Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.
Key Takeaways
- What is Tenancy at Sufferance? – Tenancy at Sufferance is continuance of tenant after expiry of lease without the landlord’s permission or approval. (If it is with permission of landlord, it is ‘holding over’).
- Possession of a ‘tenant at sufferance’ is unlawful, as it is after the extinction of a lawful title - as tenant (Bhupal Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 140, 1995 -5 SCC 698).
- Still, it is recognised as juridical possession; and it is protected by Common law (Bhupal Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 140, 1995 -5 SCC 698).
- For such protection the the tenant must have accepted the title of the landlord; and he must not have asserted title hostile to landlord (Sheo Dulare Lal Sah v. Anant Ram, AIR 1954 All. 475).
- Is Tenant at Sufferance a Trespasser? Though the possession of ‘tenant at sufferance’ is unlawful, and possession of such a tenant is akin to that of a trespasser, there is little difference between the two.
- Tenant at Sufferance can remain in possession until he is ejected in due course (in the suit filed by the landlord (Bhupal Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 140, 1995 -5 SCC 698).
- His possession cannot be considered to be ‘settled possession‘ (Bhupal Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 140, 1995 -5 SCC 698).
- Tenancy at sufferance is litigious – liable to ejectment in due course of law (Bhupal Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 140, 1995 -5 SCC 698).
- ‘Tenant at Sufferance’ is recognised in law as a device to avoid the term ‘trespasser’ (MEC India Pvt. Ltd. v. Lt. Col. Inder Maira, 80 (1999) DLT 679).
- Can Tenancy at sufferance be converted into a ‘holding over’? Yes. Tenancy at sufferance can be converted into a ‘holding over’ (by accepting rent by the landlord). Sec. 116, TP Act statutorily recognises holding over. (Bhupal Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 140, 1995 -5 SCC 698)
- Has the Tenant got a right to transfer his right of continuance? No. A tenant who becomes a tenant at sufferance, he has no right to transfer (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Sudera Realty Private Limited, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1161).
- Whether the possession of such a tenant would be Adverse to the landlord? No.
Bhupal Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh
These principles are laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Bhupal Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 140, 1995 -5 SCC 698, as under:
- “8. Tenant at sufferance is one who comes into possession of land by lawful title, but who holds it by wrong after the termination of the term or expiry of the lease by efflux of time. The tenant at sufferance is, therefore, one who wrongfully continues in possession after the extinction of a lawful title. There is little difference between him and a trespasser. In Mulla’s Transfer of Property Act [7th End.] at page 633, the position of tenancy at sufferance has been stated thus:
- A tenancy at sufferance is merely a fiction to avoid continuance in possession operating as a trespass. It has been described as the least and lowest interest which can subsist in reality. It, therefore, cannot be created by contract and arises only by implication of law when a person who has been in possession under a lawful title continues in possession after that title has been determined, without the consent of the person entitled. A Tenancy at sufferance does not create the relationship of landlord and tenant.
- At page 769, it is stated regarding the right of a tenant holding over thus:
- The act of holding over after the expiration of the term does not necessarily create a tenancy of any kind. If the lessee remaining in possession after the determination of the term, the common law rule is that he is a tenant on sufferance.
- The expression “holding over” is used in the sense of retaining possession. A distinction should be drawn between a tenant continuing in possession after the determination of the lease, without the consent of the landlord and a tenant doing so with the landlord’s consent. The former is called a tenant by sufferance in the language of the English law and the latter class of tenants is called a tenant holding over or a tenant at will. The lessee holding over with the consent of the lessor is in a better position than a mere tenant at will. The tenancy on sufferance is converted into a tenancy at will by the assent of the landlord, but the relationship of the landlord and tenant is not established until the rent was paid and accepted. The assent of the landlord to the continuance of the tenancy after the determination of the tenancy would create a new tenancy. The possession of a tenant who has ceased to be a tenant is protected by law. Although he may not have a right to continue in possession after the termination of the tenancy, his possession is juridical.
