Author Archives: sajikoduvath

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam

S.  63, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam

Section 63, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 reads as under:

• “63. Admissibility of electronic records.   (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Adhiniyam, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media or semiconductor memory which is produced by a computer or any communication device or otherwise stored, recorded or copied in any electronic form (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.”

What exactly does the Non obstante Clause Override?

Grammatically and contextually the non obstante clause is confined to and overrides the deeming provision. Because –

• the opening words, “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,” in Section 63(1) are directed only to the statutory fiction that a computer output shall be deemed to be a document (the legal consequence is that it is treated as the original documentary record). The non obstante clause is confined to this deeming provision.
• It should not be construed as overriding every provision of the Act relating to the proof or admissibility of electronic evidence including Sections 58 and 60 (relates to secondary evidence). That is, they can also be invoked.
• Its function is to support the legal fiction created by Section 63(1), not to govern the admissibility of electronic evidence generally.

Settled Principles Governing Non Obstante Clauses

The following are the settled principles governing non obstante clauses –

• A non obstante clause overrides only to the extent of inconsistency.
• It should not be given a wider operation than the legislative purpose requires.Once Parliament creates a legal fiction, courts must give full effect to it, but not extend it beyond its purpose.
  • See: East End Dwellings Co., Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council L.R. (1952) A.C. 109; (1951) 2 All.E.R 587.
  • Referred to in: Raja Shatrunji VS Mohammad Azmat Azim Khan, 2026 INSC 579 ; 2026 KLT(Online) 4261 ; 2026 KHC(Online) 6425 (J.B. Pardiwala, K. V. Viswanathan, JJ.)
  • Canara Bank v. D.R.P. Sundharam, 2016-1 Scale 525 ; 2016-1 SCT 803 ; 2016 KHC 6932, (Ranjan Gogoi, Arun Mishra, Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.).

Why the non obstante clause in Section 63(1)

Under the ordinary law of evidence, a computer output represents a copy or reproduction of information. Section 63(1) creates a legal fiction by treating such a computer output as a document for evidentiary purposes. The opening non obstante clause ensures that this statutory fiction prevails notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of the Act.

• Section 63(1) elevates that copy to the status of an electronic record (original). The non obstante clause ensures that this legal transformation prevails.
• The non obstante clause enables the statutory fiction to operate notwithstanding anything elsewhere in the Act. It does not dispense with the ordinary requirements relating to relevance, authenticity, reliability or proof except to the extent necessary to give full effect to the legal fiction.

Arjun Panditrao  Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal,

The Supreme Court decision in  Arjun Panditrao  Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1: AIR 2020 SC 4908,  had established a strict interpretation. It laid down that the proof by the certificate under Section 65B (Section 63, Adhiniyam) was mandatory for admitting a computer output (copy) in evidence.

S. 61 BSA is to Override Arjun Panditrao

The above interpretation is reinforced by Section 61. If Section 63 already constituted a complete overriding code governing the admissibility of all electronic evidence, there would have been little necessity for Parliament to enact Section 61. The existence of Section 61 indicates that Section 63 performs a narrower function. 

• It is plain — Section 61 is a provision intended to ensure alternative routes for admitting computer outputs (copies of electronic records), that is, otherwise than through the certificate contemplated under Section 63. It is the harmonious interpretation. If Section 61 is not read as stated above, it becomes redundant.
• Section 61 of the BSA, was not in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 61, Adhiniyam reads as under:
  • “61.  Electronic or digital record.  Nothing in this Adhiniyam shall apply to deny the admissibility of an electronic or digital record in the evidence on the ground that it is an electronic or digital record and such record shall,  subject to section 63, have the same legal effect, validity and enforceability as other document.”

Drastic Legislative Change to  Arjun Panditrao

Section 61, Adhiniyam made a drastic legislative change to the deliberation placed by  Arjun Panditrao  Khotkar. By virtue of Section 61, a computer output (i.e., a copy of an electronic record) is capable of being proved by any mode of proof recognised under the Adhiniyam, and is not restricted to proof solely through the certificate.

• In any event, Section 61 is worded with a view that it must be understood as a provision intended to secure alternative routes for admitting computer outputs (copies of electronic records); that is, otherwise than through the certificate contemplated under Section 63.

Section 63(4) – One Mode of Proving the Computer Output

• Sub-section (4) of Section 63 prescribes only one mode of proving the computer output (that is, ‘statements’; and not photographs and videos). In any case, Section 63(4) is not the exclusive route for proving all computer outputs.

Conclusion

The opening words “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act” do not create a general overriding code for electronic evidence. They merely ensure that, despite anything elsewhere in the Act, the statutory fiction created by Section 63(1) operates fully, namely that the specified computer output (copy) is treated as an electronic record (a document). Beyond giving full effect to that statutory fiction, the non obstante clause has no independent overriding operation.

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Abstract

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, removes the anomaly that existed under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. By expressly recognising “written admissions” as a distinct category of secondary evidence in Section 58, it makes the written admission referred to in Section 60(b) itself (e.g., “copy enclosed”) admissible as secondary evidence. Accordingly, where Section 60(b) applies, there is no necessity to produce an independent copy falling under any other category of secondary evidence specified in Section 58.

S. 60 BSA Enumerates: “Cases in Which Secondary Evidence … May be Given“

Section 60 of the BSA [Section 65 of the Evidence Act] enumerates the “Cases in which secondary evidence relating to a document may be given”. Relevant part of Section 60 reads as under:

• “60. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given. Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases, namely: — (a) ……. “

S. 60(b): If Opposite Party Admits Document in Writing

Section 60(b) BSA is attracted where the opposite party has admitted in writing the existence, condition or contents of the original document. Section 60(b) reads as under:

• “(b) When the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest.”
• In Explanation (ii) of Section 60, it is stated as under — “For the purposes of- ……. clause (b), the written admission is admissible”

Defective Legislative Drafting in Old Evidence Act (Corrected in BSA)

Section 65(b) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was susceptible to divergent judicial views. It was owing to

• (i) the absence of any corresponding recognition of any such copy (like an un-compared 3^rd generation copy) as a form of secondary evidence under Section 63, Evidence Act, and
• (ii) Section 65 was relating to the “Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given“.

The ambiguity was as to –

• (a) whether any copy of a document admitted in writing could be received — even if it is an un-compared 3^rd generation copy, or
• (b) whether it was confined to the ‘quoted‘ admission portion in the ‘admitted writing’ alone.

It can be demonstrated (referring to the provisions of the Evidence Act) as under:

• First: Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act embodied the general principle that facts admitted by the parties need not be proved. Section 65(b), however, operated in a narrower field, namely, where the existence, condition or contents of the original document had been admitted in writing. Nevertheless, because of the manner in which Section 65 was drafted, even where a legible copy of a document was admitted in writing, that very copy was not necessarily receivable in evidence unless it answered the description of one of the recognised forms of secondary evidence under Section 63. This difficulty arose because Section 65 opened with the controlling words, “Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given”, thereby making the forms of secondary evidence recognised by Section 63 applicable to every clause of Section 65.
• Second: Although the Explanation to Section 65 also declared that, “for the purposes of clause (b), the written admission is admissible”, Section 63 did not recognise a written admission as a form of secondary evidence. The result was an apparent inconsistency, leaving room for divergent judicial approaches. Section 58 BSA removes that inconsistency by expressly recognising written admissions as a distinct form of secondary evidence.
• Third: Consequently, where a copy that did not qualify as secondary evidence under Section 63—for example, an uncompared third or fourth generation copy—is expressly admitted in writing by a party as “a correct copy”, the admission does not, by itself, render that copy admissible. The statutory requirement under Section 63, requires production of the recognised classes of copies.
• Fourth: Section 58 declared that admitted facts need not be proved. It may therefore be legitimately contended that, once the written admission (e.g., “copy enclosed”) falls within Section 65(b), formal proof of the existence, condition or contents of the original document stands dispensed with. If that construction is accepted, however, the opening words of Section 65— “Secondary evidence relating to documents may be given in the following cases”—are deprived of their full effect. The ambiguity thus arises from the difficulty in reconciling the general rule dispensing with proof of admitted facts and the statutory insistence that only recognised ‘secondary evidence’.

Important Legislative Change in BSA, from the Evidence Act

As shown above, Section 60(b) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 [Section 65(b) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 also], applies where the opposite party has admitted in writing the existence, condition, or contents of the original document. However, Section 60 of the BSA [Section 65 of the Evidence Act] merely specifies the circumstances in which secondary evidence may be given. Hence, it can be argued that, notwithstanding the written admission in Section 60, the party relying on the document must still produce and prove an admissible copy answering the description of secondary evidence. The relevant provision in this regard is Section 58 of the BSA [Section 63 of the Evidence Act].

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 being include “written admissions” as an item in the list when enumerated legally acceptable copies or secondary evidence in Section 58, the “admission in writing” in Section 60(b) will enable the court to receive such (accepted/enclosed) copies in evidence.

As the (old) Evidence Act (Section 63) did not recognise “written admissions” as an item in the list enumerated as a legally acceptable copy or secondary evidence, it was necessary to produce a legally acceptable copy enumerated in the old Section 63 of the Evidence Act.

S. 58 BSA Says: What Constitutes Secondary Evidence

Section 60(b) does not, by itself, prescribe what constitutes secondary evidence. It is dealt with under Section 58 BSA [S. 63 of the Evidence Act]. The changed Section 58 BSA reads as under:

• “58: Secondary evidence
• Secondary evidence includes—
  • (i) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained;
  • (ii) copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies;
  • (iii) copies made from or compared with the original;
  • (iv) counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them;
  • (v) oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it;
  • (vi) oral admissions;
  • (vii) written admissions;
  • (viii) evidence of a person who has examined a document, the original of which consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents.”

Conclusion

Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 63 did not recognise ‘written admissions‘ as a distinct category of secondary evidence. Consequently, even where the existence, condition or contents of the original document had been ‘admitted in writing’ under Section 65(b), a legally recognised copy falling within one of the classes enumerated in Section 63 (in the old Act) should have been produced.

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 has substantially removed this drafting anomaly. By expressly recognising ‘written admissions‘ as a species of secondary evidence under Section 58, the new Act (BSA) harmonises Sections 58 and 60(b). Accordingly, where the case falls within Section 60(b), the written admission itself makes the accepted/enclosed copy admissible as secondary evidence.

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “

Read in this Cluster (Click on the Topic)

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

• Striking off defence under Order XV Rule 5 CPC (U.P. Amendment): Consequence is Drastic; Mere Denial of the Landlord–Tenant Relationship Not Absolve Tenant from the Statutory Obligation to Deposit Rent
• Maurice W. Innis v. Lily Kazrooni – Executing Court Executes Decree as it Stands, Without any Modification. It cannot Go Beyond or Vary its Term
• Channappa v.  Parvatewwa, 2026 INSC 343: Suit Dismissed for Order II Rule 2 Bar: For No ‘Consequential Declaration’ on Title, in the Earlier Suit 
• Applicability of Res Judicata on IA Orders (at Different Stages of the Same Suit) 
• Rejection of Plaint is a Procedural Termination, and Dismissal of Suit on Preliminary Issue is a Summary Decision on Merits
• Can a Suit be Rejected on the Inherent Power of the Court?
• Did the Supreme Court Depart From its Earlier Position in Hussain Ahmed Choudhury v. Habibur Rahman, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 892, in its Subsequent Decision in Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi, 2025 INSC 1105?
• Time City Infrastructure and Housing Ltd v. State of UP: Non-Compliance in taking Postal Steps – Court Should Vacate the Ad-Interim Injunction Order
• “Due Process of Law” in Civil Suits
• Can a suit be Rejected (Order VII rule 11 CPC) on the Ground of Res Judicata?
• Operation Asha  v. Shelly Batra, a Landmark Judgment on Sec. 92 CPC– Critical Appreciation
• If a Sharer Dies & the LRs are Not Impleaded – Partition Suit as a Whole Abates. But the Court SHOULD Direct Either Side to Take Steps to Bring in the Legal Heirs
• Order IX Rule 9 CPC: Earlier Suit for Injunction; Subsequent Suit for Recovery & Injunction – No Bar
• H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar: An ‘Aggrieved’ Stranger or a ‘Prejudicially Affected’ Third-Party (also) Can File Appeal with the ‘Leave of the Court’.
• Replication, Rejoinder and Amendment of Pleadings
• Can a Suit be Withdrawn in Appeal, on the Ground that Appeal is Continuation of the Suit?
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• Suit under Sec. 6, Specific Relief Act – Is it a ‘Summary Suit’ under Order XXXVII CPC?
• Is it Mandatory to Lift the Attachment on Dismissal of the Suit? Will the Attachment Orders Get Revived on Restoration of Suit?
• Will Interlocutory Orders and Applications Get Revived on Restoration of Suit?
• Can an ‘Ex-parte’ Defendant Cross Examine Plaintiff’s Witness?
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
• Civil Rights and Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata
• Constructive Res Judicata
• Applicability of Res Judicata on IA Orders (at Different Stages of the Same Suit) 
• Res Judicata and Judicial Precedent
• What is Binding Judicial Precedent – In a Nutshell
• No Res judicata on Finding on Title in an Injunction Suit
• Res Judicata: ‘Same issue’ must have been ‘Adjudicated’ in the former suit
• Res Judicata and Appeal: No Res Judicata on Adverse Findings, in a Favourable Decree
• Order II, Rule 2 CPC – Not to Vex Defendants Twice
• A Land Mark Decision on Order II rule 2, CPC – Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. v. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Ltd., Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 73
• Order I rule 8, CPC (Representative Suit) When and How? Whether Order I rule 8 Decree is Enforceable in Execution?
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• Pleadings in Defamation Suits
• Previous Owner is Not a Necessary Party in a Recovery Suit
• UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian Law
• PLEADINGS IN ELECTION MATTERS
• Declaration and Injunction
• Law on Summons to Defendants and Witnesses
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful Acts
• Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
• Mandatory Injunction – Law and Principles
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• Interrogatories: When Court Allows, When Rejects?
• Decree in OI R8 CPC-Suit & Eo-Nomine Parties
• Pecuniary & Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• Doctrine of Substantial Representation in a Suit by or against an Association
• Who are Necessary Parties, Proper Parties and Pro Forma Parties in Suits
• What is Partnership, in Law? How to Sue a Firm?
• ‘Legal Representatives’, Not ‘Legal Heirs’ to be Impleaded on Death of Plaintiff/Defendant
• Powers and Duties of Commissioners to Make Local Investigations, Under CPC
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
• Burden on Plaintiff to Prove Title; Weakness of Defence Will Not Entitle a Decree
• Is it Mandatory to Set Aside the Commission Report – Where a Second Commissioner is Appointed?
• Can a Commission be Appointed to Find Out the Physical Possession of a Property?
• Can the Court issue a Second Commission without Setting Aside First Commission Report?
• Withholding Evidence and Adverse Inference
• Pendente Lite Transferee Cannot Resist or Obstruct Execution of a Decree
• Family Settlement or Family Arrangement in Law
• ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
• Will Findings of a Civil Court Outweigh Findings of a Criminal Court?
• Relevancy of Civil Case Judgments in Criminal Cases
• Waiver and Promissory Estoppel
• Can a Christian Adopt? Will an adopted child get share in the property of adoptive parents?
• Principles of Equity in Indian Law
• Thangam v.  Navamani Ammal: Did the Supreme Court lay down – Written Statements which deal with each allegation specifically, but not “para-wise”, are vitiated?
• No Criminal Case on a Dispute Essentially Civil in Nature.
• Doctrine of Substantial Representation in Suits
• Order I rule 8, CPC (Representative Suit) When and How? Whether Order I rule 8 Decree is Enforceable in Execution?
• Appointment of Guardian for Persons Suffering from Disability or Illness: Inadequacy of Law – Shame to Law Making Institutions
• Can Documents be Marked In Cross Examination, If Witness Admits Them?
• Why Should Foundational or Crucial Documents Be Produced Along With the Plaint or WS
• Fraudulent or Void Transaction: Is ‘Declaration’ Necessary? No is the Answer: Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi, 2025 INSC 1105.

Principles and Procedure

• 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: Initial Burden and Shifting the Onus in Indian and English Law
• H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar: An ‘Aggrieved’ Stranger or a ‘Prejudicially Affected’ Third-Party (also) Can File Appeal with the ‘Leave of the Court’.
• Our Courts Apply Different ‘STANDADARDS of Proof’
• Ratio Decidendi (alone) Forms a Precedent, Not a Final Order
• What is Binding Judicial Precedent – In a Nutshell
• BNSS – Major Changes from CrPC
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Important Changes from the Indian Penal Code
• Substantive Rights and Mistakes & Procedural Defects in Judicial Proceedings
• Can Documents be Marked In Cross Examination, If Witness Admits Them?
• Will Boundaries of Properties (Always) Preferred Over Survey Number, Extent, Side Measurements, etc.?
• Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a Decree
• 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
• Declaration and Injunction
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• Does Alternate Remedy Bar Civil Suits and Writ Petitions?
• Void, Voidable, Ab Initio Void, and Sham Transactions
• If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set Aside
• Can Courts Award Interest on Equitable Grounds?
• Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse
• Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State Of M.P, 29 January, 2025 – Law on Natural Justice Revisited
• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’
• Prescriptive Rights – Inchoate until the Title thereof is Upheld by a Competent Court
• ‘Title’ and ‘Ownership’ in Indian Law
• Can a Party to Suit Examine Opposite Party, as of Right?
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
• Cheating and Breach of Contract: Distinction – Fraudulent Intention at the time of Promise.
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs
• What is COGNIZANCE and Application of Mind by a Magistrate?
• Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle: Rejection of Plaint on ‘Bar of Limitation’ on Plea of Fraud.
• Why Should Foundational or Crucial Documents Be Produced Along With the Plaint or WS
• Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. The State of Gujarat: The Police have No Discretion to conduct a Preliminary Inquiry Before Registering an FIR in Cognizable Offences

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

• Gratuitous Possession – Owner can Reclaim Even Without Knowledge of the Other
• Suit on Possessory Remedy, Other side Admits Possession; Should the Will be Proved?
• M.V. Ramachandrasa v.  Mahendra Watch Company, 2026 INSC 348: Decision on Subletting Without Consent of Landlord
• ‘Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet’
• Section 27, Limitation Act Gives-Rise to a Substantive Right so as to Seek Declaration and Recovery
• Sale Deeds Without Consideration – Void
• Tenancy at Sufferance in Indian Law
• “Due Process of Law” in Civil Suits
• Revenue Settlement Registers of Travancore in 1910, Basic Record of Land matters
• Govt. of AP v. Thummala Krishna Rao, AIR 1982 SC 1081, 1982 (2) SCC 134, Misread by High Courts
• Can the Forest Tribunal Make a Finding on Title?

Recovery of Possession: 

• Suit on Possessory Remedy, Other side Admits Possession; Should the Will be Proved?
• Recovery of Possession Based on Title and on Earlier Possession
• Recovery of Possession (Based on Title) and Eviction (of Tenants)
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs
• Title and Ownership and Possessory Title in Indian Law
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• POSSESSION is a Substantive Right in Indian Law
• 22nd Law Commission  Report on ‘Law on Adverse Possession’
• Adverse Possession Against Government
• Government of Kerala v. Joseph – Law on Adverse Possession Against Government
• Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery Suits
• How to Plead Adverse Possession? Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
• Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
• Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
• When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
• Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
• ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
• 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
• 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

• 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
• 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

• Ten Square Miles Concession and Kanan Devan Hills Concession – State Grants of Travancore Governments
• Plantation-Tenants Not Approached The Land Tribunal are Ineligible for Plantation-Exemption-Orders from the Land Board
• Acquisition of (Exempted) Plantation Property: Should the Govt. Pay Full Land Value to Land Owners?
• Relevant provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act in a Nutshell
• Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in Kerala
• Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery Suits
• ‘Janmam’ Right is FREEHOLD Interest and ‘Estate’ in Constitution – By Royal Proclamation of 1899, The Travancore Sircar became Janmi of Poonjar Raja’s Land
• Government is the OWNER of (Leasehold) Plantation Lands in Kerala.
• Title of the Government Property in India: Government is the Ultimate Owner of Every Property; Hence, Government Need Not Prove Title.
• Glen Leven Estate v. State of Kerala: Not Correctly Decided?
• Law on Acquisition of Private Plantation Land in Kerala
• Plantation Exemption in Kerala Land Reforms Act–in a Nutshell
• Kerala Land Reforms Act – Provisions on Plantation-Tenancy and Land-Tenancy
• Grant in Law
• Balanoor Plantations & Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala – Based on the Principle: LT to fix Tenancy’; TLB to Fix Plantation Exemption.  
• 1910 Settlement Register of Travancore – Basic Record of Land Matters
• Do the Plantation-Tenants have the Right to Seek ‘Assignment’ of the Entire Plantation-Tenancy-Land (under Purchase Certificates)?

Power of attorney

• M.S. Ananthamurthy v. J. Manjula: Mere Word ‘Irrevocable’ Does Not Make a POWER OF ATTORNEY Irrevocable
• Can a Power of Attorney file a Civil Suit? Is there any bar by virtue of Manisha Mahendra Gala v. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani, 2024-6 SCC 130?
• No Adjudication If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
• Notary-Attested Documents and Presumptions
• Permission when a Power of Attorney Holder Files Suit
• If Power of Attorney himself Executes the Document, S. 33 Registration Act will NOT be attracted
• Should a Power of Attorney for Sale must have been Registered –
• Is Registered Power of Attorney Necessary for Registration of a Deed? No.

Evidence Act – General

• Newspaper Reports are ‘Hearsay Secondary Evidence’
• Major Changes in the Evidence Act by Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• Sec. 27 Recovery/Discovery in Evidence Act and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• Evidence in Court – General Principles
• Expert Evidence and Appreciation of Evidence
• Handwriting Expert Evidence: Relevant, But Merely an Opinion
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
• 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

• 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 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?
• 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?
• Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottay
• Visual and Audio Evidence (Including Photographs, Cassettes, Tape-recordings, Films, CCTV Footage, CDs, e-mails, Chips, Hard-discs, Pen-drives)
• Photograph Evidence, Its Admissibility and Photo-Identification in Court Cases
• Pictorial Testimony Theory and Silent Witnesses Theory
• No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
• Impounding of Documents – When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is Exhibited
• Sec. 35 Evidence Act: Presumption of Truth and Probative Value
• How to Prove Resolutions of a Company; Are Minutes Necessary?

Documents – Proof and Presumption

• Contents of a Document are to be Proved in Court by Producing Original or Secondary Evidence
• Handwriting Expert Evidence: Relevant, But Merely an Opinion
• Public Documents: Proof and Presumption
• 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

• What is the Period of Limitation for a Suit on a Promissory Note?
• Can Filing a Suit Amount to Notice of Termination of Contract
• Godrej Projects Development Limited v. Anil Karlekar, 2025 INSC 143 – Supreme Court Missed to State Something
• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’ in Indian Civil Laws
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian Law
• All Illegal Agreements are Void; but All Void Agreements are Not Illegal
• If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set Aside
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
• Cheating and Breach of Contract: Distinction – Fraudulent Intention at the time of Promise.

Law on Damages

• Law on Damages
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• Law on Damages in Defamation Cases
• Pleadings in Defamation Suits
• Godrej Projects Development Limited v. Anil Karlekar, 2025 INSC 143 – Supreme Court Missed to State Something

Easement

• Easement Simplified
• What is Easement? Does Right of Easement Allow to ‘Enjoy’ Servient Land After Making Improvements Therein ?
• “Implied Grant” in Law of Easements
• Implied Grant: A Valid Mode of Creation of Easement under Indian Law
• “Title Thereto” in the Definition of ‘Prescriptive Easement’ in Sec. 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882
• Prescriptive Rights – Inchoate until the Title thereof is Upheld by a Competent Court
• Will Easement of Necessity Ripen into a Prescriptive Easement?
• What is “period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit” in Easement by Prescription?
• Is the Basis of Every Easement, Theoretically, a Grant
• Extent of Easement (Width of Way) in Easement of Necessity, Quasi Easement and Implied Grant
• Easement of Necessity and Prescriptive Easement are Mutually Destructive; But, Easement of Necessity and Implied Grant Can be Claimed Alternatively
• Can Easement of Necessity and of Grant be Claimed in a Suit (Alternatively)?
• Can an Easement-Way be Altered by the Owner of the Land?
• Village Pathways and Right to Bury are not Easements.
• Custom & Customary Easements in Indian Law
• ‘Additional Burden Loses Lateral Support’ – Incorrect Proposition
• Grant in Law
• Travancore Grant Deeds, in Law
• Right of Private Way Beyond (Other Than) Easement
• Easement – Should Date of Beginning of 20 Years be pleaded?
• What is Easement, in law? Right of Easement Simplified
• One Year Interruption or Obstruction will not affect Prescriptive Easement
• Should the Plaintiff Schedule Servient Heritage in a Suit Claiming Perspective Easement?
• Necessary Parties in Suits on Easement
• Easement by Prescription – Grant or ‘Acquiring’ by “Hostile Act”
• Sec. 7 Easements Act – Natural Advantages Arising from the Situation of Land & Natural Flow of Water
• Licence and Irrevocable Licence: Section 60 Easements Act Applies only to ‘Bare Licences’ and Not to ‘Contractual Licences’

