Know Your Rights!!

  The Bombay High Court’s recent decision in Ritesh Haldar v. Elite Housing LLP and Ors, Commercial Arbitration Appeals (L) No.14486/2025 and No.15542/2025, delivered on 24 June 2025 , sheds light on how property and family disputes are handled during building redevelopments—a common event in Mumbai’s old housing societies. In this case, a flat in Khar, Mumbai, became the focus of a dispute between family members when their building was taken up for redevelopment. Ritesh Haldar, the appellant, is one of three brothers in the Haldar family. When the flat was purchased, Ritesh's mother's name (Sabita Haldar) was also included for society membership purposes. After Sabita passed away in 2002, Ritesh claimed to have become the sole owner of the flat, as his name remained on the society records. However, his brothers—Rohitesh (whose wife is Leena) and Rajesh—claimed that their mother owned a 50% share in the flat, which they say passed to all siblings after her death. In the meantim...

A significant decree in  Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) And Others v. Metapalli Muthaih(D) By Lrs.,   C.A. No(s). 5921 of 2015 with C.A. No(s). 5922 of 2015 , decided on 21 st July 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the evidentiary value and legal presumption attached to a registered will. The matter arose from a property dispute within the Metpalli family and highlights the importance of executing and registering a will to ensure the testator’s {i.e. person making a will is called testator(ix)} intentions are legally honoured and protected against future challenges. In the present case, the testator, Metpalli Rajanna, who passed away in 1983, had contracted second marriage after his first wife passed away leaving behind two children. His second wife – Lasum Bai who did not bear any child. In light of internal familial tensions—particularly between his second wife, Lasum Bai, and his son Muthaiah—he executed a registered will dated 24 th  July 1974....

  In the case of R.B.A.N.M.S. Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar & Another (2025 INSC 490) , the Supreme Court addressed a critical issue in property litigation: the use of large cash transactions. The appeal centered on rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code , as the Gunashekar’s lawsuit, based on an agreement to sell, lacked a valid cause of action. However, the Court’s attention was drawn to his claim of paying Rs.75 lakh in cash, a transaction that not only raised suspicion but also violated Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, 1963 . Section 269ST , effective from April 1, 2017, prohibits cash transactions above Rs.2 lakh to curb black money and promote a digital economy. The Court observed that such a large cash payment, as alleged in the suit, clearly contravened this law. It noted that despite the amendment’s introduction, the desired shift toward transparent financial dealings had not been fully realized, as evidenced by this litig...

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 ...