- “13. In view of the settled position of law, the possession of the appellant is as tenant at sufferance and is liable to ejectment in due course of law. But his possession is not legal nor lawful. In other words, his possession of the the- atre is unlawful or litigious possession. The appellant may remain in possession until he is ejected in due course in execution of the decree in the suit filed by the respon- dent. His possession cannot be considered to be settled possession. He is akin to a trespasser, though initially he had lawful entry.”
- (Quoted in Kewal Chand Mimani v. S.K. Sem, 2001-6 SCC 512, AIR 2001 SC 2569; Nand Ram v. Jagdish Prasad, (2020) 9 SCC 393)
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Sudera Realty Private Limited
In Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Sudera Realty Private Limited, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1161, it is observed by our Apex Court as under:
- “60. A tenant continuing in possession after the expiry of the lease may be treated as a tenant at sufferance, which status is a shade higher than that of a mere trespasser, as in the case of a tenant continuing after the expiry of the lease, his original entry was lawful. But a tenant at sufferance is not a tenant by holding over. While a tenant at sufferance cannot be forcibly dispossessed, that does not detract from the possession of the erstwhile tenant turning unlawful on the expiry of the lease. Thus, the appellant while continuing in possession after the expiry of the lease became liable to pay mesne profits.”
- “83. Once the lease comes to an end, the erstwhile tenant becomes a tenant at sufferance. He cannot be dispossessed, except in accordance with law. But he cannot, in law, have any right or interest anymore. Even though, under Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, if there is no contract to the contrary, the tenant may have the right, under Section 108(j), to transfer his interest absolutely or even by sub-lease or mortgage, when the lease expires by afflux of time, his interest as lessee would come to an end. In this context, we may notice the following statement of the law in Bhawanji Lakhamshi and Others v. Himatlal Jammnadas Dani and Others, (1972) 1 SCC 388:
- “9. The act of holding over after the expiration of the term does not create a tenancy of any kind. If a tenant remains in possession after the determination of the lease, the common law rule is that he is a tenant on sufferance…”
- Thus, on the expiry of a lease, the erstwhile tenant, who remains a tenant at sufferance, would have no right to transfer.”
Our Apex Court held in Bhawanji Lakhamshi v. Himatlal Jamnadas Dani , (1972) 1 SCC 388, as under:
- “9. The act of holding over after the expiration of the term does not create a tenancy of any kind. If a tenant remains in possession after the determination of the lease, the common law rule is that he is a tenant on sufferance. A distinction should be drawn between a tenant continuing in possession after the determination of the term with the consent of the landlord and a tenant doing so without his consent. The former is a tenant at sufferance in English Law and the latter a tenant holding over or a tenant at will. In view of the concluding words of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, a lessee holding over is in a better position than a tenant at will. The assent of the land- lord to the continuance of possession after the determina- tion of the tenancy will create a new tenancy. What the section contemplates is that on one side there should be an offer of taking a new lease evidenced by the lessee or sub-lessee remaining in possession of the property after his term was over and on the other side there must be a definite consent to the continuance of possession by the landlord expressed by acceptance of rent or otherwise. ….” (Quoted in Nand Ram v. Jagdish Prasad, (2020) 9 SCC 393)
Tenant at Sufferance – Owners Entitled Recovery under Art. 65 Limit. Act
In Sevoke Properties Ltd. v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (2020) 11 SCC 782, the respondent continued in possession after the expiry of lease period. A suit for possession was filed without serving a notice under Section 106 of the TP Act. The stand of the defendant was that he was a tenant holding over. Such argument was not accepted and it was held that after the expiry of lease period in terms of unregistered document of lease, the possession of the respondent was that of a tenant at sufferance. In view thereof, as owners, the appellants were entitled to possession of the land in terms of Article 65 of the Limitation Act as the possession of respondent was that of a tenant at sufferance. (Referred to in Nand Ram v. Jagdish Prasad, (2020) 9 SCC 393)
- (Note: Article 67 deals with right of the “landlord” to claim possession after determination of tenancy; and Article 65 deals with recovery on “title”. Unless there is no adverse-possession-claim from the tenant such a suit under Art. 65, on title, will not be barred. In sum, a “landlord” can recover under Art. 67 on the basis of determination of tenancy; but, “title” holder alone can recover under Art. 65.)
