rajdakshalegal

Land Acquisition Act. A landowner can maintain second application under Section 28A of the Act seeking redetermination of market value of his land in the event of further enhancement by the appellate court in respect of other lands. Karnataka High Court.

Land Acquisition Act. A landowner can maintain second application under Section 28A of the Act seeking redetermination of market value of his land in the event of further enhancement by the appellate court in respect of other lands. Karnataka High Court. To know more click the link below https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/fTzDICdy2CgwyRkxXzydAu7Hh

Children born to second/void marriage are entitled to equal share in the self-acquired property of their father along with the children from the first marriage. Karnataka High Court.

Children born to second/void marriage are entitled to equal share in the self-acquired property of their father along with the children from the first marriage. Karnataka High Court. To know more click the link below https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/knKHtUzt46DcBx4ofYongDu0b

Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act. Power conferred on Adhyaksha to stay the execution of any order or resolution of Taluk Panchayat is not appellate in nature to decide the dispute itself. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act. Power conferred on Adhyaksha to stay the execution of any order or resolution of Taluk Panchayat is not appellate in nature to decide the dispute itself. Karnataka High Court. To know more click the link below https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/JMf7MU2PLgSOgADIZ0y0NwCaZ

Children of predeceased brother are also entitled to succeed to the property of the prepositus under the Mysore Hindu Law Women’s Rights Act, 1933. Karnataka High Court.

Children of predeceased brother are also entitled to succeed to the property of the prepositus under the Mysore Hindu Law Women’s Rights Act, 1933. Karnataka High Court. To know more click the link below https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Jqs83VRQOMRdEvv5p29UoMiO0

Limitation Act. When plaintiff’s title is not in dispute and the plea of adverse possession fails, suit for possession based on title cannot be said to be barred by time under Section 65. Karnataka High Court.

Limitation Act. When plaintiff’s title is not in dispute and the plea of adverse possession fails, suit for possession based on title cannot be said to be barred by time under Section 65. Karnataka High Court. To know more click the link below https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/TGwG0RcnU5x3lkVJdJlEqIl5g

‘’Power of review is a creature of Statute’’. Deputy Commissioner has no power to review the order under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Karnataka High Court.

‘’Power of review is a creature of Statute’’. Deputy Commissioner has no power to review the order under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Karnataka High Court. To know more click the link below https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/ZTwoZ2y19jfd8MwGY1OLcIbh6

Principle of ‘’Boundaries prevail over Measurements’’ would not apply when the measurement/extent given in the document is clear, definite, specific, unambiguous and certain. Karnataka High Court.

Principle of ‘’Boundaries prevail over Measurements’’ would not apply when the measurement/extent given in the document is clear, definite, specific, unambiguous and certain. Karnataka High Court. To know more click the link below https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/VEzLp33gdWVfi7uOlK55ob3qX

Contract Act. Section 65. Vendor cannot refuse to refund advance amount to the purchaser on the ground that the sale agreement itself was void or illegal. Karnataka High Court.

Contract Act. Section 65. Vendor cannot refuse to refund advance amount to the purchaser on the ground that the sale agreement itself was void or illegal. Karnataka High Court. To know more click the link below https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/8SybbIzmSohMSPqSSgtSMfrXg

Suit for possession based on illegal dispossession shall be filed within six months from the date of dispossession. Subsequent amendment for possession in a pending suit for injunction will not cure the defect. Karnataka High Court.

Suit for possession based on illegal dispossession shall be filed within six months from the date of dispossession. Subsequent amendment for possession in a pending suit for injunction will not cure the defect. Karnataka High Court. To know more click the link below https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/ZfUUcS30hrjBnifZx4Mlmwfz6

Suit for injunction without disclosing identity of the property as required under Order 7 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code is not maintainable. Karnataka High Court.

Suit for injunction without disclosing identity of the property as required under Order 7 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code is not maintainable. Karnataka High Court. To know more click the link below https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/sOhUDFINMAE6mQRCR1MT99ZoQ