Indian Judgements

Indian Judgements

A Daughter-in-Law Has No Indefeasible Right to Reside in a Father-in-Law’s Self-Acquired Property Against His Will

Picture of Judgments Online

Judgments Online

In this regular second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants (son and daughter-in-law) challenged concurrent judgments of the lower courts which had decreed a suit for mandatory injunction filed by the respondent (father) directing them to hand over vacant possession of the suit property (House No. 201, MIG Flats, Jahangir Puri, Delhi). The Delhi High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose as the father was the absolute owner of the property, the appellants failed to substantiate any financial contribution or co-ownership, and a daughter-in-law’s right of residence in a shared household is not indefeasible once the owner validly revokes permission and seeks eviction in accordance with law.

  • Ownership and Permissive Possession: The respondent (father) permitted his son and daughter-in-law to reside in one room of his flat out of love and affection following their marriage in January 2012. Due to hostile conduct and lack of care in old age, the father terminated their license via a legal notice dated July 13, 2015, and filed for mandatory injunction.
  • Failure of Defense and Evidence: The appellants claimed that son Sh. Brij Raj contributed Rs. 2 lakhs toward the purchase of the property, making him a co-sharer. However, the trial court noted that the appellants failed to lead any evidence whatsoever during trial, and the courts below correctly found the respondent to be the absolute owner based on allotment letters and payment receipts.
  • Daughter-in-Law’s Right to Residence: Citing Supreme Court precedents including Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, the court reiterated that while a daughter-in-law may claim a right of residence in a shared household, that right is not indefeasible. The owner of the property (such as a father-in-law) is entitled to evict or revoke the license of occupants, provided it is done in accordance with law.
  • Scope of Second Appeal: The court observed that the challenge merely sought to re-litigate factual findings which are outside the narrow scope of a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC.
  • Final Outcome:
    • The Regular Second Appeal (RSA 185/2024) was dismissed.
    • All pending applications were closed.

2026 DHC 6271

Sh. Brij Raj & Anr. v. Sh. Chand Babu (D.O.J. 04.08.2026)

2026 DHC 6271 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Murder: Allahabad High Court Acquits Surviving Appellant in 1983 Murder Case

August 9, 2026 No Comments

This criminal appeal challenged the validity of the judgment and order dated May 9, 1989, passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in Sessions Trial No. 232 of 1987, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant no. 1 (Anil Kumar Pachauri) passed away, causing the appeal to abate against him, leaving only the surviving appellant, Rama Kant. The prosecution’s case alleged that the appellants intercepted the deceased (Neksey @ Vinod) on November 11, 1983, where Rama Kant caught hold of him and Anil Kumar delivered fatal knife blows. Upon a meticulous re-evaluation of the evidence, including material contradictions in the testimonies of eye-witnesses and compelling defence testimony regarding a power outage at the scene, the Allahabad High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the surviving appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence of Rama Kant were set aside.

  • Abatement Against Deceased Appellant: Appellant no. 1, Anil Kumar Pachauri @ Guddu, expired during the pendency of the appeal, and the proceedings against him officially abated, restricting the court’s review to the surviving appellant, Rama Kant.
  • Doubtful Presence and Contradictory Ocular Testimony: The testimonies of the primary eye-witnesses—PW-2 (Ram Nath, the informant/brother) and PW-3 (Praveen Kumar)—suffered from irreconcilable material contradictions regarding whether the local paan shop was open or closed, whether a rickshaw was present, and their unnatural post-incident conduct of failing to protect or immediately assist the victim.
  • Corroborating Defence Evidence: DW-1 (Mohan Lal, the local shopkeeper) testified that no such incident occurred in front of his shop and crucially confirmed that there was a total power outage from 6:00 PM to 9:30 PM on the night of the incident. This completely discredited the eyewitness claims that street lights and electric bulbs were actively illuminating the crime scene.
  • Motive and Prior Enmity: A previous altercation had taken place between the parties on Diwali (November 4, 1983), which had been amicably compromised. The Court noted that prior animosity is a double-edged sword, and in light of the close familial relationship of the witnesses, the possibility of a false implication due to past enmity could not be ruled out.
  • Legal Standard of Proof: The Court reiterated that an eyewitness must establish their presence beyond a reasonable doubt through confidence-inspiring evidence. Because the prosecution’s foundational pillars—such as illumination and witness presence—collapsed under cross-examination and defence evidence, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.
  • Final Ruling: The criminal appeal filed by the surviving appellant was allowed, the conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC were set aside, and Rama Kant was acquitted of all charges with his bail bonds and sureties discharged.