In Nand Ram v. Jagdish Prasad, (2020) 9 SCC 393, it is observed as under:
- “After the expiry of lease period, and in the absence of payment of rent by the lessee, the status of the lessee will be that of tenant at sufferance and not a tenant holding over. Section 116 of the TP Act confers the status of a tenant holding over on a yearly or monthly basis keeping in view the purpose of the lease, only if the lessor accepts the payment of lease money. If the lessor does not accept the lease money, the status of the lessee would be that of tenant at sufferance.”
The court referred the following decisions in this regard:
- Bhawanji Lakhamshi and Others v. Himatlal Jamnadas Dani and Others , (1972) 1 SCC 388
- Badrilal v. Municipal Corpn. of Indore (1973) 2 SCC 388
- R.V. Bhupal Prasad v. State of A.P and Others 15 (1995) 5 SCC 698
- Sevoke Properties Ltd. v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (2020) 11 SCC 782
Possession as a Tenant at Sufferance – should be without asserting Hostile Title
In Sheo Dulare Lal Sah v. Anant Ram, AIR 1954 All. 475, it was held that in order to create a tenancy at sufferance the tenant should have lawfully entered into possession in recognition of the landlord’s superior title and should have continued to remain in possession in the same right after the termination of the tenancy without asserting any title hostile to that of the landlord. The Court held as under:
- “12. In order to create a tenancy at sufferance the tenant should have lawfully entered into possession in recognition of the landlord’s superior title and should have continued to remain in possession in the same right after the termination of the tenancy without asserting any title hostile to that of the landlord and without his assent or dissent. The continuance in possession should be due to the laches of the owner in not asking for payment of the rent or vacation of the premises or taking over possession of the property. In Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 51, p. 780, 175, it is pointed out that:
- “The holding of a tenant at sufferance is the most shadowy estate recognized at common law, and practically the only distinction between such a tenant’s holding and the possession of a trespasser is that the land-owner may, by his acquiescence, at any time base on the tenancy at sufferance the relation of landlord and tenant, which he cannot establish at law against a mere trespasser, and that the tenant cannot be subjected to an action in trespass before entry or demand for possession.”
- The law thus enunciated is in line with the provisions of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act (No. 4 of 1882) which pointed out that:
- “If a lessee or under-lessee of property remains in possession thereof after the determination of the lease granted to the lessee, and the lessor or his legal representative accepts rent from the lessee or under-lessee, or otherwise assents to his continuing in possession, the lease is, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, renewed from year to year, or from month to month, according to the purpose for which the property is leased as specified in S. 106.”
- (Quoted in Nand Ram v. Jagdish Prasad, (2020) 9 SCC 393)
Whether Possession of the Tenant could be Adverse to Landlord
S. 116 (holding-over) of the TP Act
To the question – whether the possession of the tenant would become adverse to the landlord, upon the expiration of the tenancy period, merely because the tenant has not paid rent is considered by the Bombay High Court in Sidram Lachmaya v. Mallaya Lingaya Chilaka, ILR 1949 Bom 135 (FB) with reference to S. 116 (holding-over) of the Transfer of Property Act.
S. 108(q) of the TP Act (possession remains permissive till restored to landlord)
The Delhi High Court considered the matter in MEC India Pvt. Ltd. v. Lt. Col. Inder Maira 80 (1999) DLT 679, in terms of Section 108(q) of the TP Act (unless the landlord is actually put into possession, the premises remain under a tenancy; that is, a semblance of relationship subsists) and his continuing in possession is expressive of his continuing stand that the tenancy, in whatever form, continues and not adversely to the landlord till he has unequivocally renounced his status as a tenant and asserted hostile title, but even that appears to be doubtful, for in law his possession remains permissive till it has been actually restored to the landlord.
Referring these decisions it is observed in MEC India Pvt. Ltd. v. Lt. Col. Inder Maira 80 (1999) DLT 679, that there is presumption, in law, in favour of the continuity of the tenancy and against the possession of the tenant becoming adverse. It is held in this decision as under:
- “Furthermore, the doctrine of tenant estoppel, which continues to operate even after the termination of the tenancy, debars a tenant who had been let into possession by a landlord, from disputing the latter’s title or pleading adverse possession, without first openly and actually surrendering possession of the tenanted premises and restoring them to the landlord.
- 42. A tenant who upon determination of the tenancy does not deliver up possession to the landlord as required by Section 108(q), cannot be heard to say that he is not a tenant—be he one at sufferance or be he one from month-to-month. Therefore, unless the landlord is actually put into possession, the premises remain under a tenancy, which unless assented to by the landlord, has the character of one at sufferance.” (Quoted in: Nand Ram v. Jagdish Prasad, (2020) 9 SCC 393)
Principle of ‘Tenant at Sufferance’ – Device to Avoid ‘Trespass’ and Adverse Possession
In MEC India Pvt. Ltd. v. Lt. Col. Inder Maira, 80 (1999) DLT 679, it is held further as under:
- “43. Thus, a tenant at sufferance is one who wrongfully continues in possession after the extinction of a lawful title and that a tenancy at sufferance is merely a legal fiction or device to avoid continuance in possession from operating as a trespass. A tenant remaining in possession of the property after determination of the lease does not become a trespasser, but continues as a tenant at sufferance till possession is restored to the landlord. The possession of an erstwhile tenant is juridical and he is a protected from dispossession otherwise than in due course of law. Although, he is a tenant, but being one at sufferance as aforesaid, no rent can be paid since, if rent is accepted by the landlord he will be deemed to have consented and a tenancy from month-to-month will come into existence. Instead of rent, the tenant at sufferance and by his mere continuance in possession is deemed to acknowledge both the landlord’s title and his (tenant’s) liability to pay mesne profits for the use and occupation of the property.
- 44. To sum up the legal position or status of a lessee whose lease has expired and whose continuance is not assented to by the landlord, is that of a tenant at sufferance. If, however, the holding over has been assented to in any manner, then it becomes that of a tenant from month-to-month. Similar, i.e. from month-tomonth, is the status of a lessee who comes into possession tinder a lease for a period exceeding one year but unregistered. He holds it not as a lessee for a fixed term, but as one from month-to-month or year-to-year depending on the purpose of the lease. If upon a tenant from month-to-month (or year-to-year) and in either of the aforesaid two contingencies, a notice to quit is served, 29 then on the expiry of the period, his status becomes of a tenant at sufferance. Waiver of that notice, or assent in any form to continuation restores to him his status as a tenant from month-to-month, but capable, of once again being terminated with the expiry of any ensuing tenancy month.” (Quoted in: Nand Ram v. Jagdish Prasad, (2020) 9 SCC 393)
Claim of Adverse Possession by Tenant
In Nand Ram v. Jagdish Prasad, (2020) 9 SCC 393, the claim of adverse possession by the tenant was negatived by the Apex Court on the following grounds:
- The respondent-tenant had admitted the ownership of the landlord in earlier proceedings.
- Such plea operates as estoppel. The subsequent claim of adverse possession of the tenant as owner is not sustainable.
- The respondent was to prove his continuous, open and hostile possession to the knowledge of true owner for a continuous period of 12 years. The respondent has not led any evidence of hostile possession to the knowledge of true owner.
- He has also not surrendered possession before asserting hostile, continuous and open title to the knowledge of the true owner. (In terms of Sec. 108(q) of the TP Act possession of tenant remains permissive till it has been actually restored to the landlord.)
- The claim of adverse possession without admitting the title of the real owner is not tenable. (Such question has been examined by the Apex Court in Uttam Chand v. Nathu Ram, (2020) 11 SCC 263, AIR 2020 SC 461).
