Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.
Relevant Provisions as to Interpretation of a Will
- 1. Sec. 91 to 99 of the Evidence Act do not affect construction of wills (S. 100).
- 2. Sec. 100 of the Evidence Act deals with interpretation of Will. It reads as under:
- 100. Saving of provisions of Indian Succession Act relating to wills -Nothing in this Chapter contained shall be taken to affect any of the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1865 (10 of 1865) as to the construction of wills
- 3. Section 74 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, contains the armchair rule. It reads- ·
- 74. Wording of will— It is not necessary that any technical words or terms of art be used in a Will, but only that the wording be such that the intentions of the testator can be known therefrom.
- Sec. 74 of the Indian Succession Act conveys – intention of the testator is important. Court ascertains it putting itself into the testator’s armchair.
Cardinal principles as to interpretation of a Will
Cardinal principles as to interpretation of a Will are laid down in the following decisions:
- Ram Gopal v. Nand Lal (AIR 1951 SC 139),
- Gnambal Ammal v. Raju Ayyar (AIR 1951 SC 103),
- Raj Bajrang Bhadaur Singh v. Thakurain Bakhtraj Kher (AIR 1953 SC 7),
- Pearey Lal v. Rameshwar Das (AIR 1963 SC 1703),
- Ramchandra v. Hilda Brite, (AIR 1964 SC 1323,
- Navneet Lal v. Gokul (AIR 1976 SC 794),
- Uma Devi Nambiar v. T.C. Sidhan (2004) 2 SCC 321
The Principles recognised in these decisions are the following:
- (1) In construing a document whether in English or in vernacular the fundamental rule is to ascertain the intention from the words used; the surrounding circumstances are to be considered, but that is only for the purpose of finding out the intended meaning of the words which have actually been employed. (Also: Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi vs Rajat Vidyarthi: (2009) 3 SCC 287)
- (2) In construing the language of the Will the Court is entitled to put itself into the testator’s armchair and is bound to bear in mind also other matters than merely the words used. It must consider the surrounding circumstances, the position of the testator, his family relationship the probability that he would use words in a particular sense. But all this is solely as an aid to arriving at a right construction of the Will and to ascertain the meaning of its language when used by that particular testator in that document. (Also: Venkata Narasimha v. Parthasarthy, (1913) 41 IA 51: 15 Bom LR 1010; Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi v. Rajat Vidyarthi, (2009) 3 SCC 287; Veerattalingam v. Rameth AIR 1990 SC 2201)
- (3) The true intention of the testator has to be gathered not by attaching importance in isolated expressions, but by reading the Will as a whole with all its provisions and ignoring none of them as redundant or contradictory.(Also: Bajrang Factory Ltd. v. University of Calucutta (2007) 7 SCC 183)
- (4) The Court must accept, if possible such construction as would give to every expression some effect rather than that which would render any of the expressions inoperative. The Court will look at the circumstances under which the testator makes his Will, such as the state of his property of his family and the like. Where apparently conflicting dispositions can be reconciled by giving full effect to every word used in a document, such a construction should be accepted instead of a construction which would have the effect of cutting down the clear meaning of the words used by the testator. Further where one of the two reasonable constructions would lead to intestacy, that should be discarded in favour of a construction which does not create any such hiatus.
- (5) To the extent that it is legally possible, effect should be given to every disposition contained in the Will unless the law prevents effect being given to it. Of course, if there are two repugnant provisions conferring successive interests, if the first interest created is valid the subsequent interest cannot take effect but a Court of construction will proceed to the farthest extent to avoid repugnancy so that effect could be given as far as possible to every testamentary intention contained in the Will.
Read Blog:
- Interpretation of Inconsistent Clauses in a Will
- Interpretation of Documents – Literal Rule, Mischief Rule and Golden Rule
- Interpretation of Statutes – Literal Rule, Mischief Rule and Golden Rule
Construction of Wills – True shade of meaning
- The meaning of every word in an Indian will must always depend upon the setting in which it is placed, the subject to which it is related, and the locality of the testator from which it may receive its true shade of meaning. (Sasiman Chowdhurain v. Shib Narayan Chowdhury,49 IA 25, 35 : 66 IC 193 : 24 Bom LR 576; Musammat Surajmani v. Rahi Nath Ojha, 35 IA 17 : ILR 30 All 84 : 10 Bom LR 59; Navneet Lal v. Gokul, AIR 1976 SC 794)
In Gnanambal Ammal v. T. Raju Aiyar, AIR 1951 SC 103, BK Mukherjea, J., held as under:
- “The cardinal maxim to be observed by courts in construing a will is to endeavour to ascertain the intentions of the testator. This intention has to be gathered primarily from the language of the document which is to be read as a whole without indulging in any conjecture or speculation as to what the testator would have done if he had been better informed or better advised. (See also: Uma Devi Nambiar v. T.C. Sidhan (2004) 2 SCC 321).
- In construing the language of the will as the Privy Council observed in Venkata Narasimha v. Parthasarathy, (1913) 42 I.A. 51 at p.70.
- ‘The courts are entitled and bound to bear in mind other matters than merely the words used. They must consider the surrounding circumstances, the position of the testator, ‘his family relationship, the probability that he would use words in a particular sense, and many other things which are often summed up in the somewhat picturesque figure ‘The court is entitled to put itself into the testator’s armchair’ …… But all this is solely as an aid to arriving at a right construction of the will, and to ascertain the meaning of its language when used by that particular testator in that document. So, soon as the construction is settled, the duty of the court is to carry out the intentions as expressed, and none other. The court is in no case justified in adding to testamentary dispositions…… In all cases it must loyally carry out the will as properly construed, and this duty is universal, and is true alike of wills of every nationality and every religion or rank of life.’ (See also: Navneet Lal v. Gokul, (1976) 1 SCC 630; Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi v. Rajat Vidyarthi, (2009) 3 SCC 287)
- A question is sometimes raised as to whether in construing a will the court should lean against intestacy. The desire to avoid intestacy was considered by the Privy Council in the case referred to above as a rule based on English necessity and English habits of thought which should not necessarily bind an Indian court. It seems that a presumption against intestacy may be raised if it is justified by the context of the document or the surrounding circumstances; But it can be invoked only when there is undoubted ambiguity in ascertainment of the intentions of the testator. As Lord Justice Romer observed in Re Edwards; Jones v. Jones, [1906]1 Ch. 570 at p. 574:
- ‘It cannot be that merely with a view to avoiding intestacy you are to do otherwise than construe plain words according to their plain meaning’.”
