The Supreme Court ruled that an uncle-in-law cannot adopt his niece’s husband as a “ghardamad” for inheritance unless such a custom is legally proved. Setting aside three concurrent judgments, the Court held that the alleged Oraon tribal custom lacked sufficient evidence under customary law.
The Calcutta High Court held that a husband’s pressure on his wife to bring her share of ancestral property may amount to a dowry demand under Section 304B IPC. The Court upheld his conviction, reduced the sentence to ten years, and acquitted the parents-in-law.
A 53-year-old farmer from Chhattisgarh has moved the Supreme Court seeking nearly Rs.3,500 crore in compensation, claiming that the land occupied by Raipur’s Swami Vivekananda Airport, including its terminal and surrounding area, originally belonged to his family.
The Supreme Court held that advocates cannot surrender or compromise a client’s substantive property rights without explicit authorisation. The Court ruled that a compromise decree based solely on a lawyer’s consent, without the client’s signature or approval, is legally unsustainable under the Civil Procedure Code.
The Supreme Court ended a land dispute that lasted 70 years and spanned four generations by upholding a registered 1957 sale deed. The Court ruled that minor discrepancies cannot invalidate a sale deed unless there are allegations of fraud or forgery.
The Jharkhand High Court upheld a divorce decree after observing that a 36-year separation had turned the marriage into a “dead wood marriage.” While ending the decades-long relationship, the Court increased permanent alimony for the wife from Rs 10 lakh to Rs 40 lakh.
The Supreme Court ruled that homebuyers can approach consumer forums for compensation over delayed possession even after taking flat possession. The Court set aside the NCDRC order and held that arbitration clauses cannot prevent buyers from seeking remedies against real estate developers for deficient services.
The Patna High Court quashed Bihar government proceedings cancelling old land records in Katihar and ordered restoration of disputed jamabandis. Justice Sourendra Pandey held that property rights cannot be taken away through summary action without due process and hearing affected parties.
The Centre took control of Jaipur Polo Ground in Delhi’s Race Course area after an eviction order, stating the land would serve a larger public purpose. The move followed Delhi High Court proceedings involving environmental concerns and club premises.
The Madras High Court held that the mere presence of a Dargah on land does not automatically place the property under the Waqf Board’s control. The Court ruled that the Board must first establish, in accordance with law, that the property is a valid Waqf before claiming jurisdiction.
