2026 Daksha Legal Kar 97-109. Rejection of plaint. A plaintiff cannot selectively challenge a recent transaction while ignoring the foundational registered sale deeds executed by the predecessors-in-title decades earlier; failure to challenge the root of the title within the prescribed period renders any subsequent challenge to the derivative title barred by limitation. Karnataka High Court.
2026 Daksha Legal Kar 97-109. Rejection of plaint. A plaintiff cannot selectively challenge a recent transaction while ignoring the foundational registered sale deeds executed by the predecessors-in-title decades earlier; failure to challenge the root of the title within the prescribed period renders any subsequent challenge to the derivative title barred by limitation. Karnataka High Court.
  • 25-May-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
2026 Daksha Legal Kar 97-109. A suit for partition coupled with a prayer for cancellation of a sale deed is required to be instituted within the period of three years under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act. Where the suit is instituted beyond the period of limitation, the plaint is liable to be rejected as being barred by law. Karnataka High Court.
2026 Daksha Legal Kar 97-109. A suit for partition coupled with a prayer for cancellation of a sale deed is required to be instituted within the period of three years under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act. Where the suit is instituted beyond the period of limitation, the plaint is liable to be rejected as being barred by law. Karnataka High Court.
  • 25-May-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
Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India. 1978 Daksha Legal SC 1
Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India. 1978 Daksha Legal SC 1
  • 25-May-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
2026 Daksha Legal SC 114-124. Specific Relief Act. It is not mandatory for a plaintiff to move an application under Section 28 to annul the judgement since the Court can treat the contract as having rescinded for non-compliance of the condition in the decree. Supreme Court.
2026 Daksha Legal SC 114-124. Specific Relief Act. It is not mandatory for a plaintiff to move an application under Section 28 to annul the judgement since the Court can treat the contract as having rescinded for non-compliance of the condition in the decree. Supreme Court.
  • 25-May-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala - 1973 Daksha Legal 1-1240
Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala - 1973 Daksha Legal 1-1240
  • 25-May-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Daksha Legal SC 102-113. Will. Mere exclusion of the natural heirs from the property of the testator, by itself, does not invalidate a Will unless the exclusion is accompanied by suspicious circumstances affecting the genuineness or due execution of a Will. Supreme Court
Daksha Legal SC 102-113. Will. Mere exclusion of the natural heirs from the property of the testator, by itself, does not invalidate a Will unless the exclusion is accompanied by suspicious circumstances affecting the genuineness or due execution of a Will. Supreme Court
  • 22-May-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
2026 Daksha Legal Kar 91-96. ‘No waiver against the statutory right’. Mere delay in approaching the Court for maintenance does not disentitle wife, parents or children from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Karnataka High Court.
2026 Daksha Legal Kar 91-96. ‘No waiver against the statutory right’. Mere delay in approaching the Court for maintenance does not disentitle wife, parents or children from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Karnataka High Court.
  • 22-May-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
2026 Daksha Legal Kar 77-90. Section 231(2) Cr.P.C. Where multiple witnesses are set to testify on the same set of facts, and a reasonable apprehension of 'tutoring' or 'overlapping testimony' is raised by the defense, the Trial Court is legally bound to defer the cross-examination of key witnesses until the examination-in-chief of other related witnesses is completed. Failure to do so constitutes a manifest error of jurisdiction that undermines the fairness of the trial. Karnataka High Court.
2026 Daksha Legal Kar 77-90. Section 231(2) Cr.P.C. Where multiple witnesses are set to testify on the same set of facts, and a reasonable apprehension of 'tutoring' or 'overlapping testimony' is raised by the defense, the Trial Court is legally bound to defer the cross-examination of key witnesses until the examination-in-chief of other related witnesses is completed. Failure to do so constitutes a manifest error of jurisdiction that undermines the fairness of the trial. Karnataka High Court.
  • 21-May-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