Author Archives: sajikoduvath

“Mode of proof” of a document stands distinct from “inherent inadmissibility” (such as an un-stamped document)

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Part I

Abstract

If a document itself is ‘inherently inadmissible’ in evidence under law (e.g., an un-stamped document barred by the Stamp Act or evidence prohibited by statute), merely marking the document as an ‘exhibit’ does not cure its inherent inadmissibility. But, failure to object marking documents, when they are tendered in evidence, on the ground – “mode of proof” (not that the document is in itself inadmissible) bars the party from raising the objection at a later stage, including during final arguments, in appeal, or in revision.

The Core of the Controversy

There are two diametrically opposite judicial views regarding objections to the “mode of proof” of documents:

• 1. The “Mere Marking is Not Proof”: Exhibiting a document does not dispense with the requirement of proving its contents.
• 2. The “Waiver” Rule: Failure to object to a document’s mode of proof (not that the document is in itself inadmissible) at the time of exhibition constitutes an irrevocable waiver.

A Fundamental Conflict in Case Law

• The Supreme Court has yet to definitively harmonize or resolve this overarching controversy.

Mere Marking is Not Magical Establishment of Proof: SC Decisions

Simply assigning an exhibit number to a document “without objection” does not magically discharge the burden of proving its contents—unless those contents are expressly admitted by the opposing party in accordance with law [such as through pleadings under Order VIII Rule 5 CPC, explicit statements under Order X CPC, or written admissions under Order XII Rule 2 CPC; under Sections 17 to 23 of the Evidence Act / Sections 15 to 21 of the BSA].

The principal authorities are:

• Tharammel Peethambaran v. T. Ushakrishnan,  AIR 2026 SC 938.
  • It is held in this decision (Pankaj Mithal, S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.) that the secondary evidence is NOT admissible until the non-production of the original is accounted for – that is, until the foundational facts of Section 65 are established. The court has to decide the question of admissibility before marking it as a secondary evidence. That is, mere marking, or marking on admission, does not automatically prove its contents.
• Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal, (2003) 8 SCC 745
  • To prove the tenancy, the appellant produced rent receipts bearing the respondent’s signatures. The respondent admitted his signatures; but set up a plea that the landlord had obtained his signatures on blank papers, which were later converted into rent receipts. Doctrine of waiver is applied for the tenant did not adduce independent evidence to establish the allegation of blank papers.
• Ramji Dayawala v. Invest Import: AIR 1981 SC 2085
  • Merely admitting a document into evidence or marking it as an exhibit does not dispense with proving the truth of its contents (usually through proper witness testimony). In this case, while signing the contract, it was explicitly stated that the arbitration clause (venue at Paris) was unacceptable. Immediately sent a formal letter and cable confirming the objection. The opposite party though received these communications, remained silent.

Waiver and Marking for Failure to Object: SC Decisions

If a party has an objection to the marking of a document on the ground of a defective, irregular, or insufficient mode of proof—such as secondary evidence—it must be raised when the document is tendered and before it is marked as an exhibit. Otherwise, the objection stands waived. The position remains identical where the document and relevant signatures are not disputed, and such an objection cannot be allowed to be raised at any subsequent stage.

Classic Decisions on this view are –

• (i) R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple, (2003) 8 SCC 752.
  • The landlord-plaintiff produced photocopies of rent notes and account books to establish his long-standing management and collection of rent. The defendants objected to their admissibility on the ground that they were copies. The Court held – An objection to the mode of proof (such as marking a photocopy or secondary evidence) must be raised when the document is tendered at trial; if no objection is raised then, it stands waived and cannot be raised at the appellate stage. The Court pointed out – if the court rules against the mode of proof adopted, the party who tendered the evidence still has the opportunity to seek the court’s permission to adopt a regular method of proof, thereby curing the defect raised by the opposite party.
• (ii) Dayamathi Bai v. K.M. Shaffi, (2004) 7 SCC 107
  • The Plaintiff claimed title through a registered sale deed—which was a certified copy—executed by the sons of the original owner. The Defendant claimed to have derived rights from the original owner’s wife. The Supreme Court ruled that an objection regarding the mode of proof (such as producing a certified copy without formally establishing the loss of the original first) belongs to procedural law. Because the defendant failed to object when the documents were tendered and marked at trial, the objection stood waived and could not be raised for the first time at the appellate stage.
• (iii) Sonu @ Amar v. State of Haryana, (2017) 8 SCC 570.
  • In a case involving offenses including that under Sections 376 of the IPC, a school leaving certificate was produced to prove the age of the victim. The defence did not raise any objection when the document was tendered and marked. In appeal the defence raised objection that the document was not formally proved (examining the headmaster or author of the document). The Supreme Court held: objections such as marking a copy (other than inherently inadmissible documents—such as an unstamped document barred by the Stamp Act) must be raised at the very threshold when the document was tendered. If the party fails to object at that stage, the procedural irregularity stands waived.

Part II

Resolution of the Controversy – The Suggested Harmonisation

• Consequently, failing to examine the author of a document can be waived. But, marking secondary evidence without laying the foundational facts mandated under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, or exhibiting a document without fulfilling the statutory prerequisites of Section 65B cannot be waived.
• Therefore, (i) the waiver and (ii) the requirement of proving the contents of a document remain two distinct legal concepts.

End notes

Objections to Documents: R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Stands as a Sole Exception?

Preponderance of Authority Mandates – Objections Be Raised at Trial, Not First Time in Appeal

1. Substantive Admissibility Vs. Mode of Proof

• A document which is inherently inadmissible in evidence (e.g., an un-stamped document barred by the Stamp Act or evidence prohibited by statute) can be challenged at any time – even in appeal, despite a challenge in the trial court.
• But objection to mode of proof stands on a different footing. Here, the admissibility of the document itself is not disputed, but the method used to prove it stands irregular, informal, or deficient (e.g., tendering a certified copy or photocopy without first laying the foundational facts for secondary evidence).

In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple, (2003) 8 SCC 752, laid down the crucial distinction between two classes of evidentiary objections. It is observed as under:

• “20. The learned counsel for the defendant-respondent has relied on Roman Catholic Mission v. State of Madras [AIR 1966 SC 1457] in support of his submission that a document not admissible in evidence, though brought on record, has to be excluded from consideration. We do not have any dispute with the proposition of law so laid down in the above said case.
• However, the present one is a case which calls for the correct position of law being made precise. Ordinarily, an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently.
• The objections to the admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes:
  • (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and
  • (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient.
• In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as “an exhibit”, an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stagee or even in appeal or revision.
• In the latter case, the objection should be taken when the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit.

The Rationale: Upholding Fairness and Preventing Prejudice

A timely objection alerts the party tendering the document, giving them the opportunity to cure the procedural defect and adopt a regular method of proof. Allowing a party to stay silent during trial and object on appeal would unfairly prejudice the opponent.

R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple, (2003) 8 SCC 752, continues (Para 20) as under:

• The latter proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enabled the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. On the other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for two reasons:
  • firstly, it enables the court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of admissibility then and there; and
  • secondly, in the event of finding of the court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against the party tendering the evidence, the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence.
• Such practice and procedure is fair to both the parties. Out of the two types of objections, referred to hereinabove, in the latter case, failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to be proved being admissible in evidence. In the first case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in a superior court.”

In Dayamathi Bai v. K.M. Shaffi, (2004) 7 SCC 107, it is pointed out as under:

• “14. To the same effect is the judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Gopal Das V. Thakurji in which it has been held that when the objection to the mode of proof is not taken, the party cannot lie by until the case comes before a court of appeal and then complaint for the first time of the mode of proof. That when the objection to be taken is not that the document is in itself inadmissible but that the mode of proof was irregular, it is essential that the objection should be taken at the trial before the document is marked as an exhibit and admitted to the record.”

Judicial Precedents: Mere Marking Does Not Equal Proof

• Tharammel Peethambaran v. T. Ushakrishnan,  AIR 2026 SC 938.
• Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal, (2003) 8 SCC 745
• Ramji Dayawala v. Invest Import: AIR 1981 SC 2085

Judicial Precedents: Objections Must Be Raised at Trial, Not for the First Time in Appeal

The decisions commonly say: (i) the objection must be taken at trial and (ii) not first time in appeal. In Dayamathi Bai v. K.M. Shaffi, (2004) 7 SCC 107, it is pointed out as under:

• Similarly, in Sarkar on Evidence, 1st Edn., p.1084, it has been stated that where copies of the documents are admitted without objection in the trial Court, no objection to their admissibility can be taken afterwards in the court of appeal. When a party gives in evidence a certified copy, without proving the circumstances entitling him to give secondary evidence, objection must be taken at the time of admission and such objection will not be allowed at a later stage.”

• Sundar @ Sundarrajan Vs. State by Inspector of Police, (2024) 12 SCC 764 (Not first be in Appeal)
• Lachhmi Narain Singh v. Sarjug Singh, (2022) 13 SCC 746 (Must be before the trial court, and not be in appeal.)
• Rajender @ Rajesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 10 SCC 623 (Must be in Trial Court and Not first be in Appeal)
• Sonu @ Amar v. State of Haryana, (2017) 8 SCC 570 (if not taken at the trial, cannot be permitted at the appellate stage)
• Dayamathi Bai v. K.M. Shaffi, (2004) 7 SCC 107 ((Mode of proof – objection should be taken at the trial before the document is marked ))
• Gopal Das Vs. Sri Thakurji, AIR 1943 PC 83 (Not first in Appeal: referred to in: Sonu @ Amar v. State of Haryana).
• Padman v. Hanwanta, AIR 1915 PC 111, (objection to the admissibility in appeal for the first time.Objection should have been taken in the trial court.)

Judicial Reflections on Waiving Objections Through Cross-Examination

The law on the point (whether a challenge in cross-examination, sufficient) can be deduced from the following decisions-

(i) In Thakor Rajuji Takhaji v. Owner of Tractor No.  RJ-21-3R-8180, Kawarilal, 2024  Guj HC 14451), it is held as under:

• “The cross examination of the respondent/s does not suggest that they had any objection to the documents produced.”

(ii) Khan v. Habib Khan @ Abdul Mujeeb Khan, 11 Mar 2020 (Del), where it is observed –

• “5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the original documents were duly produced before the Trial Court at the time of the recording of the evidence of the respondent and the copies of the said documents, after comparison, were exhibited and marked as Exhibit PW1/6 to PW1/8 and no objection was taken by the petitioner with regard to the proof of the said documents and exhibit marking of the copies and there is even no cross-examination or suggestion during cross examination that the originals have not been produced.”

(iii) In Corporation of Calcutta v. Baldeo Shaw, 2011-3 Crimes (HC) 784; 2011-2 CalLJ 221;  2011-1 CriLR 890, it is held as under:

• “The cash memo, i.e., Exhibit-A was admitted into evidence and marked Exhibit. No objection was raised by the complainant in course of cross-examination in the matter of admission of such a document.”

(iv) In Kuntal Kundu v. National Insurance Company Limited, 2008-3 WBLR 717), it is held as under:

• “In the case before us, the appellant in his evidence-in-chief specifically tendered the said certificate and the same along with others was marked as Exhibit without objection. We have already pointed out that even no suggestion was given in cross-examination disputing either the contents or the genuineness of those documents.

(v) In Noorjahan, Altaf Ahmed v. Sadrunisa, Hajifatehulla Khan, 2005-3 BomLR 625; 2005-3 MhLJ 10,  it is pointed out as under:

• “It is further pertinent to note that there was no effective cross-examination in respect of this document. There was no objection taken to the document being received and marked in evidence either.”

(vi) In Alacs Finanz Ltd v. Oksh Technologies, AIR 2005  (Del) 376, it is held as under:

• “When the certified copy of the Resolution was tendered in evidence, no objection to its admission or mode of proof was raised. Not even in the cross-examination.”

(vii) In R.  Vijayabalan v. D. Jayakumari, 2001-1 MLJ 555, it is observed as under:

• “… when those documents were marked, there was no objection raised for marking the documents and even in the cross-examination there was no challenge made with reference to those documents marked before the court and since the said act would amount to waiver…”.