It is pointed out in Narayanan Radhakrishna Menon v. Narayanan Sukumara Menon 2018-1 Ker HC 412, 2018-2 Ker LT 553, A. Hariprasad, J., as under:
- “The ‘Arm Chair Rule’ was originally propounded in Boyes v. Cook ((1880) 14 Ch.D 53). The Rules reads thus:
- “Armchair Rule.-Although, a will always speaks from the date of the death of the testator, in construing the will, the court of construction should determine the facts and circumstances respecting the testator’s property and his family and other persons and things as at the date of the will, in order to give effect to the words used in the will when the meaning and applications of his words cannot be ascertained without taking evidence of such facts and circumstances. For this purpose, evidence is received to enable the court to ascertain all the persons and facts known to the testator when he made the will. The court, it has been said, puts itself into the testator’s armchair.”
In construing the language of the will as the Privy Council observed in Venkata Narasimha v. Parthasarathy (1913) 41 Ind App 51, held as under:
- “The courts are entitled and bound to bear in mind other matters than merely the words used. They must consider the surrounding circumstances, the position of the testator, his family relationship, the probability that he would use words in a particular sense, and many other things which are often summed up in the somewhat picturesque figure ’ The court is entitled to put itself into the testator’s armchair …… But all this is solely as an aid to arriving at a right construction of the will, and to ascertain the meaning of its language when used by that particular testator in that document. So soon as the construction is settled, the duty of the court is to carry out the intentions as expressed, and none other. The court is in no case justified in adding to testamentary dispositions…… In all cases it must loyally carry out the will as properly construed, and this duty is universal, and is true alike of wills of every nationality and every religion or rank of life.” (Quoted in Gnanambal Ammal v. T. Raju Ayyar, AIR 1951 SC 103, B.K. Mukherjea, Fazal Ali, N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar, JJ.) (Referred to in: Shyamal Kanti Guha v. Meena Bose, AIR 2009 SC 1194, 2008-8 SCC 115, S.B. Sinha; Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi v. Rajat Vidyarthi, (2009) 3 SCC 287; Navneet Lal alias Rangi v. Gokul (1976) 1 SCC 630.
Lakshmana Nadar v. R. Ramier, AIR 1953 SC 304, M C Mahajan, SR Das, JJ.
- The Court’s primary duty when it considers a will is to ascertain from the language employed by the testator “what were his intentions” keeping in view the surrounding circumstance, his ordinary notions as a Hindu in respect to devolution of his property, his family relationships etc.; in other words, to ascertain his wishes by putting itself, so to say, in his armchair.
In Ramachandra Shenoy v. Mrs. Hilda Brite (1964) 2 SCR 722, our Apex Court held as under:
- “It was common ground that under clause 3(c) the testatrix intended to confer an absolute and permanent interest on the male children of her daughter, though if the contentions urged by the appellants were accepted the legacy in their favour would be void because there could legally be no gift over after an absolute interest in favour of their mother. This is on the principle that where property is given to A absolutely, then whatever remains of A’s death must pass to his heirs or under his will and any attempt to sever the incidents from the absolute interest by prescribing a different destination must fail as being repugnant to the interest created. But the initial question for consideration is whether on a proper construction of the will an absolute interest in favour Severina is established. It is one of the cardinal principles of construction of wills that to the extent that it is legally possible effect should be given to every disposition contained in the will unless the law prevents effect being given to it.” (Quoted in: Shyamal Kanti Guha v. Meena Bose, AIR 2009 SC 1194, 2008-8 SCC 115).
- See also: Bhura v. Kashi Ram, AIR 1994 SC 1202: (1994) 2 SCC 111, Arunkumar v. Shriniwas, (2003) 6 SCC 98)
The said principle was reiterated in Navneet Lal alias Rangi v. Gokul (1976-1 SCC 630) as under:
- “8. From the earlier decisions of this Court the following principles, inter alia, are well established: (1) In construing a document whether in English or in vernacular the fundamental rule is to ascertain the intention from the words used; the surrounding circumstances are to be considered; but that is only for the purpose of finding out the intended meaning of the words which have actually been employed. (Ram Gopal v. Nand Lal, AIR 1951 SC 139).” See also: Shyamal Kanti Guha (D) Through LRs. & Ors. v. Meena Bose [2008 (9) SCALE 363],
Golden rule of interpretation
It is interesting to note that the golden rule of interpretation was propounded for the first time by Lord Wensleydale, in Grey Vs. Pearson, 1857 (6) HLC 61, in the matter of construction of a Will. (See: Ms. Eera Through Dr. Manjula v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2017) 15 SCC 133). It requires giving effect to the actual meaning of the words used in statutes and other documents. This rule gives effect to the literal or ordinary meaning of the words used.
Construction of Will – Not by attaching importance to isolated expressions
The true intention of the testator has to be gathered not by attaching importance to isolated expressions but by reading the will as a whole with all its provisions and ignoring none of them as redundant or contradictory. (Raj Bajrang Bahadur Singh v. Thakurain Bakhtraj Kuer, 1953 SCR 232, 240 : AIR 1953 SC 7; Shyamal Kanti Guha v. Meena Bose, AIR 2009 SC 1194, 2008-8 SCC 115; Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi vs Rajat Vidyarthi, (2009) 3 SCC 287; Navneet Lal v. Gokul [(1976) 1 SCC 630; Bajrang Factory Ltd. v. University of Calucutta [(2007) 7 SCC 183); Anil Kak v. Kumari Sharda Raje & Ors. [2008 (6) SCALE 597.
In Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth edition, Volume 50, page 332-33, it is stated :
- ‘462. Leading principle of construction: The leading principle of construction which is applicable to all wills without qualification and overrides every other rule of construction is that the testator’s intention is collected from a consideration of the whole will taken in connection with any evidence properly admissible, and the meaning of the will and of every part of it is determined according to that intention’.”(Quoted in: Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi vs Rajat Vidyarthi, (2009) 3 SCC 287)
The court must accept, if possible, such construction as would give to every expression some effect rather than that which would render any of the expressions inoperative. The court will look at the circumstances under which the testator makes his will, such as the state of his property, of his family and the like. Where apparently conflicting dispositions can be reconciled by giving full effect to every word used in a document, such a construction should be accepted instead of a construction which would have the effect of cutting down the clear meaning of the words used by the testator. Further, where one of the two reasonable constructions would lead to intestacy, that should be discarded in favour of a construction which does not create any such hiatus. (Pearey Lal v. Rameshwar Das, 1963 Supp. 2 SCR 834, 839, 842; Shyamal Kanti Guha v. Meena Bose, AIR 2009 SC 1194, 2008-8 SCC 115; Navneet Lal v. Gokul [(1976) 1 SCC 630; Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi vs Rajat Vidyarthi, (2009) 3 SCC 287.
