Know Your Rights!!

I’ve got a fascinating Supreme Court case to share – not a recent ruling but digs into family ties, property rights, and Hindu law. It’s called Kehar Singh (D) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. vs. Nachittar Kaur & Ors., decided on 20.08.2018, and you’ll find it under Civil Appeal No. 3264 of 2011. This is a story of a son challenging his father’s sale of ancestral land in the Court in the year 1964 , only for his heirs to lose out after a 54-year legal battle, all because of a 1973 law retrospective amendment. Factual Background: There’s a family with a big land parcel—164 Kanals and 1 Marla, to be exact—in Village Bhamian Kalan, Tehsil Ludhiana. This isn’t just any land; it’s ancestral property, passed down through generations. The father, Pritam Singh, decides to sell it to two buyers, Tara Singh and Ajit Singh, for ₹19,500/- on April 25, 1960. The deal’s done, the sale deed’s registered, and the buyers take possession. But Pritam’s son, Kehar Singh, isn’t having it. In 1964 , he marched i...

Let’s talk about a situation that’s all too common. Someone has bought a house through an Agreement to Sell and a General Power of Attorney (GPA) to possess the property. The buyer moves into the property and takes full possession. Everything looks sorted—until a bank shows up to recover dues from the original owner and suddenly, the new "owner" is facing eviction. Legally speaking, the story is more complex. Supreme Court's View: Possession ≠ Ownership In Sanjay Sharma v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Ors.(2024) , the Supreme Court clears the air on this very issue. In this case, Pushpa Morey (Respondent No. 2) held property possession based on an Agreement to Sell and a General Power of Attorney (GPA). However, none of the documents were registered. The Apex Court firmly held that such possession, supported only by unregistered documents, does not translate into ownership in the eyes of the law. Why Registration Matters? Under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908,...

Cyber fraud is something most of us have encountered, either as victims or witnesses. But what happens when a bank’s negligence facilitates such fraud? In a recent ruling, the adjudicating authority (AA) under the Information Technology (IT) Act has set a precedent for accountability in the banking sector. On 21 st January 2025, in Complaint Case No. 3 of 2019 , the principal secretary of IT for Maharashtra state and the AA under the IT Act ordered Axis Bank to pay Rs 1.76 crore with 18% interest, Rs 50 lakh as compensation, and Rs 3 lakh in legal costs to Dhule Vikas Sahakari Bank (DVSB) for unauthorized transactions caused by the bank’s negligence. Under the IT Act, the AA, who is the state IT secretary, has the authority to adjudicate cyber fraud cases involving claims for injury or damage up to Rs 5 crore. The AA has powers of a civil court and can hear complaints related to violations under the IT Act. Victims of cyber fraud, whether individuals or entities, can approach the AA f...

Family property disputes can be messy, but they get even more complicated when third-party buyers enter the scene. The Patna High Court in Md. Atif Ansar v. Rehan Mohammad Tarique, C.Misc. No. 320 of 2023, dated 27.08.2024 , tells us how courts approach such situations, especially when properties are sold during a pending litigation. A partition suit was filed by a plaintiff against family members. While the case was still pending, the defendants sold parts of the disputed property to third parties. When the plaintiff tried to include these third-party buyers in the case, the trial court refused, saying it would delay the case since the matter was already at the final arguments stage. The trial court’s decision was challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution at the Patna High Court. The law in Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 empowers courts to add or remove parties to ensure effective and complete adjudication. But when should new parties be added? The Su...

Let me walk you through the case of Smt. Sunita Bai Sahu Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, (WRIT PETITION No. 32191 of 2024) , where a debate around the Aadhaar Card’s role as proof of age came into the spotlight again. The petitioner was a woman whose husband had tragically passed away due to electrocution. She applied for compensation under the Mukhyamantri Jan Kalyan (Sambal) Yojna, 2018, a scheme that provides benefits to families of deceased labourers. However, her claim was rejected because the authorities determined that her husband was 64 years old, which made him ineligible under the scheme. The petitioner argued that the age of her husband should have been determined based on his Aadhaar Card, which listed a date of birth that would make him eligible for compensation. The authorities, on the other hand, maintained that the Aadhaar Card is not a reliable document for establishing someone’s age and relied on other records that showed the deceased was indeed ove...

  A Chandigarh Court reminded that just signing a cheque doesn’t automatically mean someone is guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if it bounces. This interesting case involves a man named Bal Krishan, who was accused of issuing a cheque that was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant, Rajesh Chauhan, said Bal Krishan was supposed to deliver a property to him. When that didn’t happen, Bal allegedly gave him a cheque to return the money. But when Rajesh presented the cheque at the bank, it bounced. Naturally, Rajesh filed a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with bounced cheques. Now, Rajesh’s argument was straightforward. He said, that since Bal had signed the cheque, the law assumes it was issued to pay back a valid debt. But Bal’s lawyer told a completely different story. According to him, there was no property deal, no money owed, and no agreement of any kind. He said the cheque in question was a blank cheque Bal ...

The case of Manoj Kumar Sharma v. Union Of India And Another, 2024 (WRIT - C No. - 8197 of 2024), Allahabad High Court highlights the legal rights of a nominee under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the claims of legal heirs under succession laws. After the petitioner’s mother passed away in 2020, the petitioner, the nominee in all her Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) in the Bank of Baroda, asked the bank to release the funds. The bank refused, citing succession issues, even though Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act gives nominees the right to receive such funds after the depositor’s death. The Reserve Bank of India’s Circular No.: RBI 2004-05/490 of June 9, 2005, further directs banks to release funds to nominees without insisting on documents like succession certificates, provided all formalities are completed. Importantly, the Supreme Court, in Ram Chander Talwar v. Devender Kumar Talwar (2010) , clarified that being a nominee doesn’t make you the owner of the money....

  So, there’s this judgment from the Supreme Court in Neelam Gupta and Ors. v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta (2024, Civil Appeal Nos. 3159-3160 of 2019) that answers some important legal questions including the difference between permissive and adverse possession, as well as whether a minor can own immovable property. This case helps clear up some common misunderstandings about property law and whether minors have the legal right to be involved in property transactions As I went through the judgment, it became clear that the apex court highlighted some important parts of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which are key to understanding this issue Section 6(h) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: This section says you cannot transfer property to someone who is legally disqualified from receiving it as a transferee. But interestingly, it does not mention that a minor is disqualified from being a transferee. This means minors can receive immovable proper...

In the case of Bima Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Divisional Joint Registrar & Ors. WP 10768 of 2024 , the Bombay High Court on 23.09.2024 dismissed the society’s petition challenging the membership transfer to Pushpa Morey, a widow, following her husband's death. Initially, Pushpa was granted provisional membership but was later denied full membership by the society. Pushpa applied for full membership after her husband's passing. When the society refused, she sought help from the Deputy Registrar, who ordered that the society admit her as a full member under Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The society’s appeal to the Divisional Joint Registrar was unsuccessful, prompting the writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The society argued that the "family arrangement" concept under Section 154B-13 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act applies only to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). Pushpa, however, contended tha...