Tag Archives: law

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

Petition for Succession Certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of limitation. Karnataka High Court.

Petition for Succession Certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of limitation. Karnataka High Court. To know more click the link below https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/ITALzJNwgnLNch6fj8kRkXZe8

Municipal Corporation cannot insist on probate of a Hindu Will for change of khata since the Will executed by Hindus are not covered by Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act. Karnataka High Court.

Municipal Corporation cannot insist on probate of a Hindu Will for change of khata since the Will executed by Hindus are not covered by Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act. Karnataka High Court. To know more click the link below https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/EPLcsCfEmbyra4jUfwO3YnhJN

Negotiable Instruments Act. Accused who breaches settlement agreement to pay cheque amount cannot later take the contention that the original complaint was defective for not making company a party. Karnataka High Court.

Negotiable Instruments Act. Accused who breaches settlement agreement to pay cheque amount cannot later take the contention that the original complaint was defective for not making company a party. Karnataka High Court. To know more click the link below https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/w0akRGWrJ8sCCfVJPfvjT1ok9

Suit for cancellation of decree obtained on the ground of fraud etc without seeking possession delivered pursuant to the decree is not maintainable. Karnataka High Court.

Suit for cancellation of decree obtained on the ground of fraud etc without seeking possession delivered pursuant to the decree is not maintainable. Karnataka High Court. To know more click the link below https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/G4s6gOuH8WbHl1HM8kMaxGP1v