Two repugnant provisions
If there are two repugnant provisions conferring successive interests, if the first interest created is valid the subsequent interest cannot take effect but a Court of construction will proceed to the farthest extent to avoid repugnancy, so that effect could be given as far as possible to every testamentary intention contained in the will. Ramachandra Shenoy v. Mrs. Hilda Brite [(1964) 2 SCR 722, 735; Shyamal Kanti Guha v. Meena Bose, AIR 2009 SC 1194, 2008-8 SCC 115; Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi vs Rajat Vidyarthi, (2009) 3 SCC 287.
To ascertain terms of the Will and attendant circumstances may also consider
In Bajrang Factory Ltd. v. University of Calcutta, (SB Sinha, J.), 2007-7 SCC 183, it is held as under:
- “43. With a view to ascertain the intention of the maker of the Will, not only the terms thereof are required to be taken into consideration but all also circumstances attending thereto. The Will as a whole must, thus, be considered for the said purpose and not merely the particular part thereof. As the Will if read in its entirety, can be given effect to, it is imperative that nothing should be read therein to invalidate the same.” (Quoted in: Shyamal Kanti Guha v. Meena Bose, AIR 2009 SC 1194, 2008-8 SCC 115; Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi vs Rajat Vidyarthi, (2009) 3 SCC 287.
The word ‘devise’ was read as ‘desire’
In Shyamal Kanti Guha v. Meena Bose, (SB Sinha, J.), AIR 2009 SC 1194, 2008-8 SCC 115, referred to Bajrang Factory Ltd. v. University of Calcutta, 2007-7 SCC 183, (SB Sinha, J.), and pointed out as under:
- “Therein the word ‘devise’ was read as ‘desire’. If this Court is to put itself into the testator’s armchair to ascertain his intention from the words used in the Will; it must take into consideration the surrounding circumstances, the position of the testator, his family relationships, and attach importance to isolated expressions so as to give effect to all the clauses in the Will rather than making some of it inoperative.”
Entire document need not be invalidated
The Supreme Court in Anil Kak v. Kumari Sharda Raje reported in 2008 (6) SCALE 597 held sa under:
- “The testator’s intention is collected from a consideration of the whole Will and not from a part of it. If two parts of the same Will are wholly irreconcilable, the court of law would not be in a position to come to a finding that the Will dated 4.11.1992 could be given effect to irrespective of the appendices. In construing a Will, no doubt all possible contingencies are required to be taken into consideration. Even if a part is invalid, the entire document need not be invalidated, only if it forms a severable part.” (Shyamal Kanti Guha v. Meena Bose, AIR 2009 SC 1194, 2008-8 SCC 115; Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi vs Rajat Vidyarthi, (2009) 3 SCC 287; Bajrang Factory Ltd. v. University of Calucutta [(2007) 7 SCC 183.)
Also Read:
- Interpretation of Statutes – Literal Rule, Mischief Rule and Golden Rule
- Interpretation of Documents – Literal Rule, Mischief Rule and Golden Rule
Last Part of a Will prevails under Sec. 88
Sec. 88 of the Succession Act says that the last of two inconsistent clauses prevails.
Sec. 88 reads as under:
- “88. The last of two inconsistent clauses prevails. – Where two clauses of gifts in a Will are irreconcilable, so that they cannot possibly stand together, the last shall prevail.
- Illustrations
- (i) the testator by the first clause of his Will leaves his estate of Ramnagar to “A”, and by the last clause of his Will leaves it to “B” and not to A”. B will have it.
- (ii) if a man, at the commencement of his Will gives his house to A and at the close of it directs that his house shall be sold and the proceeds invested for the benefit of B, the latter disposition will prevail.
Sec. 88 (latter disposition will prevail) is applied in the following premises:
- This rule of interpretation can be invoked only if different clauses cannot be reconciled. (See Rameshwar v. Balraj, AIR 1935 PC 187; Uma Devi Nambiar v. T.C. Sidhan (2004) 2 SCC 321).
- If the apparently appearing inconsistency can be reconciled, the court will take that recourse. (Shyamal Kanti Guha v. Meena Bose, AIR 2009 SC 1194, 2008-8 SCC 115; Uma Devi Nambiar v. T.C. Sidhan (2004) 2 SCC 321.)
- In the event of irreconcilable inconsistency between two parts in the Will, the last shall prevail over the earlier clause. (Kalvelikkal Ambunhi v. H. Ganesh Bhandary, AIR 1995 SC 2491; Uma Devi Nambiar v. T.C. Sidhan, (2004) 2 SCC 321.)
But, in case of documents like sale deeds, gift deeds, mortgage deeds, if the apparently appearing inconsistency can be reconciled, the court will take that recourse. But, if the inconsistency is irreconcilable, the earlier or the subsequent part or specific clauses, the earlier part will prevail over the latter. (Uma Devi Nambiar v. T.C. Sidhan (2004) 2 SCC 321.)
Read also
- Interpretation of Wills
- Interpretation of Inconsistent Clauses in a Will
- Executors of Will – Duties & their Removal
- A Witness to Hindu-Will will not Lose Benefit
- Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
- How to Write a Will? Requirements of a Valid Will
- Witnesses to the Will Need Not See the Execution of the Will
- How to Prove a Will, in Court? Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
- When Execution of a Will is ‘Admitted’ by the Opposite Side, Should it be ‘Proved’?
- 30 Years Old Documents- No ‘Absolute’ Presumption of Truth of Contents, under Sec. 90 Evidence Act
- Suit on Possessory Remedy, Other side Admits Possession; Should the Will be Proved?
- Presumption on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
- Presumptions on Documents and Truth of Contents
- Parvathi Nairthi v. Laxmi Nairthy: Deprivation of Natural Heirs Not Amount to Suspicious Circumstance; A Will is not Required to be Proved with Mathematical Accuracy; Unregistered Will is Valid.
How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “
Read in this Cluster (Click on the Topic)
Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles
Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code
- Striking off defence under Order XV Rule 5 CPC (U.P. Amendment): Consequence is Drastic; Mere Denial of the Landlord–Tenant Relationship Not Absolve Tenant from the Statutory Obligation to Deposit Rent
- Maurice W. Innis v. Lily Kazrooni – Executing Court Executes Decree as it Stands, Without any Modification. It cannot Go Beyond or Vary its Term
- Channappa v. Parvatewwa, 2026 INSC 343: Suit Dismissed for Order II Rule 2 Bar: For No ‘Consequential Declaration’ on Title, in the Earlier Suit
- Applicability of Res Judicata on IA Orders (at Different Stages of the Same Suit)
- Rejection of Plaint is a Procedural Termination, and Dismissal of Suit on Preliminary Issue is a Summary Decision on Merits
- Can a Suit be Rejected on the Inherent Power of the Court?
- Did the Supreme Court Depart From its Earlier Position in Hussain Ahmed Choudhury v. Habibur Rahman, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 892, in its Subsequent Decision in Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi, 2025 INSC 1105?
- Time City Infrastructure and Housing Ltd v. State of UP: Non-Compliance in taking Postal Steps – Court Should Vacate the Ad-Interim Injunction Order
- “Due Process of Law” in Civil Suits
- Can a suit be Rejected (Order VII rule 11 CPC) on the Ground of Res Judicata?
- Operation Asha v. Shelly Batra, a Landmark Judgment on Sec. 92 CPC– Critical Appreciation
- If a Sharer Dies & the LRs are Not Impleaded – Partition Suit as a Whole Abates. But the Court SHOULD Direct Either Side to Take Steps to Bring in the Legal Heirs
- Order IX Rule 9 CPC: Earlier Suit for Injunction; Subsequent Suit for Recovery & Injunction – No Bar
- H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar: An ‘Aggrieved’ Stranger or a ‘Prejudicially Affected’ Third-Party (also) Can File Appeal with the ‘Leave of the Court’.
- Replication, Rejoinder and Amendment of Pleadings
- Can a Suit be Withdrawn in Appeal, on the Ground that Appeal is Continuation of the Suit?
- Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
- Suit under Sec. 6, Specific Relief Act – Is it a ‘Summary Suit’ under Order XXXVII CPC?
- Is it Mandatory to Lift the Attachment on Dismissal of the Suit? Will the Attachment Orders Get Revived on Restoration of Suit?
- Will Interlocutory Orders and Applications Get Revived on Restoration of Suit?
- Can an ‘Ex-parte’ Defendant Cross Examine Plaintiff’s Witness?
- Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
- Civil Rights and Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
- Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata
- Applicability of Res Judicata on IA Orders (at Different Stages of the Same Suit)
- Res Judicata and Judicial Precedent
- What is Binding Judicial Precedent – In a Nutshell
- No Res judicata on Finding on Title in an Injunction Suit
- Res Judicata: ‘Same issue’ must have been ‘Adjudicated’ in the former suit
- Res Judicata and Appeal: No Res Judicata on Adverse Findings, in a Favourable Decree
- Order II, Rule 2 CPC – Not to Vex Defendants Twice
- A Land Mark Decision on Order II rule 2, CPC – Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. v. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Ltd., Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 73
- Order I rule 8, CPC (Representative Suit) When and How? Whether Order I rule 8 Decree is Enforceable in Execution?
- Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
- Pleadings in Defamation Suits
- Previous Owner is Not a Necessary Party in a Recovery Suit
- UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian Law
- PLEADINGS IN ELECTION MATTERS
- Declaration and Injunction
- Law on Summons to Defendants and Witnesses
- Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
- Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
- Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful Acts
- Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
- Mandatory Injunction – Law and Principles
- INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
- Interrogatories: When Court Allows, When Rejects?
- Decree in OI R8 CPC-Suit & Eo-Nomine Parties
- Pecuniary & Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
- Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
- Doctrine of Substantial Representation in a Suit by or against an Association
- Who are Necessary Parties, Proper Parties and Pro Forma Parties in Suits
- What is Partnership, in Law? How to Sue a Firm?
- ‘Legal Representatives’, Not ‘Legal Heirs’ to be Impleaded on Death of Plaintiff/Defendant
- Powers and Duties of Commissioners to Make Local Investigations, Under CPC
- Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
- Burden on Plaintiff to Prove Title; Weakness of Defence Will Not Entitle a Decree
- Is it Mandatory to Set Aside the Commission Report – Where a Second Commissioner is Appointed?
- Can a Commission be Appointed to Find Out the Physical Possession of a Property?
- Can the Court issue a Second Commission without Setting Aside First Commission Report?
- Withholding Evidence and Adverse Inference
- Pendente Lite Transferee Cannot Resist or Obstruct Execution of a Decree
- Family Settlement or Family Arrangement in Law
- ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
- Will Findings of a Civil Court Outweigh Findings of a Criminal Court?
- Relevancy of Civil Case Judgments in Criminal Cases
- Waiver and Promissory Estoppel
- Can a Christian Adopt? Will an adopted child get share in the property of adoptive parents?
- Principles of Equity in Indian Law
- Thangam v. Navamani Ammal: Did the Supreme Court lay down – Written Statements which deal with each allegation specifically, but not “para-wise”, are vitiated?
- No Criminal Case on a Dispute Essentially Civil in Nature.
- Doctrine of Substantial Representation in Suits
- Order I rule 8, CPC (Representative Suit) When and How? Whether Order I rule 8 Decree is Enforceable in Execution?
- Appointment of Guardian for Persons Suffering from Disability or Illness: Inadequacy of Law – Shame to Law Making Institutions
- Can Documents be Marked In Cross Examination, If Witness Admits Them?
- Why Should Foundational or Crucial Documents Be Produced Along With the Plaint or WS
- Fraudulent or Void Transaction: Is ‘Declaration’ Necessary? No is the Answer: Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi, 2025 INSC 1105.
Principles and Procedure
- Doctrines of ‘Legislation by Reference’ and ‘Legislation by Incorporation’
- What is the Period of Limitation for a Suit on a Promissory Note?
- Relevancy of a Civil Case Judgment in Criminal Cases: Does a Civil Court Judgment Bind a Criminal Court?
- When can (i) a ‘Victim’ File an Appeal in a Criminal Case and (ii) an ‘Aggrieved Person’ File an Appeal in a Civil Case?
- Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu, 2025 INSC 828 – ‘Victim’ Can File an Appeal in a Criminal Case
- BURDEN of PROOF: Initial Burden and Shifting the Onus in Indian and English Law
- H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar: An ‘Aggrieved’ Stranger or a ‘Prejudicially Affected’ Third-Party (also) Can File Appeal with the ‘Leave of the Court’.
- Our Courts Apply Different ‘STANDADARDS of Proof’
- Ratio Decidendi (alone) Forms a Precedent, Not a Final Order
- What is Binding Judicial Precedent – In a Nutshell
- BNSS – Major Changes from CrPC
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Important Changes from the Indian Penal Code
- Substantive Rights and Mistakes & Procedural Defects in Judicial Proceedings
- Can Documents be Marked In Cross Examination, If Witness Admits Them?
- Will Boundaries of Properties (Always) Preferred Over Survey Number, Extent, Side Measurements, etc.?
- Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a Decree
- All Illegal Agreements are Void; but All Void Agreements are Not Illegal
- Doctrines on Ultra Vires, Rule of Law, Judicial Review, Nullification of Mandamus, and Removing the BASIS of the Judgment
- Can an ‘Ex-parte’ Defendant Cross Examine Plaintiff’s Witness?
- Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
- Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
- Effect of Not Cross-Examining a Witness & Effect of Not Facing Complete Cross-Examination by the Witness
- Suggestions & Admissions by Counsel, in Cross Examination to Witnesses
- Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
- Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
- Declaration and Injunction
- Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
- Does Alternate Remedy Bar Civil Suits and Writ Petitions?
- Void, Voidable, Ab Initio Void, and Sham Transactions
- If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set Aside
- Can Courts Award Interest on Equitable Grounds?
- Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse
- Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State Of M.P, 29 January, 2025 – Law on Natural Justice Revisited
- ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’
- Prescriptive Rights – Inchoate until the Title thereof is Upheld by a Competent Court
- ‘Title’ and ‘Ownership’ in Indian Law
- Can a Party to Suit Examine Opposite Party, as of Right?
- Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
- Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
- Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
- Cheating and Breach of Contract: Distinction – Fraudulent Intention at the time of Promise.
- Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs
- What is COGNIZANCE and Application of Mind by a Magistrate?
- Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle: Rejection of Plaint on ‘Bar of Limitation’ on Plea of Fraud.
- Why Should Foundational or Crucial Documents Be Produced Along With the Plaint or WS
- Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. The State of Gujarat: The Police have No Discretion to conduct a Preliminary Inquiry Before Registering an FIR in Cognizable Offences
PROPERTY LAW
Title, ownership and Possession
- Gratuitous Possession – Owner can Reclaim Even Without Knowledge of the Other
- Suit on Possessory Remedy, Other side Admits Possession; Should the Will be Proved?
- M.V. Ramachandrasa v. Mahendra Watch Company, 2026 INSC 348: Decision on Subletting Without Consent of Landlord
- ‘Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet’
- Section 27, Limitation Act Gives-Rise to a Substantive Right so as to Seek Declaration and Recovery
- Sale Deeds Without Consideration – Void
- Tenancy at Sufferance in Indian Law
- “Due Process of Law” in Civil Suits
- Revenue Settlement Registers of Travancore in 1910, Basic Record of Land matters
- Govt. of AP v. Thummala Krishna Rao, AIR 1982 SC 1081, 1982 (2) SCC 134, Misread by High Courts
Recovery of Possession:
- Suit on Possessory Remedy, Other side Admits Possession; Should the Will be Proved?
- Recovery of Possession Based on Title and on Earlier Possession
- Recovery of Possession (Based on Title) and Eviction (of Tenants)
- Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs
- Title and Ownership and Possessory Title in Indian Law
- Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
- Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
- POSSESSION is a Substantive Right in Indian Law
- 22nd Law Commission Report on ‘Law on Adverse Possession’
- Adverse Possession Against Government
- Government of Kerala v. Joseph – Law on Adverse Possession Against Government
- Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery Suits
- How to Plead Adverse Possession? Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
- Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
- Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
- When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
- Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
- ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
- Preemption is a Very Weak Right; For, Property Right is a Constitutional & Human Right
- Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
- Family Settlement or Family Arrangement in Law
- INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
- ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
- Kesar Bai v. Genda Lal – Does Something Remain Untold?
- Grant in Law
- Termination of Tenancy (& Grant) by Forfeiture (for Claiming Title)
- Survey under Survey Act – Raises a Presumption on Boundary; though Not Confer Title
- SUIT on TITLE: Landlord can Recover Property on GENERAL TITLE (though Tenancy Not Proved) if Defendant Falsely Claimed Independent Title
- Even the Rightful Owner is NOT entitled to Eject a Trespasser, by Force
- Ryotwari System in Madras
Revenue Records, Mutation
- Title is Not Proved by Revenue Entries; Title Claims are Investigated by Civil Courts, Not by High Courts
- Revenue Settlement Registers of Travancore in 1910, Basic Record of Land matters
- ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
Adverse Possession
- Dispossession and Knowledge: Essential Requirements of Adverse Possession
- Adverse Possession: Legal Principles and Classic Cases in the UK and the US
- Adverse Possession: Should Unobstructed Possession Subsist for 12 Years Immediately Preceding the Suit?
- Illegal, Mistaken or Fraudulent Registration of Deed, and Subsequent Mutation: No Adverse Possession
- Adverse Possession: A Concise Overview
- What is Adverse Possession in Indian Law?
- Neelam Gupta v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta (AIR 2024 SC 5374) – Supreme Court Denied the Tenant’s Claim of Adverse Possession
- Adverse Possession: How to Plead Adverse Possession? Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
- Adverse Possession Against Government
- Govt. of AP v. Thummala Krishna Rao, AIR 1982 SC 1081, 1982 (2) SCC 134, Misread by High Courts
- Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
- Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
- When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
- Government of Kerala v. Joseph – Law on Adverse Possession Against Government
- Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery Suits
- ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
- Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
- Ouster and Dispossession in Adverse Possession
- Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs
- Mallavva v. Kalsammanavara Kalamma, 2024 INSC 1021, Composite Suit (Cancellation & Recovery) – Substantive Relief Determines Limitation
- The Laws of ‘Doctrine of Election’ and ‘Doctrine of Waiver’
Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act
- Bona Fide Purchaser for Value Deserves Stronger Equity than a Prior Contract Holder
- Travancore Royal Pattom Proclamations of 1040 (1865 AD) and 1061 (1886 AD), And 1922 Devaswom Proclamation
- Revenue Settlement Registers of Travancore in 1910, Basic Record of Land matters
- Tenancy at Sufferance in Indian Law
- Freehold Property in Law
- What is Patta or Pattayam?
- Does ‘Pandaravaka Pattom’ in Kerala Denote Full-Ownership?
- Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
- Previous Owner is Not a Necessary Party in a Recovery Suit
- Recovery of Possession Based on Title and on Earlier Possession
- Recovery of Possession (Based on Title) and Eviction (of Tenants)
- Vested Remainder and Contingent Remainder
- Vested interest and Contingent Interest
- Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
- Land Acquired Cannot be Returned – Even if it is Not Used for the Purpose Acquired
- ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
- Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2026:KER:19290): Transfer of Registry can be Claimed only on Proper Application, with Supporting Documents
- FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
- Marumakkathayam – A System of Law and Way of Life Prevailed in Kerala
- Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in Kerala
- Glen Leven Estate v. State of Kerala: Not Correctly Decided?
- Sale Deeds Without Consideration – Void
- If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set Aside
- Law on SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE and LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE
- Sec. 7 Easements Act – Natural Advantages Arising from the Situation of Land & Natural Flow of Water
- Grant in Law
- Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery Suits
- Title of the Government Property in India: Government is the Ultimate Owner of Every Property; Hence, Government Need Not Prove Title.
- Survey under Survey Act – Raises a Presumption on Boundary; though Not Confer Title
- Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a Decree
Land Reform Laws
- Ten Square Miles Concession and Kanan Devan Hills Concession – State Grants of Travancore Governments
- Plantation-Tenants Not Approached The Land Tribunal are Ineligible for Plantation-Exemption-Orders from the Land Board
- Acquisition of (Exempted) Plantation Property: Should the Govt. Pay Full Land Value to Land Owners?
- Relevant provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act in a Nutshell
- Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in Kerala
- Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery Suits
- ‘Janmam’ Right is FREEHOLD Interest and ‘Estate’ in Constitution – By Royal Proclamation of 1899, The Travancore Sircar became Janmi of Poonjar Raja’s Land
- Government is the OWNER of (Leasehold) Plantation Lands in Kerala.
- Title of the Government Property in India: Government is the Ultimate Owner of Every Property; Hence, Government Need Not Prove Title.
- Glen Leven Estate v. State of Kerala: Not Correctly Decided?
- Law on Acquisition of Private Plantation Land in Kerala
- Plantation Exemption in Kerala Land Reforms Act–in a Nutshell
- Kerala Land Reforms Act – Provisions on Plantation-Tenancy and Land-Tenancy
- Grant in Law
- Balanoor Plantations & Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala – Based on the Principle: LT to fix Tenancy’; TLB to Fix Plantation Exemption.
- 1910 Settlement Register of Travancore – Basic Record of Land Matters
- Do the Plantation-Tenants have the Right to Seek ‘Assignment’ of the Entire Plantation-Tenancy-Land (under Purchase Certificates)?
Power of attorney
- M.S. Ananthamurthy v. J. Manjula: Mere Word ‘Irrevocable’ Does Not Make a POWER OF ATTORNEY Irrevocable
- Can a Power of Attorney file a Civil Suit? Is there any bar by virtue of Manisha Mahendra Gala v. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani, 2024-6 SCC 130?
- No Adjudication If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
- Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
- Notary-Attested Documents and Presumptions
- Permission when a Power of Attorney Holder Files Suit
- If Power of Attorney himself Executes the Document, S. 33 Registration Act will NOT be attracted
- Should a Power of Attorney for Sale must have been Registered –
- Is Registered Power of Attorney Necessary for Registration of a Deed? No.
Evidence Act – General
- Newspaper Reports are ‘Hearsay Secondary Evidence’
- Major Changes in the Evidence Act by Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
- Sec. 27 Recovery/Discovery in Evidence Act and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
- Evidence in Court – General Principles
- Expert Evidence and Appreciation of Evidence
- Handwriting Expert Evidence: Relevant, But Merely an Opinion
- How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
- Withholding Evidence and Adverse Inference
- Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
- What is Collateral Purpose?
- Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
- Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
- Effect of Not Cross-Examining a Witness & Effect of Not Facing Complete Cross Examination by the Witness
- Suggestions & Admissions by Counsel, in Cross Examination to Witnesses
- Proof of Documents – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
- Public Documents: Proof and Presumption
- Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
- How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
- Significance of Scientific Evidence in Judicial Process
- Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
- What is Section 27 Evidence Act – Recovery or Discovery?
- How ‘Discovery’ under Section 27, Evidence Act, Proved?
- Pictorial Testimony Theory and Silent Witnesses Theory
- Sec. 35 Evidence Act: Presumption of Truth and Probative Value
- Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
Sec. 65B
- Admissibility of Electronic Evidence: Does Section 61 of the BSA Permit Oral Proof (Overriding Arjun Panditrao)
- Law on Electronic Evidence in India: A Comparative Analysis with Other Jurisdictions
- Hash Value Certificate – Mandatory or Directory
- Sakshya Adhiniyam (Literally) Mandates Hashing the Original. But the Established Jurisprudence Requires Hashing the Copy.
- Sec. 27 Recovery/Discovery in Evidence Act and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
- Sec. 65B (Electronic Records) and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
- Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Arjun Paditrao Criticised.
- Sec. 65B Evidence Act Simplified
- ‘STATEMENTS’ alone can be proved by ‘CERTIFICATE’ u/s. 65B
- Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Certificate forms
- “Nothing In This Adhiniyam Shall Apply To Deny The Admissibility” – New Provision (Sec. 61, BSA) to ensure that Sec. 65B (Sec. 63, BSA) is an enabling provision
- Certificate is Required Only for ‘Computer Output’; Not for ‘Electronic Records’: Arjun Panditrao Explored.
- How to Prove ‘Whatsap Messages’, ‘Facebook’ and ‘Website’ in Courts?
Admission, Relevancy and Proof
- ‘Admission’ in Indian Law
- Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
- Handwriting Expert Evidence: Relevant, But Merely an Opinion
- Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
- Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
- Judicial Admissions in Pleadings: Admissible Proprio Vigore Against the Maker
- Document Exhibited in the Writ Petition as ‘True Copy’ – Can it be Used in a Civil Suit as ‘Admission’?
- Modes of Proof of Documents
- Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
- Should Objection to Marking Documents be Raised When it is Admitted; Is it Enough to Challenge them in Cross-Examination?
- Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
- Burden on Plaintiff to Prove Title; Weakness of Defence Will Not Entitle a Decree
- Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
- Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
- Proof of Documents – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
- Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
- Can Documents be Marked In Cross Examination, If Witness Admits Them?
- Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting
- Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
- Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
- Relevancy of Civil Case Judgments in Criminal Cases
- Prem Raj v. Poonamma Menon (SC), April 2, 2024 – An Odd Decision on ‘Civil Court Judgment does not Bind Criminal Court’
Law on Documents
- Public Documents: Proof and Presumption
- Public Documents Admissible Without Formal Proof
- Admitted Documents – Can the Court Refrain from Marking, for no Formal Proof?
- Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
- Is Registration of a Deed, Notice to Government?
- Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
- Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
- Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
- Effect of Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
- Time Limit for Registration of Documents
- Registration of Documents Executed out of India
- How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
- Are RTI Documents Admissible in Evidence as ‘Public Documents’?
- Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
- Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
- Notary-Attested Documents and Presumptions
- What is Collateral Purpose?
- No Application Needed for Filing or Admitting Copy
- Presumptions on Documents and Truth of Contents
- Presumptions on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
- Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
- Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
- Modes of Proof of Documents
- Secondary Evidence of Documents & Objections to Admissibility – How & When?
- Should Objection to Marking Documents be Raised When it is Admitted; Is it Enough to Challenge them in Cross-Examination?
- 30 Years Old Documents and Presumption of Truth of Contents, under Sec. 90 Evidence Act
- Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
- Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
- Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
- Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Settlement Deeds & Powers of Sub-Registrar in cancelling Deeds
- Cancellation, Avoidance or Declaration of a Void or Voidable Deed
- If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set Aside
- Can the True Owner Seek Cancellation of a Deed, Executed by a Stranger to the Property
- Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting
- How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
- Visual and Audio Evidence (Including Photographs, Cassettes, Tape-recordings, Films, CCTV Footage, CDs, e-mails, Chips, Hard-discs, Pen-drives)
- Photograph Evidence, Its Admissibility and Photo-Identification in Court Cases
- Pictorial Testimony Theory and Silent Witnesses Theory
- No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
- Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
- Impounding of Documents – When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is Exhibited
- Sec. 35 Evidence Act: Presumption of Truth and Probative Value
- How to Prove Resolutions of a Company; Are Minutes Necessary?
Documents – Proof and Presumption
- Contents of a Document are to be Proved in Court by Producing Original or Secondary Evidence
- Handwriting Expert Evidence: Relevant, But Merely an Opinion
- Public Documents: Proof and Presumption
- Can the Court Refuse to Mark a (Relevant and Admissible) Document, for (i) there is No Formal Proof or (ii) it is a Photocopy?
- Photograph Evidence, Its Admissibility and Photo-Identification in Court Cases
- Marking of Photocopy and Law on Marking Documents on Admission (Without Formal Proof)
- Proof of Documents – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
- Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
- Modes of Proof of Documents
- ‘Admission’ in Indian Law
- Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
- Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
- Admitted Documents – Can the Court Refrain from Marking, for no Formal Proof?
- Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
- Effect of Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
- Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
- Should Objection to Marking Documents be Raised When it is Admitted; Is it Enough to Challenge them in Cross-Examination?
- Presumptions on Documents and Truth of Contents
- Presumptions on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
- Secondary Evidence of Documents & Objections to Admissibility – How & When?
- 30 Years Old Documents and Presumption of Truth of Contents, under Sec. 90 Evidence Act
Interpretation
- Interpretation of Documents – Literal Rule, Mischief Rule and Golden Rule
- Golden Rule of Interpretation is Not the Application of Plain Meaning of the Words
- Interpretation of Wills
- Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
Contract Act
- What is the Period of Limitation for a Suit on a Promissory Note?
- Can Filing a Suit Amount to Notice of Termination of Contract
- Godrej Projects Development Limited v. Anil Karlekar, 2025 INSC 143 – Supreme Court Missed to State Something
- ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’ in Indian Civil Laws
- Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
- Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
- UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian Law
- All Illegal Agreements are Void; but All Void Agreements are Not Illegal
- If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set Aside
- Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
- Cheating and Breach of Contract: Distinction – Fraudulent Intention at the time of Promise.
Law on Damages
- Law on Damages
- Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
- Law on Damages in Defamation Cases
- Pleadings in Defamation Suits
- Godrej Projects Development Limited v. Anil Karlekar, 2025 INSC 143 – Supreme Court Missed to State Something
Easement
- Easement Simplified
- What is Easement? Does Right of Easement Allow to ‘Enjoy’ Servient Land After Making Improvements Therein ?
- “Implied Grant” in Law of Easements
- Implied Grant: A Valid Mode of Creation of Easement under Indian Law
- “Title Thereto” in the Definition of ‘Prescriptive Easement’ in Sec. 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882
- Prescriptive Rights – Inchoate until the Title thereof is Upheld by a Competent Court
- Will Easement of Necessity Ripen into a Prescriptive Easement?
- What is “period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit” in Easement by Prescription?
- Is the Basis of Every Easement, Theoretically, a Grant
- Extent of Easement (Width of Way) in Easement of Necessity, Quasi Easement and Implied Grant
- Easement of Necessity and Prescriptive Easement are Mutually Destructive; But, Easement of Necessity and Implied Grant Can be Claimed Alternatively
- Can Easement of Necessity and of Grant be Claimed in a Suit (Alternatively)?
- Can an Easement-Way be Altered by the Owner of the Land?
- Village Pathways and Right to Bury are not Easements.
- Custom & Customary Easements in Indian Law
- ‘Additional Burden Loses Lateral Support’ – Incorrect Proposition
- Grant in Law
- Right of Private Way Beyond (Other Than) Easement
- Easement – Should Date of Beginning of 20 Years be pleaded?
