 - T.P.Act - S.7, 54 & 6(H) - The suit for recovery of possession was dismissed by the trial court on the ground of limitation. The first appellate court upheld the dismissal, concurring with the trial court's findings.
However, the concurrent findings of fact were found to be perverse, warranting interference in the second appeal. It is a settled legal principle that evidence without proper pleadings cannot be considered. The High Court, upon examining the case, found that the lower courts erred in their approach. Consequently, the second appeal was allowed, and the suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff. No legal infirmity was found in the judgment and decree passed by the High Court.
B. A plaintiff asserting ownership based on title must establish a valid legal right over the property. Once title is proven, the burden shifts to the defendant to substantiate a claim of adverse possession. Mere possession is insufficient unless the defendant demonstrates open, continuous, and hostile possession for the statutory period. Tenants or lessees cannot claim adverse possession against their landlord, as their possession is permissive in nature. The doctrine of adverse possession does not apply where possession originates with the owner's consent. The defendant failed to establish any hostile claim adverse to the rightful owner. Consequently, the civil appeal was dismissed.

Address

Pranav-2, Plot No. 99-B, Pande Layout, Khamla
Nagpur
440025

Telephone

+919921858809

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when S.K.Deshpande Associates 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 S.K.Deshpande Associates:

Shortcuts

Share

Category