• 

  Where the plaintiff establishes a clear legal title but has suppressed the dismissal of the earlier suit for injunction, the court should not deny the relief of declaration and consequential possession, as this would unjustly divest the title. The court should instead grant title and possession and impose a penalty, such as modifying the decree, to address the misconduct and resolve the dispute. Karnataka High Court.

  • 25-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Indian Evidence Act. Power conferred upon the court by Section 73 to direct a person present in court to write words or figures for comparison is limited to the court's own necessity in determining the truth of a disputed writing. This provision cannot be used by a party to compel an opposing party or witness to provide sample writings for the advancement of the moving party's case or defence, as such an action amounts to an unauthorized attempt to collect evidence. Karnataka High Court.

  • 25-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Hindu Succession Act. Property acquired through a Will from a collateral (such as brother or uncle) is separate property, not coparcenary property. Succession opens under Section 8 leading to equal shares for all Class I heirs. Karnataka High Court.

  • 25-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Transfer of Property Act. Quit notice issued to tenant by registered post returned with postal shara ‘’insufficient address’’ is presumed served under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. Karnataka High Court.

  • 24-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Limitation Act. A suit for the enforcement of a right of pre-emption is maintainable if filed within one year from the date of assignment of shares by a joint family member in favour of a third party. Karnataka High Court.

  • 24-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Transfer of Property Act. Protection of possession based on the doctrine of part performance is available only when the contract for transfer of immovable property is evidenced by a registered instrument, particularly in respect of documents executed after the statutory amendment. Karnataka High Court.

  • 24-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  An application to amend the plaint, even if filed after the commencement of trial or conclusion of arguments, may be allowed when it merely adds an alternative prayer without altering the nature of the suit or the original cause of action, so as to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. Karnataka High Court.

  • 24-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A superior court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 can refuse a successive remand to a statutory tribunal that has repeatedly failed to discharge its basic adjudicatory duty, such as examining evidence, despite earlier directions. Karnataka High Court.

  • 24-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Properties mortgaged to a Bank as collateral security, and acquired prior to the alleged offenses, do not constitute 'proceeds of crime' under the PMLA. The attachment of such properties undermines the Bank's rights as a secured creditor to recover public money under the SARFAESI Act, especially if the Bank was not issued notice under Section 8 of the PMLA. Karnataka High Court.

  • 23-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. A Co-operative Society cannot nominate any member of its board to vote on its behalf in more than two other Co-operative Societies. If a member/delegate has already represented the Co-operative Society in two previous elections, he becomes ineligible to represent the society and vote as a delegate in a subsequent, third election. Karnataka High Court.

  • 23-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Land Grant Rules Grantee of land must be afforded an opportunity to pay the assessed value of the standing trees within the time prescribed by the granting authority. Any cancellation of the grant without adhering to this procedure is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Karnataka High Court.

  • 23-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  The trial courts may, during the trial and in the interest of effective administration of justice, indicate the nature of evidence it expects from both parties. Such guidance cannot be construed as the Court siding with either party. Courts are vested with the authority to insist upon better and more satisfactory proof where necessary. Karnataka High Court.

  • 23-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal