Where an Executing Court considers an application under Order XXI Rule 58 or Rules 97 to 101 of the CPC, evaluates the documents, and renders a finding on merits, the order constitutes an adjudication under the Code and attains the status of a deemed decree under Order XXI Rule 58(4) and Rule 103 of the CPC. Consequently, a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable, and the aggrieved party must avail the alternative statutory remedy of an appeal. Karnataka High Court.
Where an Executing Court considers an application under Order XXI Rule 58 or Rules 97 to 101 of the CPC, evaluates the documents, and renders a finding on merits, the order constitutes an adjudication under the Code and attains the status of a deemed decree under Order XXI Rule 58(4) and Rule 103 of the CPC. Consequently, a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable, and the aggrieved party must avail the alternative statutory remedy of an appeal. Karnataka High Court.
  • 14-November-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
A suit for partition is founded on a continuing cause of action, with no prescribed period of limitation. Properties acquired under a registered settlement deed constitute separate or self-acquired properties in the hands of the recipient, whose children are entitled to equal shares. A co-sharer whose share is sold by another co-sharer is not required to seek a declaration or cancellation of a sale deed executed. Karnataka High Court.
A suit for partition is founded on a continuing cause of action, with no prescribed period of limitation. Properties acquired under a registered settlement deed constitute separate or self-acquired properties in the hands of the recipient, whose children are entitled to equal shares. A co-sharer whose share is sold by another co-sharer is not required to seek a declaration or cancellation of a sale deed executed. Karnataka High Court.
  • 14-November-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Why is a regime-change revolution difficult in India?
Why is a regime-change revolution difficult in India?
  • 21-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Article
News
An employer cannot invoke estoppel merely because an employee accepted regular appointment from a later date to deny retrospective regularisation and consequential back wages already secured under a judicial order that has attained finality. Imposing fresh conditions contrary to that order constitutes an abuse of the employer’s unequal bargaining power, and acceptance of such conditions does not defeat the employee’s accrued entitlement. Supreme Court.
An employer cannot invoke estoppel merely because an employee accepted regular appointment from a later date to deny retrospective regularisation and consequential back wages already secured under a judicial order that has attained finality. Imposing fresh conditions contrary to that order constitutes an abuse of the employer’s unequal bargaining power, and acceptance of such conditions does not defeat the employee’s accrued entitlement. Supreme Court.
  • 13-November-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Town Planning. Once land is lawfully de-reserved from a public purpose and private ownership is recognised, the authority cannot continue to treat it as reserved for public use merely because of its original earmarking. Any subsequent reservation must have an independent lawful basis. Supreme Court.
Town Planning. Once land is lawfully de-reserved from a public purpose and private ownership is recognised, the authority cannot continue to treat it as reserved for public use merely because of its original earmarking. Any subsequent reservation must have an independent lawful basis. Supreme Court.
  • 13-November-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Legal representatives of a deceased party have the right to challenge an arbitral award under Section 34 since they step into the shoes of the deceased party and cannot be made liable under an award without having the right to challenge it. Supreme Court. 2026 Daksha Legal SC 875.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Legal representatives of a deceased party have the right to challenge an arbitral award under Section 34 since they step into the shoes of the deceased party and cannot be made liable under an award without having the right to challenge it. Supreme Court. 2026 Daksha Legal SC 875.
  • 13-November-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
A husband’s obligation to maintain his wife is a primary duty that cannot be subordinated to loan repayments or other financial commitments, particularly those creating assets. Such repayments cannot be equated with necessary expenditure to substantially reduce his maintenance liability. Supreme Court
A husband’s obligation to maintain his wife is a primary duty that cannot be subordinated to loan repayments or other financial commitments, particularly those creating assets. Such repayments cannot be equated with necessary expenditure to substantially reduce his maintenance liability. Supreme Court
  • 13-November-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Hindu Succession Act. A son or grandson cannot claim coparcenary rights by birth in property that has devolved upon his father in his individual capacity under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Hindu Succession Act. A son or grandson cannot claim coparcenary rights by birth in property that has devolved upon his father in his individual capacity under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
  • 12-November-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Hindu Law. A son-in-law does not become a member or coparcener of his father-in-law’s Hindu joint family merely by residing with the family or assisting in acquiring properties. Any contribution towards joint acquisition may support a claim of co-ownership, subject to proof, but does not confer coparcenary status. Karnataka High Court.
Hindu Law. A son-in-law does not become a member or coparcener of his father-in-law’s Hindu joint family merely by residing with the family or assisting in acquiring properties. Any contribution towards joint acquisition may support a claim of co-ownership, subject to proof, but does not confer coparcenary status. Karnataka High Court.
  • 13-November-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement

Become A Member Get Instant Update

Daksha Legal Seminars

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
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
'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