J.O. (Web) 2026 ALL 190

Anil Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. (D.O.J. 07.08.2026)

J.O. (Web) 2026 ALL 190 click here to view full text of judgment

Next Story

Service Law: A Zero-Tolerance Stance on State Exchequer Drain – Dismissal Valid

August 9, 2026 No Comments

This intra-court appeal challenged a learned Single Judge’s order that dismissed the appellant’s writ petition against his termination and ordered the recovery of Rs. 2,16,000/- as costs (quantified at a nominal rate of Rs. 1,000 per month for the years salary was drawn). The appellant had secured a teaching appointment in 1992 under the guise of a short-term vacancy created by an alleged teacher on leave. Decades later, records revealed that the leave-holder was an imaginary or non-salaried figure utilized to facilitate fraudulent appointments by a corrupt District Inspector of Schools (D.I.O.S.). When cornered in previous proceedings, the appellant cleverly tried to dismiss his own petition as infructuous to avoid scrutiny, but authorities subsequently terminated his services. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that fraud vitiates all solemn acts and that interim orders cannot protect undeserved benefits derived from the State exchequer.

  • Background and Genesis of Fraud: The appellant claimed appointment to a short-term vacancy in an aided inter college purportedly caused by an assistant teacher going on leave without pay. However, institutional records and salary registers confirmed that the supposed leave-holder never received a salary from the State exchequer and was essentially a fictitious placeholder created to engineer a fraudulent vacancy.
  • Role of Corrupt Officials: The erstwhile D.I.O.S., who initially approved the appellant’s appointment, was later penalized by the State Government after charges of facilitating 96 fraudulent appointments and salary payments were proven against him. Furthermore, the appellant had deliberately omitted the State of U.P. as a respondent in his original 1993 writ petition to bypass proper state-level scrutiny.
  • Abuse of Judicial Process: The appellant managed to cling to public employment for nearly two decades purely under the shelter of an interim order. When the High Court directed him to prove the legality of his appointment, he avoided adjudication by stating that his writ petition had become infructuous, prompting the management to terminate his services.
  • Application of the Doctrine of Restitution: The Court reiterated that an interim order is always subject to the final outcome and does not create an indefeasible right. Under the doctrine of restitution, a party who derives an undeserved advantage through judicial proceedings must restore it, ensuring no one profits from illegality or a transient court order.
  • Inapplicability of Regularization Protections: The appellant’s reliance on Section 33-F of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982, for regularization was rejected. The Court ruled that statutory regularisation provisions cannot be mechanically applied to shield a wrongdoer or validate a foundational fraud.
  • Final Verdict: The special appeal was completely dismissed with costs and the interim stay on recovery was vacated, paving the way for consequential recovery actions by the administration.

J.O. (Web) 2026 ALL 189

Subhash Chandra Tyagi v. State of U.P. and others (D.O.J. 07.08.2026)

J.O. (Web) 2026 ALL 189 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Non-Payment of Balance Price Does Not Invalidate a Registered Sale Deed

August 9, 2026 No Comments

This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court, which had reversed the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The original plaintiffs (represented by respondents) had filed a suit seeking to declare two registered sale deeds dated March 10, 1975, as void and inoperative, to cancel them, and to claim absolute ownership and permanent injunction over the properties. The Supreme Court examined whether non-payment of a portion of the sale consideration—where the vendee had retained a part of the price to clear the vendor’s pending institutional debts—renders a completed, registered sale deed void or invalid.