(viii) In Lionel Edwards Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1967 Cal-191, it is held as under:

• “Documents are either proved by witnesses or marked on admission. When it is marked on admission without reservation, the contents are not only evidence but are taken as admitted, the result being the contents cannot be challenged either by way of cross-examination or otherwise. In respect of documents marked on admission dispensing with formal proof, the contents are evidence, although the party admitting does not thereby accept the truth of the contents and is free to challenge the contents by way of cross-examination or otherwise.” (Quoted in: Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Manjula Mohanlal Joshi, AIR 1975 Ori 116; ILR 1975 Cut 422).

Saji Koduvath

Read Also:

• Res Judicata and Judicial  Precedent
• Judicial Precedent and Res Judicata – a Couplet
• What is Binding Judicial Precedent – In a  Nutshell
• Ratio Decidendi (alone) Forms a Precedent, Not a Final  Order

No Binding Force – If Judgment failed to notice a plain statutory provision

In Mamleshwar Prasad v. Kanhaiya Lal, (1975) 2 SCC 232 (Krishna Iyer, J.), the Supreme Court recognised that, in an exceptional case, an obvious inadvertence or oversight resulting in failure to notice a plain statutory provision may deprive a judgment of its binding precedential force. The omission must be glaring, not merely an alleged error of interpretation. The Court held as under:

• “7. Certainty of the law, consistency of rulings and comity of courts—all flowering from the same principle—converge to the conclusion that a decision once rendered must later bind like cases. We do not intend to detract from the rule that, in exceptional instances, where by obvious inadvertence or oversight a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision or obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and result reached, it may not have the sway of binding precedents. It should be a glaring case, an obtrusive omission. No such situation presents itself here and we do not embark on the principle of judgment per incuriam.” (Quoted in: Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI) v. Vanashakti, 2026-5 SCC 201; Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, 2025 3 SCC 95).

No Binding precedent if Earlier Decision Demonstrably Wrong

In A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak , (1988) 2 SCC 602 the Constitution Bench of our Apex Court made the following observations:

• “42. It appears that when this Court gave the aforesaid directions on 16-2-1984, for the disposal of the case against the appellant by the High Court, the directions were given oblivious of the relevant provisions of law and the decision in Anwar Ali Sarkar case [ State of W.B. vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar , (1952) 1 SCC 1 : AIR 1952 SC 75]. See Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 26, p. 297, Para 578 and p. 300, the relevant Notes 8, 11 and 15; Dias on Jurisprudence, 5th Edn. pp. 128 and 130; Young vs. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd. [ Young vs. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd. , 1944 KB 718 (CA)] Also see the observations of Lord Goddard in [ Moore vs. Hewitt , 1947 KB 831] and Nicholas vs. Penny [Nicholas vs. Penny, (1950) 2 KB 466]. “Per incuriam” are those decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provision or of some authority binding on the court concerned, so that in such cases some part of the decision or some step in the reasoning on which it is based, is found, on that account to be demonstrably wrong. See Morelle Ltd. vs. Wakeling , (1955) 2 QB 379 : (1955) 2 WLR 672 (CA).” (Quoted in: Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI) v. Vanashakti, 2026-5 SCC 201).

In State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan , (2011) 7 SCC 639:

• “67. Thus, “per incuriam” are those decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some statutory provision or authority binding on the court concerned, or a statement of law caused by inadvertence or conclusion that has been arrived at without application of mind or proceeded without any reason so that in such a case some part of the decision or some step in the reasoning on which it is based, is found, on that account to be demonstrably wrong.” (Quoted in: Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI) v. Vanashakti, 2026-5 SCC 201).

Subsequently, in Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. vs. Jindal Exports Ltd. , (2001) 6 SCC 356, it is observed as under:

• “A prior decision of the Supreme Court on identical facts and law binds the Court on the same points of law in a latter case. In exceptional instances, where by obvious inadvertence or oversight a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision or obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and result reached, the principle of per incuriam may apply. Unless it is a glaring case of obtrusive omission, it is not desirable to depend on the principle of judgment “per incuriam.” It has to be shown that some part of the decision was based on a reasoning which was demonstrably wrong, for applying the principle of per incuriam.” (Quoted in: Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI) v. Vanashakti, 2026-5 SCC 201).

In State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer , (2003) 5 SCC 448, it was found as under:

• “10…….Easy course of saying that earlier decision was rendered per incuriam is not permissible and the matter will have to be resolved only in two ways — either to follow the earlier decision or refer the matter to a larger Bench to examine the issue, in case it is felt that earlier decision is not correct on merits.” (Quoted in: Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI) v. Vanashakti, 2026-5 SCC 201).

In Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra , (2014) 16 SCC 623, the Court expanded the definition of per incuriam in the Indian context and noted as under:

• “19……A decision or judgment can also be per incuriam if it is not possible to reconcile its ratio with that of a previously pronounced judgment of a co-equal or larger Bench; or if the decision of a High Court is not in consonance with the views of this Court. It must immediately be clarified that the per incuriam rule is strictly and correctly applicable to the ratio decidendi and not to obiter dicta.” (Quoted in: Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI) v. Vanashakti, 2026-5 SCC 201).

In a recent decision in Shah Faesal vs. Union of India , (2020) 4 SCC 1, a five-Judge Bench of this Court reiterated that the principle of per incuriam only applies on the ratio of the case.

No Binding precedent if relevant statutory BAR was Not considered

In N. Bhargavan Pillai vs. State of Kerala , (2004) 13 SCC 21, it was noted that a judgment cannot be treated as a binding precedent, if it fails to notice a specific statutory bar.

• “14. Coming to the plea relating to benefits under the Probation Act, it is to be noted that Section 18 of the said Act clearly rules out application of the Probation Act to a case covered under Section 5(2) of the Act. Therefore, there is no substance in the accused-appellant’s plea relating to grant of benefit under the Probation Act. The decision in [ Bore Gowda vs. State of Karnataka , (2000) 10 SCC 260 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1244] does not even indicate that Section 18 of the Probation Act was taken note of. In view of the specific statutory bar the view, if any, expressed without analysing the statutory provision cannot in our view be treated as a binding precedent and at the most is to be considered as having been rendered per incuriam. Looked at from any angle, the appeal is sans merit and deserves dismissal which we direct.” (Quoted in: Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI) v. Vanashakti, 2026-5 SCC 201; Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, 2025 3 SCC 95).

Not everything Said by a Judge Constitute a Precedent

In Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI) v. Vanashakti, 2026-5 SCC 201, it is held as under:

• “29.2. This Court held that it is not everything said by a judge while giving judgment that constitute a precedent. The only thing in a judge’s decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided. It is for this reason that it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it the ratio decidendi. According to the theory of precedents, every decision contains three basic postulates:
• (i) findings of material facts, direct and inferential;
• (ii) statement of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and
• (iii) judgment based on the combined effect of the above.
• 29.3. This Court held that a decision (including judgment) is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in the judgment. The enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent. The concrete decision alone is binding between the parties but it is the abstract ratio decidendi, ascertained on a consideration of the judgment in relation to the subject matter of the decision, which alone has the force of law and which, when it is clear what it was, is binding. It is only the principle laid down in the judgment that is binding law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. A deliberate judicial decision arrived at after hearing an argument on a question which arises in the case or is an issue constitutes the ratio. A precedent by long recognition may mature into a stare decisis. It is the rule deductible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of the case which constitutes its ratio decidendi.”

In this decision the discussion on binding precedent and per incuriam is summed up as under:

• “34. In summation, what is binding in a judgment is the principle upon which the case is decided. The enunciation of the reason or principle on which the question before a court is decided is alone binding as a precedent. The final outcome or decision is binding between the parties only but it is the abstract ratio decidendi ascertained on a consideration of the judgment in relation to the subject matter of the decision which alone has the force of law and constitutes a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. To be precise, it is the rule deductible from the application of the law to the facts and circumstances of the case which constitutes its ratio decidendi. Not everything said in the judgment or any observation made by the judge, can be said to be binding. Thus, ratio decidendi of a case is the rule of law expressly or impliedly treated by the judge as a necessary step in reaching his conclusion, having regard to the line of reasoning adopted by him. It is the ratio which is binding on subsequent Benches, coordinate or smaller. The conclusion does not operate as a ratio decidendi.
• 34.1. The principle of per incuriam would be attracted only when a decision is rendered in ignorance of some statutory provision(s) or a precedent binding on the court. Ordinarily, a ruling of a coordinate Bench is binding on subsequent coordinate Benches or on Benches of lesser strength. However, there is an exception to this rule. A decision which is rendered per incuriam has no precedential value. Such a decision would not be binding as a judicial precedent. A coordinate Bench can disagree with it and decline to follow it. The per incuriam rule is applicable to the ratio decidendi only and not to obiter dicta. The subsequent decision shall be declared per incuriam only if there exists a conflict in the ratio decidendi of the pertinent judgments.”

No Binding precedent if relevant statutory provision was Not considered

A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in Indian Ceramic House, Langra-Ki-Chowki, Agra v. Sales Tax Officer, II Sector, Agra : 1970 SCC OnLine All 193, observed as under:

• “A Judgment is authoritative only as to that part of it which is considered to have been necessary to the decision of the case, and not that part which was not necessary to its decision. The first is called ‘ratio decidendi’. Which is binding as a precedent. The other called ‘obiter dicta’ cannot be treated as a binding precedent though the opinion so expressed is entitled to respect.” (Quoted in Chandrapal Singh v. State of U. P. (All), 2023-11 ADJ 543)

Allen in ‘Law in the Making’ said as under:

• “Any judgment of any Court is authoritative only as to that part of it, called the ‘ratio decidendi’, which is considered to have been necessary to the decision of the actual issue between the litigants. It is for the Court, of whatever degree, which is called upon to consider the precedent, to determine what the true ‘ratio decidendi’ was…………..Judicial opinions upon such matters, whether they be merely casual, or wholly gratuitous or (as is far more usual) of what may be called collateral relevance, are known as ‘obiter dicta or simply ‘dicta’, and it is extremely difficult to establish any standard of their relative weight.” (Quoted in : Chandrapal Singh v. State of U. P. (All), 2023-11 ADJ 543). (Quoted in : Chandrapal Singh v. State of U. P. (All), 2023-11 ADJ 543).

The Supreme Court in Jayant Verma v. Union of India, (2018) 4 SCC 743, quoted the dissenting judgement of A.P. Sen, J. in Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab, (1979) 3 SCC 745, with approval :

• “54. This question is answered by referring to authoritative works and judgments of this Court. In Precedent in English Law by Cross and Harris (4th edn.), ‘ratio decidendi’ is described as follows: “The ratio decidendi of a case is any rule of law expressly or impliedly treated by the judge as a necessary step in reaching his conclusion, having regard to the line of reasoning adopted by him, or a necessary part of his direction to the jury.”

In Union of India v. Maniklal Banerjee, AIR 2006 SC 2844, the Apex Court has held as under:

• “It is now well-settled that if a decision has been rendered without taking into account the statutory provision, the same cannot be considered to be a binding precedent. This Court, in Pritam Singh, while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction, might have refused to interfere with the decision. The same, therefore, did not constitute any binding precedent.” (Referred to in: Hameeda Begum v. Champa Bai Jain (Arun Misra, J.), ILR 2009 MP 2328; 2009-3 MPLJ 472)

Arun Misra, J., referred to the House of Lords’ decision in Hameeda Begum v. Champa Bai Jain, ILR 2009 MP 2328; 2009-3 MPLJ 472, and said as under:

• “(35) Another decision relied upon is rendered by the House of Lords in Watt vs. Ahsan (2007) UKHL 51. In the aforesaid case, question arose on Section 12 of the Race Relations Act, 1976. The submission was made that they were party and that All vs. Mcdonagh (2002) ICR 1026 was wrongly decided. In any case, the interpretation given to Section 12 by the EAT in Sawyer v. Ahsan (2000) ICR 1 is res judicata between him and the Labour Party, not only for the purposes of his first complaint but for the other two as well. It was opined that the EAT was wrong in Sawyer vs. Ahsan (2000) ICR 1 to hold that the Labour Party was a qualifying body, but there was no appeal against the decision of EAT; it was held that decision was binding upon the parties, though wrong in law. When the Tribunal was-having the jurisdiction to decide the question, it is binding upon the parties though erroneous.
• There is no dispute with the aforesaid proposition, but here we are concerned with the fresh cause of action on which suit is based and previously relevant statutory provision of Section 111 (d) of TP Act was not taken into consideration, question of determination of tenancy was also not decided.”

In Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, 2025-3 SCC 95, the following English decisions were referred to, to explain “Per Incurium”.

• Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd., , 1944 KB 718: (1944) 2 All ER 293 —  a decision is given per incuriam when the court acts in ignorance of a previous decision of its own or of a court of coordinate jurisdiction.
• Lancaster Motor Co. (London) Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd., , (1941) 1 KB 675 : (1941) 2 All ER — a decision is per incuriam when given in ignorance of a House of Lords decision or a statutory provision having statutory force.
• Bryers v. Canadian Pacific Steamships Ltd., , (1957) 1 QB 134 : (1956) 3 All ER 560 (CA) — a decision should not be treated as per incuriam simply because of a deficiency of parties or because the court had not the benefit of the best argument.
• Canadian Pacific Steamships Ltd. v. Bryers1958 AC 485 : (1957) 3 All ER 572 — a Court of Appeal must follow its own previous decision even if it misinterpreted a House of Lords decision.
• J. Mucklow Ltd. v. IRC, , 1954 Ch 615 : (1954) 2 All ER 508 (CA) — only cases in which decisions should be held per incuriam are those given in ignorance of some inconsistent statute or binding authority.
• Morelle Ltd. v. Wakeling, (1955) 2 QB 379 : (1955) 1 All ER 708 (CA)
• Bonsor v. Musicians’ Union, , 1954 Ch 479 : (1954) 1 All ER 822 (CA) — a decision is per incuriam only when given in ignorance of some inconsistent statute or binding authority, not merely because of a deficiency of parties.
• Morelle Ltd. v. Wakeling, , (1955) 2 QB 379 : (1955) 1 All ER 708 (CA) —  per incuriam applies where a decision is given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provision or binding authority.

In Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, 2025 3 SCC 95, the following earlier decisions of our Supreme Court were referred to, to explain “Per Incurium”.

• Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, , AIR 1955 SC 661 –while Article 141 binds all courts, it does not bind the Supreme Court itself which remains free to reconsider its judgments.
• Mamleshwar Prasad v. Kanhaiya Lal (1975) 2 SCC 232 — a decision is per incuriam only in exceptional instances of obvious inadvertence or oversight where the judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision, and it must be a glaring case.
• A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602 — the definition of per incuriam as decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provision or binding authority, where some part of the reasoning is demonstrably wrong.
• MCD v Gurnam Kaur (1989) 1 SCC 101 — a decision should be treated as per incuriam when given in ignorance of the terms of a statute or rule having the force of a statute.
• N. Bhargavan Pillai v. State of Kerala (2004) 13 SCC 217 — a judgment cannot be treated as a binding precedent if it fails to notice a specific statutory bar, and that per incuriam applies only to the ratio decidendi.
• State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 7 SCC 639 — per incuriam applies to decisions given in ignorance of statutory provisions or authority binding on the court, and that the doctrine applies strictly to the ratio.
• Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd. (2001) 6 SCC 356 — per incuriam applies only in exceptional instances of obvious inadvertence or oversight, and it must be shown that some part of the decision was based on demonstrably wrong reasoning.
• State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer (2003) 5 SCC 448 — saying an earlier decision was rendered per incuriam is not permissible and the matter must be resolved either by following the earlier decision or referring it to a larger Bench.
• Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 16 SCC 623 — per incuriam in the Indian context, including that a decision can be per incuriam if it cannot be reconciled with a previously pronounced judgment of a Co-equal or Larger Bench.
• Shah Faesal v. Union of India (2020) 4 SCC 1 — the principle of per incuriam applies only on the ratio of the case and not to obiter dicta.

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

• Death of a Party Before Judgment: When Does It Invalidate the Decree?
• No Binding Precedent -If the Court Failed to Consider Relevant Statutory Provision, in Earlier Decision
• ‘Rateable Distribution’: Law Designed to Ensure Fairness. Insights from Koshy Abraham v. Shaji, 2026:KER:20267.
• Law on Overruling: Principles Established in an ‘Overruled’ Decision Remain Good Law If Left Untouched
• ‘Plaintiff to Win on His Own Title’ v. ‘Each Party Must Succeed on the Strength of Its Own Title’
• Venkatesha v. KM Venkatamuniyappa: A Rectification Deed Cannot, in the Guise of Correcting an Error, Substitute the Very Subject Matter
• 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?
• Suit and Counterclaim – No Necessity of Two Decrees; No Need for Two Appeals: Basudev v. Sanjay Kumar
• 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
• Constructive Res Judicata
• Applicability of Res Judicata on IA Orders (at Different Stages of the Same Suit)
• Res Judicata and Judicial  Precedent
• Judicial Precedent and Res Judicata – a Couplet
• What is Binding Judicial Precedent – In a  Nutshell
• Ratio Decidendi (alone) Forms a Precedent, Not a Final  Order
• No Binding Precedent if Relevant Statutory Provision is Not Considered
• Divergent Decisions of Co-Equal Benches and Doctrine of Decisions ‘PER INCURIAM’
• No Res judicata on Finding on Title in an Injunction  Suit
• Res Judicata: ‘Same issue’ must have been ‘Adjudicated’ in the former&nb sp;suit
• Res Judicata and Appeal: No Res Judicata on Adverse Findings, in a Favourable  Decree
• Principles of Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
• A Suit Cannot be Rejected if there is a ‘Cause of Action’, for the Plaint discloses One ESSENTIAL FACT that Gives Rise to a ‘Right to Sue’
• 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?
• No Relief if No Prayer; No Relief if No Pleading
• Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a  Decree
• Pleadings in Defamation  Suits
• Judicial Admissions in Pleadings: Admissible Proprio Vigore Against the  Maker
• Previous Owner is Not a Necessary Party in a Recovery  Suit
• UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian  Law
• PLEADINGS IN ELECTION MATTERS
• Pleadings are to be Considered as a Whole. When Lack of Pleadings Amounts to a Material Flaw?
• When Declaration Needed for Injunction and Recover
• 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
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting  Onus
• Burden on Plaintiff to Prove Title; Weakness of Defence Will Not Entitle a  Decree
• 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&nbs p;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.
• Civil Court to Adjudicate Title; Land Tribunal to Fix Tenancy; Taluk Land Board to Determine Plantation Exemption

Principles and Procedure

• Copyright and Copyright Infringement – Indian  Law
• 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 is Static; ‘ONUS’ alone Shifts, According to Indian 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’.
• Suit and Counterclaim – No Necessity of Two Decrees; No Need for Two Appeals: Basudev v. Sanjay Kumar
• 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
• Divergent Decisions of Co-Equal Benches and Doctrine of Decisions ‘PER INCURIAM’
• 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
• In a Suit for Fixation of Boundary, Property of the Defendant Need Not be  Scheduled
• 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
• When Declaration Needed for Injunction and Recover
• ‘Plaintiff to Win on His Own Title’ Vs. ‘Each Party Must Succeed on the Strength of Its Own Title’
• 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.
• No Rejection of suit — if Plaint discloses a ‘Cause of Action’– ’Chinmaya Mission Educational & Cultural Trust v. Sree Hari R. Menon, 2026 KER 56668 (CR): A Suit Cannot be Rejected if there is a ‘Cause of Action’, for the Plaint discloses One ESSENTIAL FACT that Gives Rise to a ‘Right to Sue’
• 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

COMMISIONS Under CPC

• Powers and Duties of Commissioners to Make Local Investigations, Under CPC
• Law on Survey Commission in Civil Suits
• 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?

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

• ‘Plaintiff to Win on His Own Title’ Vs. ‘Each Party Must Succeed on the Strength of Its Own Title’
• Immovable Property–‘LIMITATION’ on Suits
• Title Deed Lost and Certified Copy Unavailable: The Law Does Not Leave the Owner Without a Remedy
• Right to Property: A Constitutional and Human Right That Cannot Be Taken Away on Mere Technical Grounds of Delay or the Fault of Public Authorities
• 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
• OWNER v. LANDLORD: ‘Recovery’ and ‘Eviction’ – Two Distinct Legal Concepts
• 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
• Can the Forest Tribunal Make a Finding on  Title?

Recovery of Possession:

• Immovable Property–‘LIMITATION’ on Suits
• 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’
• Can Transfer of Registry or Mutation and Payment of Tax be Denied, pointing out Revenue Recovery, Attachment or Bank  Loan?
• 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)
• SUIT on TITLE: Landlord can Recover Property on GENERAL TITLE (though Tenancy Not Proved) if Defendant Falsely Claimed Independent  Title
• OWNER v. LANDLORD: ‘Recovery’ and ‘Eviction’ – Two Distinct Legal Concepts
• Even the Rightful Owner is NOT entitled to Eject a Trespasser, by  Force
• Ryotwari  System in  Madras

Survey, 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’
• Can Transfer of Registry or Mutation and Payment of Tax be Denied, pointing out Revenue Recovery, Attachment or Bank  Loan?
• Survey Authorities Do Not Decide  TITLE
• Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a  Decree
• Will Boundaries of Properties (Always) Preferred Over Survey Number, Extent, Side Measurements,  etc.?
• Survey under Survey Act – Raises a Presumption on  Boundary; though Not Confer  Title

Adverse Possession

• Immovable Property–‘LIMITATION’ on Suits
• 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?
• 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)
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent  Interests
• Vested Remainder and Contingent Remainder
• Vested interest and Contingent  Interest
• Rule Against Perpetuity –  Simplified
• 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’
• Can Transfer of Registry or Mutation and Payment of Tax be Denied, pointing out Revenue Recovery, Attachment or Bank  Loan?
• Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2026:KER:19290): Transfer of Registry can be Claimed only on Proper Application, with Supporting  Documents
• In Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2026:KER:19290), it is Held: No Findings on Title in the Previous Decision – Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2018 (2) KLT 369
• 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
• In a Suit for Fixation of Boundary, Property of the Defendant Need Not be  Scheduled
• Property Rights Cannot be Taken Away on Technical Grounds of  Delay: Rama S/o Gunda Malkapure v. The State of Maharashtra

Land Reform Laws

• Relevant Provisions of  Kerala Land Reforms Act
• Title of the Government Property in India: Government is the Ultimate Owner of Every Property; Hence, Government Need Not Prove  Title.
• Grant in Law
• 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
• 1910 Settlement Register of Travancore – Basic Record of Land  Matters

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

• A Defective Legislative Piece as regards Documents “Admitted in Writing” in the (Old) Evidence Act is Corrected in S. 58 of the BSA
• Tharammel Peethambaran vs T. Ushakrishnan, Pankaj Mithal, S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.,  AIR 2026 SC 938: A Classic Decision on Secondary Evidence
• Newspaper Reports are ‘Hearsay Secondary  Evidence’
• Marking Secondary Evidence Without Objection: Two Apparently Divergent Views on Waiver and the Mode of Proof of Documents
• 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
• Can a Witness be Confronted with a Photograph During Cross-Examination Without its Prior  Production (Anu C.R. v. State of Kerala)
• 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

• Grammatically and Contextually, the Non Obstante Clause in Section 63(1) BSA is Confined to the Deeming Fiction
• Is a Section 63(4) Certificate an Essential Prerequisite for the Admission of a Photograph in  Evidence?
• 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
• Electronic Evidence under   S. 61, 62, 63 of the  BSA
• 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&nbs p;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
• Documents Produced With the Plaint are Treated As ‘Part of The  Plaint’
• 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?
• Tharammel Peethambaran vs T. Ushakrishnan, Pankaj Mithal, S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.,  AIR 2026 SC 938: A Classic Decision on Secondary Evidence
• Marking Secondary Evidence Without Objection: Two Apparently Divergent Views on Waiver and the Mode of Proof of Documents
• 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
• Can a Witness be Confronted with a Photograph During Cross-Examination Without its Prior  Production?
• 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
• Marking Secondary Evidence Without Objection: Two Apparently Divergent Views on Waiver and the Mode of Proof of Documents
• Handwriting Expert Evidence: Relevant, But Merely an  Opinion
• Public Documents: Proof and  Presumption
• Is a Section 63(4) Certificate an Essential Prerequisite for the Admission of a Photograph in  Evidence?
• 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 Misapplied in Several Cases in  India
• Interpretation of Statutes – 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‘
• Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a  Decree

Contract Act

• Jaspal Singh v. Ashwani Kumar: Earnest Money Refund Clause Does Not Bar Specific Performance unless it is a Substitute for Sale
• 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.

Specific Relief Act

• Jaspal Singh v. Ashwani Kumar: Earnest Money Refund Clause Does Not Bar Specific Performance unless it is a Substitute for Sale
• Venkatesha v. KM Venkatamuniyappa: A Rectification Deed Cannot, in the Guise of Correcting an Error, Substitute the Very Subject Matter

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
• Plea of Easement by Express Grant and Easement of Necessity: Mutually Exclusive and Destructive
• 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
• A GRANT Must be Construed Most Strongly Against the Grantor
• Travancore Grant Deeds, in  Law
• Right of Private Way Beyond (Other Than)  Easement
• Easement – Should Date of Beginning of 20 Years be&nbs p;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?
• Registration of a Document Relates Back to the Date when it was Executed
• 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

Natural Justice/Disciplinary Action

• Expulsion of Members & Removal of  Office-Bearers
• Arjun Dass v. The State of AP: Natural Justice Violation in Removal of  Mathadhipati
• Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse
• Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P., 29 January, 2025 – Law on Natural Justice  Revisited

• Court’s Jurisdiction to Interfere in the Internal Affairs of a Club or  Society
• Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful  Acts
• Does Alternate Remedy Bar Civil Suits and Writ  Petitions?
• Civil Rights & Jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Sec. 9  CPC
• Court Interference in Election Process of Societies and  Clubs

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

• Does a Cheque-Case under NI Act Lie Against a Partnership/ Trust/  Society?
• Partnership Firm Need Not be an Accused in S. 138 NI Act  Complaint
• Mansi Finance (Chennai) Ltd. v. M. Lalitha (2026 INSC 547, May 26, 2026.): Cheque Bounce (NI Act) Cases: No Deemed Liability to the Directors of a Company or Society; The Complaint Must Disclose Factual  Basis
• 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
  • General  Features
  • Bye Laws  Fundamental
  • Effect of Registration of Societies and Incorporation of  Clubs
  • Societies and Branches
• Property & Trust
  • Vesting of Property in Societies and  Clubs
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and  Societies
  • Can a Trust be Registered as a  Society? Can a Society be Converted into a  Trust?
  • Juristic Personality of Societies and  Clubs
  • Legal Personality of Trustees and Office Bearers
• 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
  • Does a Cheque-Case under NI Act Lie Against a Partnership/ Trust/  Society?
  • Lifting Corporate Veil of Companies and Subsidiary  Companies
• Amendment and Dissolution
  • Amendment of Bye laws of Societies and  Clubs
  • Dissolution of Societies and  Clubs
• Rights and Management
  • Rights & Liabilities of Members of Clubs and  Societies
  • Individual Membership Rights in Societies & Clubs
  • Management – Powers of General Body and Governing  Body
  • Company, University, Society, etc. Act on ‘Resolutions’
  • Expulsion of Members & Removal of  Office-Bearers
  • Law on Meetings: An  Overview
  • Adjournment of Meetings and Polling of Associations
  • How to Prove Resolutions of a Company; Are Minutes  Necessary?
• Election
  • Election & Challenge in Societies and  Clubs
  • Court Interference in Election  Process
• State Actions
  • State-Interference in Affairs of Societies &  Clubs
• Disciplinary Proceedings Against Employees Co-Operative Societies

Book No. 4:  Common Law of TRUSTS in India

• General Principles
  • Classification of Trusts
  • What is Trust in Law?
  • Public & Private Trusts in  India.
  • Trust is ‘An Obligation’; Not a Legal Entity
  • Indian Law Does Not Accept Salmond, as to Dual  Ownership
  • Trusts and Trust  Deeds
  • Lucknow Nagar Nigam v. Kohli Brothers Colour Lab, 2024-2 SCR  847
• Dedication and Vesting
  • Dedication of Property in Public  Trusts
  • Vesting of Property in  Trusts
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and  Societies
  • Can a Trust be Registered as a  Society? Can a Society be Converted into a  Trust?
  • What is Munambam Wakf Land Issue? If there is No Permanent Dedication, there will be No  Wakf.
• Trustees and Management
  • Trustees and Administration of Public Trusts
  • Alienation of Public Trust  Property
  • Extinction, Discharge, Revocation, etc. of Public  Trusts
  • Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920: Provisions as regards opinion, advice or direction of the  Court.
• Breach of Trust
  • Breach of Trust and Removal of Trustees
• Suits by or against Trusts
  • Suits By or Against Trusts and Trustees
  • A Trust Cannot Be Made as a Party  to a  Litigation
  • Remedies Under Sec. 92  CPC
  • Operation Asha   v. Shelly Batra, a Landmark Judgment on Sec. 92, CPC – Critical  Appreciation
  • Does a Cheque-Case under NI Act Lie Against a Partnership/ Trust/  Society?
• Law on Hindu Religious  Endowments
  • Philosophy of  Idol  Worship
  • Is an Idol a Perpetual  Minor?
  • Hindu Temples & Law of  Trusts
  • Law of Mutts and Other Hindu Endowments
  • Shebaits & Mahants and Law of Trustees
• Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and  Mosques – General
  • Legal Personality of Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and  Mosques
• 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
  • Ayodhya  Disputes: M. Siddiq case – Pragmatic Verdict
  • Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge  Bench
  • SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee  Case
• General
  • Public Trusts and (State) Endowments/Trusts Acts
  • Public Trusts and Indian Trusts Act – An  Overview
  • Business by Charitable Trusts &  Institutions

Jojy George Koduvath.

See also:

• Pleadings Should be Specific;  Why?
• Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a  Decree
• Judicial Admissions in Pleadings: Admissible Proprio Vigore Against the  Maker
• Pleadings are to be Considered as a Whole. When Lack of Pleadings Amounts to a Material Flaw?
• Pleadings in Defamation  Suits
• PLEADINGS IN ELECTION MATTERS
• UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian  Law
• Can the Appeal Court Allow a Relief Not Appealed Against?

No Relief if No Prayer

It is well settled that reliefs not specifically prayed for cannot be granted merely on the basis of evidence or incidental observations, particularly when such reliefs involve substantive civil rights. The Trial Court, by granting findings on notional partition clearly acted contrary to the mandate of Order VII Rule 7 CPC, thereby travelling beyond both the pleadings and the relief clause of the plaint.

In Trojan & Co. Ltd. v. Rm. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar, AIR 1953 SC 235, it is held as under:

• “22. …. It is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. Without an amendment of the plain, the court was not entitled to grant the relief not asked for and no prayer was ever made to amend the plaint so as to incorporate in it an alternative case.” (Quoted in: Akella Lalitha v. Konda Hanumantha Rao, AIR 2022 SC 3544)

In Fertilizer Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Sarat Chandra Rath, AIR 1996 SC 2744, 1996-10 SCC 331 held as under:

• “The High Court ought not to have granted reliefs to the respondents which they had not even prayed for.”

The Apex Court in Bharat Amratlal Kothari v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi, AIR 2010 SC 475, it is held as under:

• “Though the Court has very wide discretion in granting relief, the Court, however, cannot, ignoring and keeping aside the norms and principles governing grant of relief, grant a relief not even prayed for by the petitioner.”

In State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436, it is held that without pleadings, relief could not be granted.

In Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 149, it is observed as under:

• “77. This Court while dealing with an issue in Kalyan Singh Chouhan V C. P. Joshi (2011) 11 SCC 786), after placing reliance on a very large number of it earlier judgments including Trojan & Co v. Nagappa Chettiar (AIR 1953 SC 235), Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B Goyal (2002) 2 SCC 256), Ishwar Dutt v. Collector (LA) (2005) 7 SCC 190) and State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Co Ltd (2010) 4 SCC 518), held that relief not founded on the pleadings cannot be granted. A decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. No evidence is permissible to be taken on record in the absence of the pleadings in that respect. No party can be permitted to travel beyond it pleading and that all necessary and materials facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it. It was further held that where the evidence was not in the line of the pleadings, the said evidence cannot be looked into or relied upon.
• 85.6. The court cannot travel beyond the pleadings as no party can lead the evidence on an issue/point not raised in the pleadings and in case, such evidence has been adduced or a fining of fact has been recorded by the court, it is just to be ignored. Though it may be a different case where in spite of specific pleadings, a particular issue is not framed and the parties having full knowledge of the issue in controversy lead the evidence and the court records a finding on it.”

In Akella Lalitha v. Konda Hanumantha Rao, AIR 2022 SC 3544, 2022 SCC Online SC 928, it is held that it is settled law that relief not found on pleadings should not be granted. If a Court considers or grants a relief for which no prayer or pleading was made depriving the respondent of an opportunity to oppose or resist such relief, it would lead to miscarriage of justice.

See Also:

• Krishna Priya Ganguly v. University of Lucknow, (1984) 1 SCC 307; AIR 1984 SC 186
• State v. M. Maridoss, (2023) 4 SCC 338.

No Relief outside Pleadings

Generally, courts cannot grant relief completely outside the scope of the pleadings or surprise litigants without a fair opportunity to be heard . Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College, (1987) 2 SCC 555, it was observed that it is well settled that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleadings and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by a party in support of the case set up by it.

In Trojan & Co. Ltd. v. Rm. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar, (1953) 1 SCC 456, the Apex Court held as under:

• “It is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. Without an amendment of the plaint, the Court was not entitled to grant the relief not asked for and no prayer was ever made to amend the plaint so as to incorporate in it an alternative case.”

In Chinta Lingam v. The Govt. of India, AIR 1971 SC 474, this it is held that unless factual foundation has been laid in the pleadings no argument is permissible to be raised on that particular point.

In Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College, AIR 1987 SC 1242, it is held as under:

• “…… in the absence of pleadings, evidence if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered…… no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it.”

In Syed and Company v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 422, it is held as under:

• “Without specific pleadings in that regard, evidence could not be led in since it is settled principle of law that no amount of evidence can be looked unless there is a pleading. Therefore, without amendment of the pleadings merely trying to lead evidence is not permissible.”

In J. Jermons v. Aliammal, (1999) 7 SCC 382, it is held held as under:

• “…… there is a fundamental difference between a case of raising additional grounds based on the pleadings and the material available on record and a case of taking a new plea not borne out of the pleadings. In the former case no amendment of pleading is required, whereas in the latter it is necessary to amend the pleadings…The respondents cannot be permitted to make out a new case by seeking permission to raise additional grounds in revision.” (Quoted: The National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad, AIR 2012 SC 264; 2011-12 SCC 695).

In Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, 2008 (17) SCC 491 it is observed as under:

• “13. The object of issues is to identify from the pleadings the questions or points required to be decided by the courts so as to enable parties to let in evidence thereon. When the facts necessary to make out a particular claim, or to seek a particular relief, are not found in the plaint, the court cannot focus the attention of the parties, or its own attention on that claim or relief, by framing an appropriate issue. As a result the defendant does not get an opportunity to place the facts and contentions necessary to repudiate or challenge such a claim or relief. Therefore, the court cannot, on finding that the plaintiff has not made out the case put forth by him, grant some other relief. The question before a court is not whether there is some material on the basis of which some relief can be granted. The question is whether any relief can be granted, when the defendant had no opportunity to show that the relief proposed by the court could not be granted. When there is no prayer for a particular relief and no pleadings to support such a relief, and when the defendant has no opportunity to resist or oppose such a relief, if the court considers and grants such a relief, it will lead to miscarriage of justice. Thus it is said that no amount of evidence, on a plea that is not put forward in the pleadings, can be looked into to grant any relief.” (Quoted in: Venkatesha v. K.M. Venkatamuniyappa, 2026-4 ALD (SC) 261; 2026 INSC 705)

It is further held as under:

• “16. It is fundamental that in a civil suit, relief to be granted can be only with reference to the prayers made in the pleadings. That apart, in civil suits, grant of relief is circumscribed by various factors like court fee, limitation, parties to the suits, as also grounds barring relief, like res judicata, estoppel, acquiescence, non- joinder of causes of action or parties, etc., which require pleading and proof. Therefore, it would be hazardous to hold that in a civil suit whatever be the relief that is prayed, the court can on examination of facts grant any relief as it thinks fit. In a suit for recovery of rupees one lakh, the court cannot grant a decree for rupees ten lakhs. In a suit for recovery possession of property ‘A’, court cannot grant possession of property ‘B’. In a suit praying for permanent injunction, court cannot grant a relief of declaration or possession. The jurisdiction to grant relief in a civil suit necessarily depends on the pleadings, prayer, court fee paid, evidence let in, etc.” (Quoted in: R.M. Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram v. Sri Kayarohanasamy And Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple, 2022-11 SCR 475; J.P. Builders v. A. Ramadas Rao, 2011-1 SCC 429)

In Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594, it is held as under:

• “No amount of evidence or arguments can be looked into or considered in the absence of pleadings and issues, is a proposition that is too well settled.” (Quoted in: J.P. Builders v. A. Ramadas Rao, 2011-1 SCC 429)

In Kalyan Singh Chouhan v C. P. Joshi , (2011) 11 SCC 786, the Court stated, after noticing various earlier pronouncements:

• “19. Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is settled legal proposition that “as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted”. Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. The pleadings and issues are to ascertain the real dispute between the parties to narrow the area of conflict and to see just where the two sides differ. (Vide Sri Mahant Govind Rao v. Sita Ram Kesho [(1897-98) 25 IA 195], Trojan & Co. v. Nagappa Chettiar [(1953) 1 SCC 456: AIR 1953 SC 235], Raruha Singh v. Achal Singh [AIR 1961 SC 1097], Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal [(2002) 2 SCC 256: AIR 2002 SC 665], Ishwar Dutt v. Collector (L.A.) [(2005) 7 SCC 190: AIR 2005 SC 3165] and State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. [(2010) 4 SCC 518: (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 207]) xxx
• 28. Therefore, in view of the above, it is evident that the party to the election petition must plead the material fact and substantiate its averment by adducing sufficient evidence. The court cannot travel beyond the pleadings and the issue cannot be framed unless there are pleadings to raise the controversy on a particular fact or law. It is, therefore, not permissible for the court to allow the party to lead evidence which is not in the line of the pleadings. Even if the evidence is led that is just to be ignored as the same cannot be taken into consideration.” (Quoted in: A. Raja v. D. Kumar, 2025 INSC 629; 2025 KLT(Online) 1888 ; 2025 KHC(Online) 6440)

In State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, 2011-3 SCC 436, it is held as under:

• “55. Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is a settled legal proposition that “as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted.” Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. The pleadings and issues are to ascertain the real dispute between the parties to narrow the area of conflict and to see just where the two sides differ. (Vide : Sri Mahant Govind Rao v. Sita Ram Kesho, (1898) 25 Ind. App. 195; M/s. Trojan & Co. v. RM. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar, AIR 1953 SC 235; Ishwar Dutt v. Land Acquisition Collector & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 3165; and State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., (2010) 4 SCC 518.)

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

• ‘Rateable Distribution’: Law Designed to Ensure Fairness. Insights from Koshy Abraham v. Shaji, 2026:KER:20267.
• Law on Overruling: Principles Established in an ‘Overruled’ Decision Remain Good Law If Left Untouched
• ‘Plaintiff to Win on His Own Title’ v. ‘Each Party Must Succeed on the Strength of Its Own Title’
• Venkatesha v. KM Venkatamuniyappa: A Rectification Deed Cannot, in the Guise of Correcting an Error, Substitute the Very Subject Matter
• 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?
• Suit and Counterclaim – No Necessity of Two Decrees; No Need for Two Appeals: Basudev v. Sanjay Kumar
• 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
• Constructive Res Judicata
• Applicability of Res Judicata on IA Orders (at Different Stages of the Same Suit)
• Res Judicata and Judicial  Precedent
• Judicial Precedent and Res Judicata – a Couplet
• What is Binding Judicial Precedent – In a  Nutshell
• Ratio Decidendi (alone) Forms a Precedent, Not a Final  Order
• No Binding Precedent if Relevant Statutory Provision is Not Considered
• Divergent Decisions of Co-Equal Benches and Doctrine of Decisions ‘PER INCURIAM’
• No Res judicata on Finding on Title in an Injunction  Suit
• Res Judicata: ‘Same issue’ must have been ‘Adjudicated’ in the former&nb sp;suit
• Res Judicata and Appeal: No Res Judicata on Adverse Findings, in a Favourable  Decree
• Principles of Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
• A Suit Cannot be Rejected if there is a ‘Cause of Action’, for the Plaint discloses One ESSENTIAL FACT that Gives Rise to a ‘Right to Sue’
• 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?
• No Relief if No Prayer; No Relief if No Pleading
• Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a  Decree
• Pleadings in Defamation  Suits
• Judicial Admissions in Pleadings: Admissible Proprio Vigore Against the  Maker
• Previous Owner is Not a Necessary Party in a Recovery  Suit
• UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian  Law
• PLEADINGS IN ELECTION MATTERS
• Pleadings are to be Considered as a Whole. When Lack of Pleadings Amounts to a Material Flaw?
• When Declaration Needed for Injunction and Recover
• 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
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting  Onus
• Burden on Plaintiff to Prove Title; Weakness of Defence Will Not Entitle a  Decree
• 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&nbs p;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.
• Civil Court to Adjudicate Title; Land Tribunal to Fix Tenancy; Taluk Land Board to Determine Plantation Exemption

Principles and Procedure

• Copyright and Copyright Infringement – Indian  Law
• 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 is Static; ‘ONUS’ alone Shifts, According to Indian 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’.
• Suit and Counterclaim – No Necessity of Two Decrees; No Need for Two Appeals: Basudev v. Sanjay Kumar
• 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
• Divergent Decisions of Co-Equal Benches and Doctrine of Decisions ‘PER INCURIAM’
• 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
• In a Suit for Fixation of Boundary, Property of the Defendant Need Not be  Scheduled
• 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
• When Declaration Needed for Injunction and Recover
• ‘Plaintiff to Win on His Own Title’ Vs. ‘Each Party Must Succeed on the Strength of Its Own Title’
• 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.
• No Rejection of suit — if Plaint discloses a ‘Cause of Action’– ’Chinmaya Mission Educational & Cultural Trust v. Sree Hari R. Menon, 2026 KER 56668 (CR): A Suit Cannot be Rejected if there is a ‘Cause of Action’, for the Plaint discloses One ESSENTIAL FACT that Gives Rise to a ‘Right to Sue’
• 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

COMMISIONS Under CPC

• Powers and Duties of Commissioners to Make Local Investigations, Under CPC
• Law on Survey Commission in Civil Suits
• 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?

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

• ‘Plaintiff to Win on His Own Title’ Vs. ‘Each Party Must Succeed on the Strength of Its Own Title’
• Immovable Property–‘LIMITATION’ on Suits
• Title Deed Lost and Certified Copy Unavailable: The Law Does Not Leave the Owner Without a Remedy
• Right to Property: A Constitutional and Human Right That Cannot Be Taken Away on Mere Technical Grounds of Delay or the Fault of Public Authorities
• 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
• OWNER v. LANDLORD: ‘Recovery’ and ‘Eviction’ – Two Distinct Legal Concepts
• 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
• Can the Forest Tribunal Make a Finding on  Title?

Recovery of Possession:

• Immovable Property–‘LIMITATION’ on Suits
• 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’
• Can Transfer of Registry or Mutation and Payment of Tax be Denied, pointing out Revenue Recovery, Attachment or Bank  Loan?
• 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)
• SUIT on TITLE: Landlord can Recover Property on GENERAL TITLE (though Tenancy Not Proved) if Defendant Falsely Claimed Independent  Title
• OWNER v. LANDLORD: ‘Recovery’ and ‘Eviction’ – Two Distinct Legal Concepts
• Even the Rightful Owner is NOT entitled to Eject a Trespasser, by  Force
• Ryotwari  System in  Madras

Survey, 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’
• Can Transfer of Registry or Mutation and Payment of Tax be Denied, pointing out Revenue Recovery, Attachment or Bank  Loan?
• Survey Authorities Do Not Decide  TITLE
• Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a  Decree
• Will Boundaries of Properties (Always) Preferred Over Survey Number, Extent, Side Measurements,  etc.?
• Survey under Survey Act – Raises a Presumption on  Boundary; though Not Confer  Title

Adverse Possession

• Immovable Property–‘LIMITATION’ on Suits
• 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?
• 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)
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent  Interests
• Vested Remainder and Contingent Remainder
• Vested interest and Contingent  Interest
• Rule Against Perpetuity –  Simplified
• 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’
• Can Transfer of Registry or Mutation and Payment of Tax be Denied, pointing out Revenue Recovery, Attachment or Bank  Loan?
• Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2026:KER:19290): Transfer of Registry can be Claimed only on Proper Application, with Supporting  Documents
• In Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2026:KER:19290), it is Held: No Findings on Title in the Previous Decision – Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2018 (2) KLT 369
• 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
• In a Suit for Fixation of Boundary, Property of the Defendant Need Not be  Scheduled
• Property Rights Cannot be Taken Away on Technical Grounds of  Delay: Rama S/o Gunda Malkapure v. The State of Maharashtra

Land Reform Laws

• Relevant Provisions of  Kerala Land Reforms Act
• Title of the Government Property in India: Government is the Ultimate Owner of Every Property; Hence, Government Need Not Prove  Title.
• Grant in Law
• 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
• 1910 Settlement Register of Travancore – Basic Record of Land  Matters

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

• A Defective Legislative Piece as regards Documents “Admitted in Writing” in the (Old) Evidence Act is Corrected in S. 58 of the BSA
• Tharammel Peethambaran vs T. Ushakrishnan, Pankaj Mithal, S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.,  AIR 2026 SC 938: A Classic Decision on Secondary Evidence
• Newspaper Reports are ‘Hearsay Secondary  Evidence’
• Marking Secondary Evidence Without Objection: Two Apparently Divergent Views on Waiver and the Mode of Proof of Documents
• 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
• Can a Witness be Confronted with a Photograph During Cross-Examination Without its Prior  Production (Anu C.R. v. State of Kerala)
• 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

• Grammatically and Contextually, the Non Obstante Clause in Section 63(1) BSA is Confined to the Deeming Fiction
• Is a Section 63(4) Certificate an Essential Prerequisite for the Admission of a Photograph in  Evidence?
• 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
• Electronic Evidence under   S. 61, 62, 63 of the  BSA
• 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&nbs p;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
• Documents Produced With the Plaint are Treated As ‘Part of The  Plaint’
• 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?
• Tharammel Peethambaran vs T. Ushakrishnan, Pankaj Mithal, S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.,  AIR 2026 SC 938: A Classic Decision on Secondary Evidence
• Marking Secondary Evidence Without Objection: Two Apparently Divergent Views on Waiver and the Mode of Proof of Documents
• 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
• Can a Witness be Confronted with a Photograph During Cross-Examination Without its Prior  Production?
• 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
• Marking Secondary Evidence Without Objection: Two Apparently Divergent Views on Waiver and the Mode of Proof of Documents
• Handwriting Expert Evidence: Relevant, But Merely an  Opinion
• Public Documents: Proof and  Presumption
• Is a Section 63(4) Certificate an Essential Prerequisite for the Admission of a Photograph in  Evidence?
• 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 Misapplied in Several Cases in  India
• Interpretation of Statutes – 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‘
• Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a  Decree

Contract Act

• Jaspal Singh v. Ashwani Kumar: Earnest Money Refund Clause Does Not Bar Specific Performance unless it is a Substitute for Sale
• 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.

Specific Relief Act

• Jaspal Singh v. Ashwani Kumar: Earnest Money Refund Clause Does Not Bar Specific Performance unless it is a Substitute for Sale
• Venkatesha v. KM Venkatamuniyappa: A Rectification Deed Cannot, in the Guise of Correcting an Error, Substitute the Very Subject Matter

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
• Plea of Easement by Express Grant and Easement of Necessity: Mutually Exclusive and Destructive
• 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
• A GRANT Must be Construed Most Strongly Against the Grantor
• Travancore Grant Deeds, in  Law
• Right of Private Way Beyond (Other Than)  Easement
• Easement – Should Date of Beginning of 20 Years be&nbs p;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?
• Registration of a Document Relates Back to the Date when it was Executed
• 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

Natural Justice/Disciplinary Action

• Expulsion of Members & Removal of  Office-Bearers
• Arjun Dass v. The State of AP: Natural Justice Violation in Removal of  Mathadhipati
• Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse
• Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P., 29 January, 2025 – Law on Natural Justice  Revisited

• Court’s Jurisdiction to Interfere in the Internal Affairs of a Club or  Society
• Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful  Acts
• Does Alternate Remedy Bar Civil Suits and Writ  Petitions?
• Civil Rights & Jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Sec. 9  CPC
• Court Interference in Election Process of Societies and  Clubs

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

• Does a Cheque-Case under NI Act Lie Against a Partnership/ Trust/  Society?
• Partnership Firm Need Not be an Accused in S. 138 NI Act  Complaint
• Mansi Finance (Chennai) Ltd. v. M. Lalitha (2026 INSC 547, May 26, 2026.): Cheque Bounce (NI Act) Cases: No Deemed Liability to the Directors of a Company or Society; The Complaint Must Disclose Factual  Basis
• 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
  • General  Features
  • Bye Laws  Fundamental
  • Effect of Registration of Societies and Incorporation of  Clubs
  • Societies and Branches
• Property & Trust
  • Vesting of Property in Societies and  Clubs
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and  Societies
  • Can a Trust be Registered as a  Society? Can a Society be Converted into a  Trust?
  • Juristic Personality of Societies and  Clubs
  • Legal Personality of Trustees and Office Bearers
• 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
  • Does a Cheque-Case under NI Act Lie Against a Partnership/ Trust/  Society?
  • Lifting Corporate Veil of Companies and Subsidiary  Companies
• Amendment and Dissolution
  • Amendment of Bye laws of Societies and  Clubs
  • Dissolution of Societies and  Clubs
• Rights and Management
  • Rights & Liabilities of Members of Clubs and  Societies
  • Individual Membership Rights in Societies & Clubs
  • Management – Powers of General Body and Governing  Body
  • Company, University, Society, etc. Act on ‘Resolutions’
  • Expulsion of Members & Removal of  Office-Bearers
  • Law on Meetings: An  Overview
  • Adjournment of Meetings and Polling of Associations
  • How to Prove Resolutions of a Company; Are Minutes  Necessary?
• Election
  • Election & Challenge in Societies and  Clubs
  • Court Interference in Election  Process
• State Actions
  • State-Interference in Affairs of Societies &  Clubs
• Disciplinary Proceedings Against Employees Co-Operative Societies

Book No. 4:  Common Law of TRUSTS in India

• General Principles
  • Classification of Trusts
  • What is Trust in Law?
  • Public & Private Trusts in  India.
  • Trust is ‘An Obligation’; Not a Legal Entity
  • Indian Law Does Not Accept Salmond, as to Dual  Ownership
  • Trusts and Trust  Deeds
  • Lucknow Nagar Nigam v. Kohli Brothers Colour Lab, 2024-2 SCR  847
• Dedication and Vesting
  • Dedication of Property in Public  Trusts
  • Vesting of Property in  Trusts
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and  Societies
  • Can a Trust be Registered as a  Society? Can a Society be Converted into a  Trust?
  • What is Munambam Wakf Land Issue? If there is No Permanent Dedication, there will be No  Wakf.
• Trustees and Management
  • Trustees and Administration of Public Trusts
  • Alienation of Public Trust  Property
  • Extinction, Discharge, Revocation, etc. of Public  Trusts
  • Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920: Provisions as regards opinion, advice or direction of the  Court.
• Breach of Trust
  • Breach of Trust and Removal of Trustees
• Suits by or against Trusts
  • Suits By or Against Trusts and Trustees
  • A Trust Cannot Be Made as a Party  to a  Litigation
  • Remedies Under Sec. 92  CPC
  • Operation Asha   v. Shelly Batra, a Landmark Judgment on Sec. 92, CPC – Critical  Appreciation
  • Does a Cheque-Case under NI Act Lie Against a Partnership/ Trust/  Society?
• Law on Hindu Religious  Endowments
  • Philosophy of  Idol  Worship
  • Is an Idol a Perpetual  Minor?
  • Hindu Temples & Law of  Trusts
  • Law of Mutts and Other Hindu Endowments
  • Shebaits & Mahants and Law of Trustees
• Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and  Mosques – General
  • Legal Personality of Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and  Mosques
• 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
  • Ayodhya  Disputes: M. Siddiq case – Pragmatic Verdict
  • Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge  Bench
  • SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee  Case
• General
  • Public Trusts and (State) Endowments/Trusts Acts
  • Public Trusts and Indian Trusts Act – An  Overview
  • Business by Charitable Trusts &  Institutions

Jojy George Koduvath

Summary

• Two reliefs prayed for in the suit.
• One is granted, and the other is refused.
• Appeal filed by the defendant alone – against the relief allowed.
• Can the refused relief be allowed by the appeal court, even though it is not appealed against?
• Answer — Normal rule is that a party aggrieved by a decree should file appeal against him. But in certain rare cases it may be necessitated to allow certain reliefs even if it is not appealed against invoking O. 41 r. 33 CPC. Instances include:
  • (i) it may become necessary to readjust the rights of other parties
  • (ii) some times the other (un-appealed) relief may be inseparably connected with the appealed reliefs and it may also have to be modified
  • (iii) to avoid contradictory and inconsistent decisions on the same questions in the same suit.

Relevant Provisions – Order XLI Rule 33

R. 33 of O. 41 says that the Appellate Court shall have power to pass any decree notwithstanding that the appeal is not filed. R. 33 is, avoiding a situation of conflicting decrees coming into existence in the same suit. material portion of Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:

• “33 Power of Court of Appeal: The Appellate Court shall have power to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require, and this power may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents of all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection and may, w here there have been decrees in cross-suits or where two or more decrees are passed in one suit, be exercised in respect of all or any of the decrees, although an appeal may not have been filed against such decrees.”
• Illustration. —A claims a sum of money as due to him from X or Y, and in a suit against both, obtains a decree against X. X appeals, and A and Y are respondents. The Appellate Court decides in favour of X. It has the power to pass a decree against Y.”

Normal Rule: Independent Appeal or Cross-objection Necessary

In Nirmala Bala Ghose v. Balai Chand Ghose, AIR 1965 SC 1874: (1965) 3 SCR 550, while dealing with the scope of Order 41 Rule 33, it is observed as under:

• “The rule is undoubtedly expressed in terms which are wide, but it has to be applied with discretion, and to cases where interference in favour of the appellant necessitates interference also with a decree which has by acceptance or acquiescence become final so as to enable the Court to adjust the rights of the parties. Where, in an appeal, the Court reaches a conclusion which is inconsistent with the opinion of the Court appealed from, and in adjusting the right claimed by the appellant, it is necessary to grant relief to a person who has not appealed, the power conferred by Order 41 Rule 33 may properly be invoked. The rule, however, does not confer an unrestricted right to re-open decrees which have become final merely because the appellate Court does not agree with the opinion of the Court appealed from.”
• “When a party allows a decree of the Court of first instance to become final, by not appealing against the decree, it would not be open to another party to the litigation, whose rights are otherwise not affected by the decree, to invoke the powers of the appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 33, to pass a decree in favour of the party not appealing so as to give the latter a benefit which he has not claimed. Order 41 Rule 33 is primarily intended to confer power upon the appellate Court to do justice by granting relief to a party who has not appealed, when refusing to do so, would result in making inconsistent, contradictory or unworkable orders.”.

in Giani Ram v. Ramji Lal, (1969) 1 SCC 813, it is said as under:

• “12. The object of this Rule is to avoid contradictory and inconsistent decisions on the same questions in the same suit. As the power under this rule is in derogation of the general principle that a party cannot avoid a decree against him without filing an appeal or cross-objection, it must be exercised with care and caution. The Rule does not confer an unrestricted right to re-open decrees which have become final merely because the appellate court does not agree with the opinion of the court appealed from.
• 13. Ordinarily, the power conferred by this Rule will be confined to those cases where, as a result of interference in favour of the appellant, further interference with the decree of the lower court is rendered necessary in order to adjust the rights of the parties according to justice, equity and good conscience. While exercising the power under this Rule, the court should not lose sight of the other provisions of the Code itself nor the provisions of other laws, viz., the law of limitation or the law of court fees, etc.”

In Choudhary Sahu v. State of Bihar, AIR 1982 S.C. 98; (1982) 1 SCC 232, it is cautioned that the power under Rule 33 of Order 41 CPC is in derogation of the general principle that a party cannot avoid a decree against him without filing an appeal or cross-objection. The Court will exercise the power according to justice, equity and good conscience. In this decision it is held that while exercising the power conferred under Order 41 Rule 33, the Court should not lose sight of the provisions of the other laws, viz., the law of limitation or the law of court fees etc. It is said as under:

• “12. The object of this rule is to avoid contradictory and inconsistent decisions on the same questions in the same suit. As the power under this rule is in derogation of the general principle that a party cannot avoid a decree against him without filing an appeal or cross-objection, it must be exercised with care and caution. The rule does not confer an unrestricted right to reopen decrees which have become final merely because the appellate Court does not agree with the opinion of the Court appealed from.
• 13. Ordinarily, the power conferred by this rule will be confined to those cases where as a result of interference in favour of the appellant further interference with the decree of the lower Court is rendered necessary in order to adjust the rights of the parties according to justice, equity and good conscience. While exercising the power under this rule the Court should not lose sight of the other provisions of the Code itself nor the provisions of the other laws viz. The Law of Limitation or the Law of Court-fees etc.
• 14. In these appeals the Collector on the basis of the material placed before him allowed certain units to the various appellants. In the absence of any appeal by the State of Bihar, there was no justification for the Commissioner to have interfered with that finding in favour of the appellants. The facts and circumstances of these appeals are not such in which it would be appropriate to exercise the power under Order 41, Rule 33. The Commissioner as well as the High Court committed a manifest error in reversing the finding regarding allotment of units to the various appellants in the absence of any appeal by the State of Bihar when the same had become final and rights of the State of Bihar had come to an end to that extent by not filing any appeal or cross-objection within the period of limitation.”

Banarsi v. Ram Phal, (2003) 9 SCC 606, is an authority on this matter.

Paras 6, 7 and 15 read thus:

• “6. The appeals raise a short but interesting question of frequent recurrence as to the power of the appellant court to interfere with and reverse or modify the decree appealed against by the appellants in the absence of any cross-appeal or cross-objection by the respondent under Order 41, Rule 22 CPC and the scope of power conferred on the appellate court under Rule 33 Order 41 CPC.
• 7. The first question is whether without cross-objection by the respondent, could the appellate court have set aside the decree passed by the trial court and instead granted straight away a decree for specific performance of contract. This would require reference to the principles underlying right to file an appeal and right to prefer cross-objection or when does it become necessary to prefer cross-objection without which decree under appeal cannot be altered or varied to the advantage of the respondent and/or to the disadvantage of the appellant. It has also been held by this Court in Samundra Devi v. Narendra Kaur SCC (2008-9 SCC 100: para 21), that this power under Order 41, Rule 33 CPC cannot be exercised ignoring a legal interdict.
• 15. Rule 4 seeks to achieve one of the several objects sought to be achieved by Rule 33, that is, avoiding a situation of conflicting decrees coming into existence in the same suit. The abovesaid provisions confer power of widest amplitude on the appellate court so as to do complete justice between the parties and such power is unfettered by consideration of facts like what is the subject matter of appeal, who has filed the appeal and whether the appeal is being dismissed, allowed or disposed of by modifying the judgment appealed against. While dismissing an appeal and though confirming the impugned decree, the appellate court may still direct passing of such decree or making of such order which ought to have been passed or made by the court below in accordance with the findings of fact and law arrived at by the court below and which it would have done had it been conscious of the error committed by it and noticed by the Appellate Court. While allowing the appeal or otherwise interfering with the decree or order appealed against, the appellate court may pass or make such further or other, decree or order, as the case would require being done, consistently with the findings arrived at by the appellate court. The object sought to be achieved by conferment of such power on the appellate court is to avoid inconsistency, inequity, inequality in reliefs granted to similarly placed parties and unworkable decree or order coming into existence. The overriding consideration is achieving the ends of justice. Wider the power, higher the need for caution and care while exercising the power. Usually the power under Rule 33 is exercised when the portion of the decree appealed against or the portion of the decree held liable to be set aside or interfered by the appellate court is so inseparably connected with the portion not appealed against or left untouched that for the reason of the latter portion being left untouched either injustice would result or inconsistent decrees would follow.
• The power is subject to at least three limitations:
  • firstly, the power cannot be exercised to the prejudice or disadvantage of a person not a party before the Court;
  • secondly, a claim given up or lost cannot be revived; and
  • thirdly, such part of the decree which essentially ought to have been appealed against or objected to by a party and which that party has permitted to achieve a finality cannot be reversed to the advantage of such party.
• A case where there are two reliefs prayed for and one is refused while the other one is granted and the former is not inseparably connected with or necessarily depending on the other, in an appeal against the latter, the former relief cannot be granted in favour of the respondent by the appellate court exercising power under Rule 33 Order 41.” (Quoted in: Lakshmanan v. G. Ayyasamy, 2016-13 SCC 165; State of Andhra Pradesh v. B. Ranga Reddy, 2020-15 SCC 681).

