Search Judgments

(Easementary Rights and Adverse Possession)

The Indian Easements Act, 1882 Sections 13 & 15, the Transfer of Property Act (Section 8), the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Section 96), and the Limitation Act Article 127 - This case involves appeals between two brothers concerning their partitioned properties. The plaintiff (younger brother) sought a declaration for an 'A' schedule cart track as an easement of necessity or by prescription, alleging the defendant (elder brother) destroyed it. He also sought declaration and possession of a 'B' schedule house, claiming permissive occupation by the defendant.

The defendant denied the cart track's existence and asserted he built the 'B' schedule house, perfecting title by adverse possession.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 – IPC Section 302 read with 149 – The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – CrPC Section 294 – The Supreme Court re-examined the distinction between murder and culpable homicide, following the High Court of Madhya Pradesh’s alteration of a murder conviction. The Trial Court had convicted 19 accused for the murder of Bhaggu (Section 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – IPC) and other offenses, sentencing them to life imprisonment.

The High Court reduced the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II read with 149 IPC), citing the inability to identify the specific assailant of the fatal blow and a perceived lack of common object for murder. The Supreme Court found this reasoning contradictory to the principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC.

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (CPA) – Section 67 – This judgment addresses appeals by flat buyers against National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission orders concerning the joint and several liability of landowners for delayed possession of flats. Landowners had entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) and executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) with a developer, who subsequently failed to deliver the flats within the stipulated 36-month period, plus a six-month grace period.

Initially, the Commission held only the developer liable for deficiency in service, directing possession and 6% interest. Following a Supreme Court remand, the Commission, upon re-hearing the review petition, concluded that landowners were not jointly and severally liable for delay compensation, although they, along with the developer, were responsible for transferring title.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 & Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 279, 337, 304(A) – An insurance company appealed a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) award, while the deceased’s parents filed a cross-objection seeking enhanced compensation. The accident in November 2016 involved an Alto car and a Mahindra Van, resulting in the death of Bharath Bandari, an occupant in the Alto. The accident was caused by the Alto driver’s rash and negligent attempt to overtake.

The insurance company disputed liability, asserting the Alto driver lacked a valid license and that the Mahindra Van driver also contributed to the accident.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA) – Sections 2(30), 50, and 51 – This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal contested a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s judgment, which awarded Rs. 19,50,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal had found that the 5th respondent’s negligent driving caused the fatal accident of Mohanan. Crucially, it fixed the liability for this compensation on ICICI Bank, the financier of the offending vehicle.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – This judgment addresses two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals (CMAs) arising from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s award in M.C.O.P. No. 1417 of 2016. The insurance company (Shriram General Insurance Company Limited) filed C.M.A.

The Registration Act, 1908, Section 22A(1)(i) – The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) Section 12A – The Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 Rule 37(1) – The Petitioner, SAIL Refractory Company Limited (SAIL), challenged the refusal to register a Deed of Transfer, dated 16.12.2011, conveying mining leasehold rights from Burn Standard Company Limited (BSCL) to SAIL. The 1st Respondent refused registration under Section 22A(1)(i) of the Registration Act, 1908, for lands belonging to the State Government, citing a lack of valid title transfer.

SAIL argued that the Registering Officer lacked adjudicatory power, the transfer was part of a BIFR-approved scheme under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA), and that assigning “leasehold rights” was distinct from a “lease,” thus not falling under Section 22A. The Court clarified that while a Registrar generally doesn’t adjudicate title, Section 22A mandates refusal for transfers of State-owned immovable properties without competent authority sanction.

Relevant Act:

Companies Act, 2013 – Section 135 and 166(2) ; Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 68; Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; Environment Protection Act, 1986; Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 – The case addresses the conflict between preserving endangered species and promoting green energy to combat climate change. The Supreme Court initially imposed restrictions on overhead transmission lines in a vast area to protect the GIB. However, these restrictions were later modified due to their adverse impact on solar energy production.

An Expert Committee was formed to recommend measures balancing conservation with sustainable development.

Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973  Section 436A ; The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) Sections 16, 43E;  The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) Section 302 – The Supreme Court heard appeals against the Calcutta High Court’s orders granting bail to several accused in connection with the Jnaneshwari Express derailment case (CBI Case No. RC4/S/20101-Kol), registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the Indian Railways Act, 1989, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).

The accused are charged with causing the derailment, resulting in 148 deaths and 170 injuries, with the motive of pressuring the government to withdraw joint forces from the Jhargram area. The High Court granted bail based on Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering prolonged incarceration.

The Registration Act, 1908 (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act Section 22-A – This Writ Petition challenges an order refusing to register a settlement deed and seeks a direction to register the deed in favor of the petitioner’s wife.

Key points raised by the Petitioner:

The Wakf Board’s gazette notification lacked specific details (survey number, extent) of the property, making it insufficient for claiming ownership under the Wakf Act.
Prior court decisions dismissed the Wakf Board’s claims over the property, granting ryotwari patta to the petitioner’s predecessor.
Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, does not apply due to the incomplete gazette notification.

Arguments by the Respondents:

The Wakf Board claimed the property was Wakf property based on a gazette notification and a proforma report.