  • Validity of Sale on Part-Payment: Referring to Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and precedents like Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao and Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, the Supreme Court reiterated that actual payment of the entire sale price at the time of execution is not a sine qua non for completing a sale.
  • Passing of Title: Once a sale deed is executed and registered, title passes to the transferee even if only part of the price has been paid. The real test is the intention of the parties to transfer ownership, which is gathered from the recitals and conduct.
  • Remedy of the Vendor: Non-payment or breach of a promise to pay the balance consideration does not make the sale deed null, void, or inoperative, nor does it warrant the cancellation of the sale deed; the appropriate remedy for the vendor is to file a suit for the recovery of the balance sale consideration.
  • Limitation and Delay: The original sale deeds were executed in 1975 and 1976, while the suit was instituted much later in 1984, raising issues of limitation regarding any potential claims for recovery.
  • Final Ruling: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the concurrent findings and dismissal of the plaintiffs’ suit by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court. The Court maintained that the appellants/defendants are required to pay the balance sale consideration along with interest to the creditors/plaintiffs as originally directed by the Trial Court.

2026 INSC 814

Raziya Begum & Ors. v. Nafisa Begum Abdul Hamid & Ors. (D.O.J. 07.08.2026)

2026 INSC 814 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

High Court Dismisses Challenges to Land Acquisition Awards

August 9, 2026 No Comments

This bunch of writ petitions, led by Vijai Kumar and 153 others v. State of U.P. and 5 others, was filed before the Allahabad High Court challenging the land acquisition award dated January 10, 2024, passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Varanasi, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the establishment of a “Transport Nagar”. The petitioners argued that the award was illegal, that it should have been made under the 2013 Act, and that market value computation and mandatory deposit requirements under Section 17(3-A) of the 1894 Act were violated. The Division Bench dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the core validity of the acquisition proceedings and the issue regarding the deposit of compensation had already attained finality in previous rounds of litigation. The Court ruled that the impugned award complied fully with the specific directions issued in the prior judgment dated May 31, 2023, and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited v. State of U.P., thereby leaving no room to re-agitate settled grounds.

  • Challenge to Acquisition and Award: The petitioners challenged the award dated January 10, 2024, and sought directions restraining authorities from interfering with their possession, or alternatively, requested an award under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
  • Previous Rounds of Litigation: The acquisition notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was originally issued on December 18, 2000, and had already been subjected to multiple prior rounds of litigation and upheld by the Court with specific directions for remaining awards.
  • Compliance with Delhi Airtech Mandate: The High Court noted that in the earlier judgment dated May 31, 2003 (in Writ-C No. 61219 of 2011), the Court had permitted the State to proceed with an award for the remaining land in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directives in Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Aligarh Development Authority v. Megh Singh.
  • Rejection of Re-Agitation on Section 17(3-A) and Lapsing: The Court held that the contentions regarding the non-deposit of 80% of the estimated compensation and the applicability of Section 11-A to lapse the acquisition had already been examined and negated in the earlier round of litigation, and could not be reopened.
  • Market Value Determination: The Special Land Acquisition Officer correctly determined the market value and compensation rates based on the previous awards made for the same notification, aligning precisely with the judicial directives.
  • Final Verdict: Finding no illegality or infirmity in the award dated January 10, 2024, the Division Bench dismissed Writ-C No. 18752 of 2024 along with connected Writ-C No. 19422 of 2024 and Writ-C No. 36353 of 2023, with no order as to costs.

J.O. (Web) 2026 ALL 188

Vijai Kumar and 153 others v. State of U.P. and 5 others (D.O.J. 07.08.2026)

J.O. (Web) 2026 ALL 188 click here to view full text of judgment

Share

The specified slider does not exist.

Recent Articles

Hi Judgments Online

Subscribed
Logins