In Pralhad v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 10 SCC 458, it is held that in the absence of an independent appeal or cross-objection (under Order 41 Rule 22) being filed by the aggrieved party, the relief which was denied by the courts below cannot be granted in the second appeal filed by the appellant. (Referred to in: Lakshmanan v. G. Ayyasamy, 2016-13 SCC 165.)

In Lakshmanan v. G. Ayyasamy, 2016 (13) SCC 165, it is observed as under:

• “7… Usually the power under Rule 33 is exercised when the portion of the decree appealed against or the portion of the decree held liable to be set aside or interfered by the appellate court is so inseparably connected with the portion not appealed against or left untouched that for the reason of the latter portion being left untouched either injustice would result or inconsistent decrees would follow. The power is subject to at least three limitations: firstly, the power cannot be exercised to the prejudice or disadvantage of a person not a party before the court; secondly, a claim given up or lost cannot be revived; and thirdly, such part of the decree which essentially ought to have been appealed against or objected to by a party and which that party has permitted to achieve a finality cannot be reversed to the advantage of such party. A case where there are two reliefs prayed for and one is refused while the other one is granted and the former is not inseparably connected with or necessarily depending on the other, in an appeal against the latter, the former relief cannot be granted in favour of the respondent by the appellate court exercising power under Rule 33 of Order 41 .” (Banarsi v. Ram Phal , (2003) 9 SCC 606] , SCC p. 619, para 15).
• 8 . In support of the same proposition of law, the learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon another judgment of this Court in Pralhad v. State of Maharashtra [Pralhad v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 10 SCC 458 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 212] , wherein this Court after interpretation of Order 41 Rule 33 CPC has clearly held that in the absence of an independent appeal or cross-objection being filed by the aggrieved party, the relief which was denied by the courts below cannot be granted in the second appeal filed by the appellant.”

In Vaibhav Jain v. Hindustan Motors (P) Ltd., (2025) 2 SCC 208, it is observed as under:

• “32. From the decision above, which has been consistently followed, it is clear that for exercise of the power under Rule 33 of Order 41 CPC the overriding consideration is achieving the ends of justice; and one of the limitations on exercise of the power is that that part of the decree which essentially ought to have been appealed against, or objected to, by a party and which that party has permitted to achieve a finality cannot be reversed to the advantage of such party.

In Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi v. Syeda Arifa Parveen , (2026) 3 SCC 460 it is held as under:

• “30. By applying the ratio in Banarsi [Banarsi v. Ram Phal, (2003) 9 SCC 606, we notice that the impugned judgment [Dharmrao v. Arifa Parveen, 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1671] has not considered whether a ground is made out for modifying a decree or not. The High Court has disturbed a finding of fact, leading to modifying the decree of the trial court in OS No. 212 of 2013 without there being an appeal/cross-appeal. To this extent, the findings of the High Court are not tenable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The other reasons assigned by the High Court are independently examined while considering the plea of Hiba and the plaintiff as the daughter of Khadijabee. The finding on this point, noted as an illegality, may not conclude the consideration of other issues.”

O. 41 r. 33 is an Enabling Provision for Adjusting the Right claimed by the Appellant.

As shown above, the normal rule is that a party aggrieved by a decree should file appeal. If he fails to do so, Order 41, Rule 33 cannot be invoked. This rule does not confer an unrestricted right to re-open decrees which have become final merely because the appellate Court does not agree with the opinion of the Court appealed from — even where an appeal Court reaches a conclusion inconsistent with the opinion of lower court. (Nirmala Bala Ghose v. Balai Chand Ghose , 1965-3 SCR 550).

But, for adjusting the right claimed by the appellant it may become necessary to grant relief to a person who has not appealed, invoking O. 41 r. 33. In Nirmala Bala Ghose v. Balai Chand Ghose, 1965-3 SCR 550, it was held that the rule however does not confer an unrestricted right to re-open decrees which have become final. (See also: Banarsi v. Ram Phal, AIR 2003 SC1989, (2003) 9 SCC 606; Kok Singh v. Deokabai AIR 1976 S.C. 634.)

Order 41 Rule 33 has Limited Application

In Samundra Devi v. Narendra Kaur, AIR 2008 SC 3205, 2008-9 SCC 100 (SB Sinha, J.), it is held that Order 41 Rule 33 CPC has limited application. In that case it was found that the High Court went wrong in reducing compensation, awarded to the claimant in a Motor Vehicles Claim, without a proper Appeal. The claimant was given liberty to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle. The insurance company has been held to have no statutory liability as the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. It was found that in the fact situation, even Order 41 Rule 33 was not applicable as the Insurance Company ordinarily could not have maintained an independent appeal on the quantum of compensation and that no appeal had been preferred by the owner or driver of the vehicle as also the insurance company. The Apex Court relied on S. Nazeer Ahmed v. State Bank of Mysore, (2007) 11 SCC 75.

In S. Nazeer Ahmed v. State Bank of Mysore, (2007) 11 SCC 75, it is stated:

• “8. We also see considerable force in the submission of learned Counsel for the appellants that the High Court has misconceived the object of Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code and has erred in invoking it for the purpose of granting the plaintiff Bank a decree. This is a case where the suit filed by the plaintiff Bank had been dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiff Bank had come up in appeal. It was entitled to challenge all the findings rendered against it by the trial court and seek a decree as prayed for in the plaint, from the appellate court. Once it is found entitled to a decree on the basis of the reasoning of the appellate court, the suit could be decreed by reversing the appropriate findings of the trial court on which the dismissal of the suit was based. For this, no recourse to Order XLI Rule 33 is necessary. Order XLI Rule 33 enables the appellate court to pass any decree that ought to have been passed by the trial court or grant any further decree as the case may require and the power could be exercised notwithstanding that the appeal was only against a part of the decree and could even be exercised in favour of the respondents, though the respondents might not have filed any appeal or objection against what has been decreed. There is no need to have recourse to Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code, in a case where the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed and the plaintiff has come up in appeal claiming a decree as prayed for by him in the suit. Then, it will be a question of entertaining the appeal considering the relevant questions and granting the plaintiff the relief he had sought for if he is found entitled to it. In the case on hand therefore there was no occasion for applying Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code. If the view of the High Court was that the suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code, it is difficult to see how it could have resorted to Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code to grant a decree to the plaintiff in such a suit. In that case, a decree has to be declined. That part of the reasoning of the High Court is therefore unsustainable.”

Read Also:

• Pleadings Should be Specific;  Why?
• No Relief if No Prayer; No Relief outside Pleadings
• Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a  Decree
• Judicial Admissions in Pleadings: Admissible Proprio Vigore Against the  Maker
• Pleadings are to be Considered as a Whole. When Lack of Pleadings Amounts to a Material Flaw?
• Pleadings in Defamation  Suits
• PLEADINGS IN ELECTION MATTERS
• UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian  Law
• Can the Appeal Court Allow a Relief Not Appealed Against?

End Notes

No Relief if No Prayer; No Relief if No Pleading

No Relief if No Prayer

It is well settled that reliefs not specifically prayed for cannot be granted merely on the basis of evidence or incidental observations, particularly when such reliefs involve substantive civil rights. The Trial Court, by granting findings on notional partition clearly acted contrary to the mandate of Order VII Rule 7 CPC, thereby travelling beyond both the pleadings and the relief clause of the plaint.

In Trojan & Co. Ltd. v. Rm. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar, AIR 1953 SC 235, it is held as under:

• “22. …. It is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. Without an amendment of the plain, the court was not entitled to grant the relief not asked for and no prayer was ever made to amend the plaint so as to incorporate in it an alternative case.” (Quoted in: Akella Lalitha v. Konda Hanumantha Rao, AIR 2022 SC 3544)

In Fertilizer Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Sarat Chandra Rath, AIR 1996 SC 2744, 1996-10 SCC 331 held as under:

• “The High Court ought not to have granted reliefs to the respondents which they had not even prayed for.”

The Apex Court in Bharat Amratlal Kothari v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi, AIR 2010 SC 475, it is held as under:

• “Though the Court has very wide discretion in granting relief, the Court, however, cannot, ignoring and keeping aside the norms and principles governing grant of relief, grant a relief not even prayed for by the petitioner.”

In State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436, it is held that without pleadings, relief could not be granted.

In Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 149, it is observed as under:

• “77. This Court while dealing with an issue in Kalyan Singh Chouhan V C. P. Joshi (2011) 11 SCC 786), after placing reliance on a very large number of it earlier judgments including Trojan & Co v. Nagappa Chettiar (AIR 1953 SC 235), Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B Goyal (2002) 2 SCC 256), Ishwar Dutt v. Collector (LA) (2005) 7 SCC 190) and State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Co Ltd (2010) 4 SCC 518), held that relief not founded on the pleadings cannot be granted. A decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. No evidence is permissible to be taken on record in the absence of the pleadings in that respect. No party can be permitted to travel beyond it pleading and that all necessary and materials facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it. It was further held that where the evidence was not in the line of the pleadings, the said evidence cannot be looked into or relied upon.
• 85.6. The court cannot travel beyond the pleadings as no party can lead the evidence on an issue/point not raised in the pleadings and in case, such evidence has been adduced or a fining of fact has been recorded by the court, it is just to be ignored. Though it may be a different case where in spite of specific pleadings, a particular issue is not framed and the parties having full knowledge of the issue in controversy lead the evidence and the court records a finding on it.”

In Akella Lalitha v. Konda Hanumantha Rao, AIR 2022 SC 3544, 2022 SCC Online SC 928, it is held that it is settled law that relief not found on pleadings should not be granted. If a Court considers or grants a relief for which no prayer or pleading was made depriving the respondent of an opportunity to oppose or resist such relief, it would lead to miscarriage of justice.

See Also:

• Krishna Priya Ganguly v. University of Lucknow, (1984) 1 SCC 307; AIR 1984 SC 186
• State v. M. Maridoss, (2023) 4 SCC 338.

No Relief outside Pleadings

Generally, courts cannot grant relief completely outside the scope of the pleadings or surprise litigants without a fair opportunity to be heard . Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College, (1987) 2 SCC 555, it was observed that it is well settled that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleadings and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by a party in support of the case set up by it.

In Trojan & Co. Ltd. v. Rm. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar, (1953) 1 SCC 456, the Apex Court held as under:

• “It is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. Without an amendment of the plaint, the Court was not entitled to grant the relief not asked for and no prayer was ever made to amend the plaint so as to incorporate in it an alternative case.”

In Chinta Lingam v. The Govt. of India, AIR 1971 SC 474, this it is held that unless factual foundation has been laid in the pleadings no argument is permissible to be raised on that particular point.

In Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College, AIR 1987 SC 1242, it is held as under:

• “…… in the absence of pleadings, evidence if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered…… no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it.”

In Syed and Company v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 422, it is held as under:

• “Without specific pleadings in that regard, evidence could not be led in since it is settled principle of law that no amount of evidence can be looked unless there is a pleading. Therefore, without amendment of the pleadings merely trying to lead evidence is not permissible.”