- What is Easement, in law? Right of Easement Simplified
- One Year Interruption or Obstruction will not affect Prescriptive Easement
- Should the Plaintiff Schedule Servient Heritage in a Suit Claiming Perspective Easement?
- Necessary Parties in Suits on Easement
- Easement by Prescription – Grant or ‘Acquiring’ by “Hostile Act”
- Sec. 7 Easements Act – Natural Advantages Arising from the Situation of Land & Natural Flow of Water
- Licence and Irrevocable Licence: Section 60 Easements Act Applies only to ‘Bare Licences’ and Not to ‘Contractual Licences’
Stamp Act & Registration
- Sub-Registrar has no Authority to Ascertain whether the Vendor has Title
- Title Enquiry by the Sub Registrar is Illegal
- Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Settlement Deeds & Powers of Sub-Registrar in Cancelling Deeds
- Time-Limit For Adjudication of Unstamped Documents, before Collector
- Time Limit for Registration of Documents
- Presumptions on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
- Registration of Documents Executed out of India
- Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
- Is Registration of a Deed, Notice to Government?
- LAW ON INSUFFICIENTLY STAMPED DOCUMENTS
- Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
- Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
- Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
- Impounding of Documents, When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is Exhibited
- No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
- Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
- What is Torrens System
Divorce/Marriage
- Presumption of Valid Marriage – If lived together for Long Spell
- Validity of Foreign Divorce Decrees in India
- Is ‘Irretrievable Brake-down of Marriage’, a Valid Ground for Divorce in India?
- Foreign Divorce Judgment against Christians having Indian Domicile
Negotiable Instruments Act
- Presumptions Regarding Consideration in Cheque Cases under the NI Act
- An Inchoate Cheque (Signed Blank Cheque or Incomplete Cheque) Cannot be Enforced Through a Court of Law Invoking Presumptions under the NI Act
- Does Cheque-Case under Sec. 138, NI Act Lie Against a Trust?
- Sec. 138 NI Act (Cheque) Cases: Presumption of Consideration u/s. 118
- Even if ‘Signed-Blank-Cheque’, No Burden on Complainant to Prove Consideration; Rebuttal can be by a Probable Defence
- “Otherwise Through an Account” in Section 142, NI Act
- Where to file Cheque Bounce Cases (Jurisdiction of Court – to file NI Act Complaint)?
- Cheque Dishonour Case against a Company, Firm or Society
- What is ‘Cognizance’ in Law
- What is COGNIZANCE and Application of Mind by a Magistrate?
Criminal
- Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. The State of Gujarat: The police have no discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR in cognizable offences
- Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. The State of Karnataka: Supreme Court held – Commission of Cognizable Offence, On the Face of it, Merit Police Investigation
- ‘Prima Facie Case’ in Criminal Cases
Arbitration
- Seesaw of Supreme Court in NN Global Mercantile v. Indo Unique Flame
- N.N. Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. and Ground Realities of Indian Situation
- What are Non-Arbitrable Disputes? When a Dispute is Not Referred to Arbitration in spite of Arbitration Clause
- Termination or Nullity of Contract Will Not Cease Efficacy of the Arbitration Clause
- No Valid Arbitration Agreement ‘Exists’ – Can Arbitration Clause be Invoked?
Will
- Interpretation of Wills
- Interpretation of Inconsistent Clauses in a Will
- Executors of Will – Duties & their Removal
- A Witness to Hindu-Will will not Lose Benefit
- Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
- How to Write a Will? Requirements of a Valid Will
- Witnesses to the Will Need Not See the Execution of the Will
- How to Prove a Will, in Court? Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
- When Execution of a Will is ‘Admitted’ by the Opposite Side, Should it be ‘Proved’?
- 30 Years Old Documents- No ‘Absolute’ Presumption of Truth of Contents, under Sec. 90 Evidence Act
- Suit on Possessory Remedy, Other side Admits Possession; Should the Will be Proved?
- Presumption on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
- Presumptions on Documents and Truth of Contents
- Parvathi Nairthi v. Laxmi Nairthy: Deprivation of Natural Heirs Not Amount to Suspicious Circumstance; A Will is not Required to be Proved with Mathematical Accuracy; Unregistered Will is Valid.
Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues
- Judicial & Legislative Activism in India: Principles and Instances
- Can Legislature Overpower Court Decisions by an Enactment?
- Separation of Powers: Who Wins the Race – Legislature or Judiciary?
- Kesavananda Bharati Case: Never Ending Controversy
- Mullaperiyar Dam: Disputes and Adjudication of Legal Issues
- Article 370: Is There Little Chance for Supreme Court Interference
- Maratha Backward Community Reservation: SC Fixed Limit at 50%.
- Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
- CAA Challenge: Divergent Views
- FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
- Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
- Doctrines on Ultra Vires and Removing the BASIS of the Judgment, in ED Director’s Tenure Extension Case (Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India)
- Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India – Mandamus (Given in a Case) Cannot be Annulled by Changing the Law
- Art. 370 – Turns the Constitution on Its Head
Religious issues
- Sabarimala Review: Supreme Court to Decide the Contours of Constitutional Morality
- Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
- Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
- ‘Ban on Muslim Women to Enter Mosques, Unconstitutional’
- No Reservation to Muslim and Christian SCs/STs (Dalits) Why?
- Parsi Women – Excommunication for Marrying Outside
- Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
- Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
- SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
- Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case –Pragmatic Verdict
Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India
- General
- Property & Trust
- Suits
- Suits and Criminal Complaints By and Against a Company
- Suits By or Against Societies, Clubs
- Court’s Jurisdiction to Interfere in the Internal Affairs
- How to Sue Societies, Clubs and Companies
- Members of a Charitable Society which Runs a College are Tractable to Prevention of Corruption Act
- Lifting Corporate Veil of Companies and Subsidiary Companies
- Amendment and Dissolution
- Rights and Management
- Election
- State Actions
Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India
- General Principles
- Dedication and Vesting
- Trustees and Management
- Breach of Trust
- Suits by or against Trusts
- Law on Hindu Religious Endowments
- Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques – General
- Constitutional Principles
- Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
- Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
- ‘Muslim Women: Ban to Enter Mosques, Is it Unconstitutional
- Parsi Women Excommunication, Unconstitutional.
- Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
- State & Court – Protectors of All Charities
- Striking Down Legislation Relating to a Trust as Violative of Article 14 and 300A
- Ayodhya and Sabarimala Disputes
- General
Saji Koduvath Associates 