Order XXII Rule 5 CPC. At the stage of substituting Legal Representatives the Court is only required to determine who has the right to represent the estate of the deceased for the purpose of continuing the litigation. A disputed Will cannot be used at this preliminary stage to exclude other natural heirs or to seek a summary adjudication on the Will's validity. Karnataka High Court.
Order XXII Rule 5 CPC. At the stage of substituting Legal Representatives the Court is only required to determine who has the right to represent the estate of the deceased for the purpose of continuing the litigation. A disputed Will cannot be used at this preliminary stage to exclude other natural heirs or to seek a summary adjudication on the Will's validity. Karnataka High Court.
  • 04-March-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
A suit for bare permanent injunction is maintainable even without a prayer for declaration of title, provided the plaintiff establishes 'settled possession' of the suit property as on the date of the suit. If the defendants fail to prove that they successfully dispossessed the plaintiff or that the plaintiff’s possession is unlawful, the court is bound to protect the plaintiff’s peaceful enjoyment of the property against any high-handed interference by the defendants. Karnataka High Court.
A suit for bare permanent injunction is maintainable even without a prayer for declaration of title, provided the plaintiff establishes 'settled possession' of the suit property as on the date of the suit. If the defendants fail to prove that they successfully dispossessed the plaintiff or that the plaintiff’s possession is unlawful, the court is bound to protect the plaintiff’s peaceful enjoyment of the property against any high-handed interference by the defendants. Karnataka High Court.
  • 04-March-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Pre-emptive suit by testator for avoiding disputes regarding execution and proof of Will.
Pre-emptive suit by testator for avoiding disputes regarding execution and proof of Will.
  • 21-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
Article
News
Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. In proceedings for the regularization of unauthorized cultivation of government land under Chapter XIII-A, an application cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the remaining land would be insufficient for free pasturage since the statutory proviso to the Rules explicitly exempts regularization cases from the requirement of maintaining a minimum pasturage limit and from the necessity of obtaining prior permission from the Deputy Commissioner for such reduction. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. In proceedings for the regularization of unauthorized cultivation of government land under Chapter XIII-A, an application cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the remaining land would be insufficient for free pasturage since the statutory proviso to the Rules explicitly exempts regularization cases from the requirement of maintaining a minimum pasturage limit and from the necessity of obtaining prior permission from the Deputy Commissioner for such reduction. Karnataka High Court.
  • 04-March-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Non mentioning of water bodies and storm water drain in the Comprehensive Development Plan is inconsequential for exercising statutory power to remove encroachment or blockage of natural water course which actually exist on the lands. A sanctioned building plan or the issuance of an Occupancy Certificate does not validate the encroachment or obstruction of a storm water drain. Karnataka High Court.
Non mentioning of water bodies and storm water drain in the Comprehensive Development Plan is inconsequential for exercising statutory power to remove encroachment or blockage of natural water course which actually exist on the lands. A sanctioned building plan or the issuance of an Occupancy Certificate does not validate the encroachment or obstruction of a storm water drain. Karnataka High Court.
  • 04-March-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Maintenance. Where the income of either party is disputed, the Court can suo motu or on the application of the spouse pass Production Order summoning income tax returns and related financial records from the Designated Officer of the Income Tax Department. Karnataka High Court.
Maintenance. Where the income of either party is disputed, the Court can suo motu or on the application of the spouse pass Production Order summoning income tax returns and related financial records from the Designated Officer of the Income Tax Department. Karnataka High Court.
  • 03-March-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Criminal law is not a shortcut to resolving property disputes or for settling scores in civil litigations. If the allegations in the FIR essentially comprise a civil grievance and are filed with a mala fide intent to harass the opposing party, the High Court must exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash such proceedings to prevent the miscarriage of justice. Karnataka High Court.
Criminal law is not a shortcut to resolving property disputes or for settling scores in civil litigations. If the allegations in the FIR essentially comprise a civil grievance and are filed with a mala fide intent to harass the opposing party, the High Court must exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash such proceedings to prevent the miscarriage of justice. Karnataka High Court.
  • 03-March-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Land acquisition. The power of eminent domain can be exercised by the State only for a legitimate 'public purpose' and must strictly adhere to the 'due process of law.' Any acquisition initiated on the basis of an incomplete application or conducted with undue haste to benefit a private entity at the cost of original landowners is arbitrary, violates the principles of natural justice, and is liable to be quashed. Karnataka High Court.
Land acquisition. The power of eminent domain can be exercised by the State only for a legitimate 'public purpose' and must strictly adhere to the 'due process of law.' Any acquisition initiated on the basis of an incomplete application or conducted with undue haste to benefit a private entity at the cost of original landowners is arbitrary, violates the principles of natural justice, and is liable to be quashed. Karnataka High Court.
  • 03-March-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Contract Act. A variation in the contract between the principal debtor and creditor without the surety’s consent discharges the surety only to the extent of the unauthorized change. The guarantor remains liable for the original sanctioned amount agreed upon but is absolved from liability for any excess or unauthorized extensions granted without their consent. Supreme Court.
Contract Act. A variation in the contract between the principal debtor and creditor without the surety’s consent discharges the surety only to the extent of the unauthorized change. The guarantor remains liable for the original sanctioned amount agreed upon but is absolved from liability for any excess or unauthorized extensions granted without their consent. Supreme Court.
  • 03-March-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement

Become A Member Get Instant Update

Daksha Legal Seminars

Daksha Legal Seminar on Model Tenancy Act

  • 03-October-2021 22:43

Panchanama - Evidentiary Value: Justice John Michael Cunha, Former Judge Karnataka High Court

  • 15-July-2021 03:42

Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code

  • 15-July-2021 03:40

Judgment on Basic Structure doctrine- Kenya High Court

  • 15-July-2021 03:37

Trial of Suits for Declaration of Title, Injunction and Possession. S.R.Somashekar, Principal District Judge (Rtd)

  • 30-May-2021 17:55

Trial of Partition Suits :Procedural Law (Part-I) Shri. S.R. Somashekara, Principal District Judge (Rtd) 28 May 2021

  • 30-May-2021 04:27

Discussion on Junior Advocates and guidance by Seniors.

  • 09-December-2020 06:19

Bail & Anticipatory Bail - M.S. Shyamsunder, Advocate, Bangalore

  • 09-December-2020 06:20

Woman as Coparcener. Legal Implications - Justice N Kumar

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Anup Shah

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Instruments Not Duly Stamped - Justice A N Venugopalagowda

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Withdrawal and Adjustment of Suits - Justice A N Venugopalagowda

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Judicial Review jurisdiction Prayers and Reliefs Mr Mohan V Katarki Senior Advocate Supreme Court

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Rejection of Plaint Justice A N Venugopalagowda 16 Sept 2020

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Driving License and Defence to Insurer - Mr S P Shankar Senior Advocate

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Termination of Contract & Drafting Termination Clause & Termination Notice - Ajay Nandalike. Adv.

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Daksha Legal Seminar Justice Ashok B Hinchigeri. "Civil Procedure Code. Order 26 Rule 9"

  • 25-November-2020 06:12

Daksha Legal Online seminar on disability laws with Jayna Kothari, Senior Advocate, Bangalore.

  • 25-November-2020 06:12

Article 370 - Bridge or Barricade? Seminar conducted by Daksha Legal - Mr. J Sai Deepak, Advocate

  • 25-November-2020 06:12

Daksha Legal discussion on Latest Judgement of Karnataka High Court on Hindu Law.

  • 25-November-2020 06:11

Client Reviews

Client Review 1
Client Review 2
Client Review 3
Client Review 4
'Supreme Court curtailing the inherent powers of the High Courts. Neither Legal nor Justified'. - B.V.Acharya, former Advocate General for Karnataka.
'Supreme Court curtailing the inherent powers of the High Courts. Neither Legal nor Justified'. - B.V.Acharya, former Advocate General for Karnataka.
  • 07-November-2024
  • Daksha Legal
Article
Tender. When the intending party responds to the tender notice, it is not permissible for such party to put forth its own conditions and seek variance in the conditions of tender. Karnataka High Court.
Tender. When the intending party responds to the tender notice, it is not permissible for such party to put forth its own conditions and seek variance in the conditions of tender. Karnataka High Court.
  • 08-October-2024
  • Daksha Legal
Article
Suit for specific performance. Purchaser of suit property from the defendant/vendor is a necessary party to the suit and can be impleaded. Karnataka High Court.
Suit for specific performance. Purchaser of suit property from the defendant/vendor is a necessary party to the suit and can be impleaded. Karnataka High Court.
  • 03-October-2024
  • Daksha Legal
Article
Suit for specific performance. Plaintiff can seek amendment of pleading to declare that collusive decree between his vendor and third party is not binding on him. Court must prevent multiplicity of the proceedings. Karnataka High Court.
Suit for specific performance. Plaintiff can seek amendment of pleading to declare that collusive decree between his vendor and third party is not binding on him. Court must prevent multiplicity of the proceedings. Karnataka High Court.
  • 01-October-2024
  • Daksha Legal
Article
Tender. Courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender because it feels that some other terms would have been fair, wiser or logical. Karnataka High Court.
Tender. Courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender because it feels that some other terms would have been fair, wiser or logical. Karnataka High Court.
  • 30-September-2024
  • Daksha Legal
Article
Negotiable Instruments Act. Cheque issued towards refund of advance sale consideration upon the failure to execute the sale deed, attracts the provisions of the Act. Karnataka High Court.
Negotiable Instruments Act. Cheque issued towards refund of advance sale consideration upon the failure to execute the sale deed, attracts the provisions of the Act. Karnataka High Court.
  • 28-September-2024
  • Daksha Legal
Article