In J. Jermons v. Aliammal, (1999) 7 SCC 382, it is held held as under:

• “…… there is a fundamental difference between a case of raising additional grounds based on the pleadings and the material available on record and a case of taking a new plea not borne out of the pleadings. In the former case no amendment of pleading is required, whereas in the latter it is necessary to amend the pleadings…The respondents cannot be permitted to make out a new case by seeking permission to raise additional grounds in revision.” (Quoted: The National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad, AIR 2012 SC 264; 2011-12 SCC 695).

In Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, 2008 (17) SCC 491 it is observed as under:

• “13. The object of issues is to identify from the pleadings the questions or points required to be decided by the courts so as to enable parties to let in evidence thereon. When the facts necessary to make out a particular claim, or to seek a particular relief, are not found in the plaint, the court cannot focus the attention of the parties, or its own attention on that claim or relief, by framing an appropriate issue. As a result the defendant does not get an opportunity to place the facts and contentions necessary to repudiate or challenge such a claim or relief. Therefore, the court cannot, on finding that the plaintiff has not made out the case put forth by him, grant some other relief. The question before a court is not whether there is some material on the basis of which some relief can be granted. The question is whether any relief can be granted, when the defendant had no opportunity to show that the relief proposed by the court could not be granted. When there is no prayer for a particular relief and no pleadings to support such a relief, and when the defendant has no opportunity to resist or oppose such a relief, if the court considers and grants such a relief, it will lead to miscarriage of justice. Thus it is said that no amount of evidence, on a plea that is not put forward in the pleadings, can be looked into to grant any relief.” (Quoted in: Venkatesha v. K.M. Venkatamuniyappa, 2026-4 ALD (SC) 261; 2026 INSC 705)

It is further held as under:

• “16. It is fundamental that in a civil suit, relief to be granted can be only with reference to the prayers made in the pleadings. That apart, in civil suits, grant of relief is circumscribed by various factors like court fee, limitation, parties to the suits, as also grounds barring relief, like res judicata, estoppel, acquiescence, non- joinder of causes of action or parties, etc., which require pleading and proof. Therefore, it would be hazardous to hold that in a civil suit whatever be the relief that is prayed, the court can on examination of facts grant any relief as it thinks fit. In a suit for recovery of rupees one lakh, the court cannot grant a decree for rupees ten lakhs. In a suit for recovery possession of property ‘A’, court cannot grant possession of property ‘B’. In a suit praying for permanent injunction, court cannot grant a relief of declaration or possession. The jurisdiction to grant relief in a civil suit necessarily depends on the pleadings, prayer, court fee paid, evidence let in, etc.” (Quoted in: R.M. Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram v. Sri Kayarohanasamy And Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple, 2022-11 SCR 475; J.P. Builders v. A. Ramadas Rao, 2011-1 SCC 429)

In Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594, it is held as under:

• “No amount of evidence or arguments can be looked into or considered in the absence of pleadings and issues, is a proposition that is too well settled.” (Quoted in: J.P. Builders v. A. Ramadas Rao, 2011-1 SCC 429)

In Kalyan Singh Chouhan v C. P. Joshi , (2011) 11 SCC 786, the Court stated, after noticing various earlier pronouncements:

• “19. Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is settled legal proposition that “as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted”. Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. The pleadings and issues are to ascertain the real dispute between the parties to narrow the area of conflict and to see just where the two sides differ. (Vide Sri Mahant Govind Rao v. Sita Ram Kesho [(1897-98) 25 IA 195], Trojan & Co. v. Nagappa Chettiar [(1953) 1 SCC 456: AIR 1953 SC 235], Raruha Singh v. Achal Singh [AIR 1961 SC 1097], Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal [(2002) 2 SCC 256: AIR 2002 SC 665], Ishwar Dutt v. Collector (L.A.) [(2005) 7 SCC 190: AIR 2005 SC 3165] and State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. [(2010) 4 SCC 518: (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 207]) xxx
• 28. Therefore, in view of the above, it is evident that the party to the election petition must plead the material fact and substantiate its averment by adducing sufficient evidence. The court cannot travel beyond the pleadings and the issue cannot be framed unless there are pleadings to raise the controversy on a particular fact or law. It is, therefore, not permissible for the court to allow the party to lead evidence which is not in the line of the pleadings. Even if the evidence is led that is just to be ignored as the same cannot be taken into consideration.” (Quoted in: A. Raja v. D. Kumar, 2025 INSC 629; 2025 KLT(Online) 1888 ; 2025 KHC(Online) 6440)

In State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, 2011-3 SCC 436, it is held as under:

• “55. Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is a settled legal proposition that “as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted.” Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. The pleadings and issues are to ascertain the real dispute between the parties to narrow the area of conflict and to see just where the two sides differ. (Vide : Sri Mahant Govind Rao v. Sita Ram Kesho, (1898) 25 Ind. App. 195; M/s. Trojan & Co. v. RM. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar, AIR 1953 SC 235; Ishwar Dutt v. Land Acquisition Collector & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 3165; and State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., (2010) 4 SCC 518.)

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

• ‘Rateable Distribution’: Law Designed to Ensure Fairness. Insights from Koshy Abraham v. Shaji, 2026:KER:20267.
• Law on Overruling: Principles Established in an ‘Overruled’ Decision Remain Good Law If Left Untouched
• ‘Plaintiff to Win on His Own Title’ v. ‘Each Party Must Succeed on the Strength of Its Own Title’
• Venkatesha v. KM Venkatamuniyappa: A Rectification Deed Cannot, in the Guise of Correcting an Error, Substitute the Very Subject Matter
• 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?
• Suit and Counterclaim – No Necessity of Two Decrees; No Need for Two Appeals: Basudev v. Sanjay Kumar
• 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
• 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
• Divergent Decisions of Co-Equal Benches and Doctrine of Decisions ‘PER INCURIAM’
• No Res judicata on Finding on Title in an Injunction  Suit
• Res Judicata: ‘Same issue’ must have been ‘Adjudicated’ in the former&nb sp;suit
• Res Judicata and Appeal: No Res Judicata on Adverse Findings, in a Favourable  Decree
• Principles of Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
• A Suit Cannot be Rejected if there is a ‘Cause of Action’, for the Plaint discloses One ESSENTIAL FACT that Gives Rise to a ‘Right to Sue’
• 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?
• No Relief if No Prayer; No Relief if No Pleading
• Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a  Decree
• Pleadings in Defamation  Suits
• Judicial Admissions in Pleadings: Admissible Proprio Vigore Against the  Maker
• Previous Owner is Not a Necessary Party in a Recovery  Suit
• UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian  Law
• PLEADINGS IN ELECTION MATTERS
• Pleadings are to be Considered as a Whole. When Lack of Pleadings Amounts to a Material Flaw?
• When Declaration Needed for Injunction and Recover
• 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
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting  Onus
• Burden on Plaintiff to Prove Title; Weakness of Defence Will Not Entitle a  Decree
• 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&nbs p;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.
• Civil Court to Adjudicate Title; Land Tribunal to Fix Tenancy; Taluk Land Board to Determine Plantation Exemption

Principles and Procedure

• Copyright and Copyright Infringement – Indian  Law
• 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 is Static; ‘ONUS’ alone Shifts, According to Indian 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’.
• Suit and Counterclaim – No Necessity of Two Decrees; No Need for Two Appeals: Basudev v. Sanjay Kumar
• 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
• Divergent Decisions of Co-Equal Benches and Doctrine of Decisions ‘PER INCURIAM’
• 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
• In a Suit for Fixation of Boundary, Property of the Defendant Need Not be  Scheduled
• 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
• When Declaration Needed for Injunction and Recover
• ‘Plaintiff to Win on His Own Title’ Vs. ‘Each Party Must Succeed on the Strength of Its Own Title’
• 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.
• No Rejection of suit — if Plaint discloses a ‘Cause of Action’– ’Chinmaya Mission Educational & Cultural Trust v. Sree Hari R. Menon, 2026 KER 56668 (CR): A Suit Cannot be Rejected if there is a ‘Cause of Action’, for the Plaint discloses One ESSENTIAL FACT that Gives Rise to a ‘Right to Sue’
• 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

COMMISIONS Under CPC

• Powers and Duties of Commissioners to Make Local Investigations, Under CPC
• Law on Survey Commission in Civil Suits
• 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?

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

• ‘Plaintiff to Win on His Own Title’ Vs. ‘Each Party Must Succeed on the Strength of Its Own Title’
• Immovable Property–‘LIMITATION’ on Suits
• Title Deed Lost and Certified Copy Unavailable: The Law Does Not Leave the Owner Without a Remedy
• Right to Property: A Constitutional and Human Right That Cannot Be Taken Away on Mere Technical Grounds of Delay or the Fault of Public Authorities
• 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
• OWNER v. LANDLORD: ‘Recovery’ and ‘Eviction’ – Two Distinct Legal Concepts
• 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
• Can the Forest Tribunal Make a Finding on  Title?

Recovery of Possession:

• Immovable Property–‘LIMITATION’ on Suits
• 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’
• Can Transfer of Registry or Mutation and Payment of Tax be Denied, pointing out Revenue Recovery, Attachment or Bank  Loan?
• 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)
• SUIT on TITLE: Landlord can Recover Property on GENERAL TITLE (though Tenancy Not Proved) if Defendant Falsely Claimed Independent  Title
• OWNER v. LANDLORD: ‘Recovery’ and ‘Eviction’ – Two Distinct Legal Concepts
• Even the Rightful Owner is NOT entitled to Eject a Trespasser, by  Force
• Ryotwari  System in  Madras

Survey, 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’
• Can Transfer of Registry or Mutation and Payment of Tax be Denied, pointing out Revenue Recovery, Attachment or Bank  Loan?
• Survey Authorities Do Not Decide  TITLE
• Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a  Decree
• Will Boundaries of Properties (Always) Preferred Over Survey Number, Extent, Side Measurements,  etc.?
• Survey under Survey Act – Raises a Presumption on  Boundary; though Not Confer  Title

Adverse Possession

• Immovable Property–‘LIMITATION’ on Suits
• 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?
• 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)
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent  Interests
• Vested Remainder and Contingent Remainder
• Vested interest and Contingent  Interest
• Rule Against Perpetuity –  Simplified
• 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’
• Can Transfer of Registry or Mutation and Payment of Tax be Denied, pointing out Revenue Recovery, Attachment or Bank  Loan?
• Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2026:KER:19290): Transfer of Registry can be Claimed only on Proper Application, with Supporting  Documents
• In Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2026:KER:19290), it is Held: No Findings on Title in the Previous Decision – Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2018 (2) KLT 369
• 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
• In a Suit for Fixation of Boundary, Property of the Defendant Need Not be  Scheduled
• Property Rights Cannot be Taken Away on Technical Grounds of  Delay: Rama S/o Gunda Malkapure v. The State of Maharashtra

Land Reform Laws

• Relevant Provisions of  Kerala Land Reforms Act
• Title of the Government Property in India: Government is the Ultimate Owner of Every Property; Hence, Government Need Not Prove  Title.
• Grant in Law
• 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
• 1910 Settlement Register of Travancore – Basic Record of Land  Matters

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

• A Defective Legislative Piece as regards Documents “Admitted in Writing” in the (Old) Evidence Act is Corrected in S. 58 of the BSA
• Tharammel Peethambaran vs T. Ushakrishnan, Pankaj Mithal, S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.,  AIR 2026 SC 938: A Classic Decision on Secondary Evidence
• Newspaper Reports are ‘Hearsay Secondary  Evidence’
• Marking Secondary Evidence Without Objection: Two Apparently Divergent Views on Waiver and the Mode of Proof of Documents
• 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
• Can a Witness be Confronted with a Photograph During Cross-Examination Without its Prior  Production (Anu C.R. v. State of Kerala)
• 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

• Grammatically and Contextually, the Non Obstante Clause in Section 63(1) BSA is Confined to the Deeming Fiction
• Is a Section 63(4) Certificate an Essential Prerequisite for the Admission of a Photograph in  Evidence?
• 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
• Electronic Evidence under   S. 61, 62, 63 of the  BSA
• 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&nbs p;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’