Acceptance of Rent, After Issuing Quit Notice is Not Waiver
In Sarup Singh Gupta v. S. Jagdish Singh, AIR 2006 SC 1734: (2006) 4 SCC 205, our Apex Court considered whether mere acceptance of rent, after issuing quit notice by itself constitute an act of the nature envisaged by Section 113, Transfer of Property Act showing an intention to treat the lease as subsisting. It was held as under:
- “It cannot, therefore, be said that mere acceptance of rent amounts to waiver of notice to quit unless there be any other evidence to prove or establish that the landlord so intended.” (Quoted in: Sameerali v. Muhammed, 2024-1 KLT 20).
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
- 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
- Order II, Rule 2 CPC – Not to Vex Defendants Twice
- 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
- INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
- 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?
- 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?
- Waiver and Promissory Estoppel
Power of attorney
- 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
- Is Registered Power of Attorney Necessary for Registration of a Deed? No.
Title, ownership and Possession
- 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
- Recovery of Possession Based on Title and on Earlier Possession
- Title and Ownership in Indian Law
- Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
- Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
- POSSESSION is a Substantive Right in Indian Law
- 22nd Law Commission Report on ‘Law on Adverse Possession’
- Government of Kerala v. Joseph – Law on Adverse Possession Against Government
- 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
Adverse Possession
- 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’?
- Government of Kerala v. Joseph – Law on Adverse Possession Against Government
- ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
- Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
- Ouster and Dispossession in Adverse Possession
Principles and Procedure
- 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
- Can Courts Award Interest on Equitable Grounds?
- Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse
- ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’
- Prescriptive Rights – Inchoate until the Title thereof is Upheld by a Competent Court
- 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
Admission, Relevancy and Proof
- Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
- Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
- Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
- Modes of Proof of Documents
- Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
- 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
- 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
Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act
- 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
- 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’
- FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
- Marumakkathayam – A System of Law and Way of Life Prevailed in Kerala
- Relevant provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act in a Nutshell
- Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in Kerala
- ‘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.
- Sale Deeds Without Consideration – Void
- Law on Acquisition of Private Plantation Land in Kerala
- Law on SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE and LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE
- Grant in Law
Evidence Act – General
- Evidence in Court – General Principles
- Expert Evidence and Appreciation of Evidence
- 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.
- 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
- Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
Sec. 65B
- What is Brought About on Electronic Records, By virtue of Sec. 63, 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
- Certificate is Required Only for ‘Computer Output’; Not for ‘Electronic Records’: Arjun Panditrao Explored.
- How to Prove ‘Whatsap Messages’, ‘Facebook’ and ‘Website’ in Courts?
Law on Documents
- Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
- Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
- Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
- 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
- Effect of Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
- 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
- Proof of Documents – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
- Modes of Proof of Documents
- Secondary Evidence of Documents & Objections to Admissibility – How & When?
- 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 Registering Deeds
- 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)
- 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
Interpretation
- Interpretation of Statutes – Literal Rule, Mischief Rule and Golden Rule
- Interpretation of Documents – Literal Rule, Mischief Rule and Golden Rule
- Interpretation of Wills
- Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
Contract Act
- ‘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
- Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
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
Easement
- Easement Simplified
- What is Easement? Does Right of Easement Allow to ‘Enjoy’ After Making a Construction?
- 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
- Can Easement of Necessity and of Grant be Claimed in a Suit (Alternatively)?
- “Implied Grant” in Law of Easements
- 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
Stamp Act & Registration
- Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Settlement Deeds & Powers of Sub-Registrar in Registering 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
- 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
Will
- Witnesses to the Will Need Not See the Execution of the Will
- Interpretation of Wills
- Interpretation of Inconsistent Clauses in a Will
- Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
- Executors of Will – Duties & their Removal
- How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
- How to Write a Will? Requirements of a Valid Will
- When Execution of a Will is ‘Admitted’ by the Opposite Side, Should it be ‘Proved’?
Arbitration
- 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?
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
- “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
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 Vs. 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
- 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
- Juristic Personality
- Suits
- 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
- Ayodhya and Sabarimala Disputes
- General