Stamp Act & Registration

• Sub-Registrar has no Authority to Ascertain whether the Vendor has Title
• Title Enquiry by the Sub Registrar is Illegal
• Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Settlement Deeds & Powers of Sub-Registrar in Cancelling Deeds
• Time-Limit For Adjudication of Unstamped Documents, before Collector
• Time Limit for Registration of Documents
• Presumptions on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
• Registration of Documents Executed out of India
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• Is Registration of a Deed, Notice to Government?
• LAW ON INSUFFICIENTLY STAMPED DOCUMENTS 
• Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
• Impounding of Documents, When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is Exhibited
• No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
• What is Torrens System

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
  • Expulsion of Members & Removal of Office-Bearers
  • Law on Meetings: An Overview
  • 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

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.

Abstract

Can Transfer of Registry or Mutation (and Payment of Tax) be Denied, pointing out Revenue Recovery, Attachment or Bank Loan? No, is the answer. Reasons # Mutation is only for fiscal (tax) purposes alone. # It is done not after a title enquiry. # Only a summary enquiry is made. # It is the duty of the Tahsildar to determine the person who has to pay tax. # It is the duty of the Revenue Department to keep the accounts up to date. # No case shall be rejected solely for the default of appearance of the parties. # The decision does not affect the legal rights of any person. # The question of legal rights is always subject to adjudication by civil courts.

Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966

In Kerala State, Rule 15 and 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules determines Mutationor transfer of Registry. They read as under:

• Rule 15 :
• “With the help of the details furnished in the statement in Form ‘A’ prepared by the Village Officers and such further information as the Tahsildar may receive from parties and village officials at the time of enquiry regarding the fact of possession and enjoyment, payment of tax and other particulars, the Tahsildar shall determine the person in whose name the transfer of registry shall be made. No case shall be rejected solely for the default of appearance of the parties as it is the immediate concern of the Land Revenue Department to keep the thandaper accounts (Chitta) upto date and bring into it the names of the real land-holders who shall be held liable for the payment of Government revenue due on the land.”
• Rule 16 :
• “The summary enquiry and the decision thereon is only an arrangement for fiscal purposes and does not affect the legal rights of any person in respect of the lands covered by the decisions in transfer of registry cases. The question of legal rights is always subject to adjudication by civil courts and pattas will be revised from time to time in accordance with judicial decisions.”

Following propositions can be culled out from the very rules of The Transfer of Registry Rules made applicable in the State of Kerala (Rule 15 and 16):

1. It is the duty of the Tahsildar to determine the person in whose name the transfer of registry shall be made.
2. It is the immediate concern of the Land Revenue Department to keep the thandaper accounts (Chitta) up to date.
3. It is the immediate concern of the Land Revenue Department bring into the thandaper accounts (Chitta) the names of the real land-holders who shall be held liable for the payment of Government revenue due on the land.
4. No case shall be rejected solely for the default of appearance of the parties.
5. Only a summary enquiry is to be made by the Revenue authorities.
6. The summary enquiry and the decision thereon is only an arrangement for fiscal purposes.
7. The summary enquiry and the decision thereon do not affect the legal rights of any person in respect of the lands covered by the decisions in transfer of registry cases.
8. The question of legal rights is always subject to adjudication by civil courts.
9. And, pattas will be revised from time to time in accordance with judicial decisions.

‘Mutation’ Only (Mainly) for Fiscal Purposes; Legal Rights subject to civil court decision

In Sawarni v. Inder Kaur and Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 223, it was held that mutation in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title, nor does it have any presumptive value on title. (Referred to in: P.  Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K.  Patkar, 2023 4 CurCC(SC) 278)

In Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh, (1997) 7 SCC 137 it was held that mere mutation of records would not divest the owners of a land of their right, title and interest in the land. (Referred to in: P.  Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K.  Patkar, 2023 4 CurCC(SC) 278)

In Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802, it was held as under:

• “6. … mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose.” (Quoted in: P.  Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K.  Patkar, 2023 4 CurCC(SC) 278)

In Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil, (1977) 2 SCC 49, it was held that there exists no universal principle that whatever will appear in the record of rights will be presumed to be correct, when there exists evidence to the contrary. (Referred to in: P.  Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K.  Patkar, 2023 4 CurCC(SC) 278)

Relevant Court Decisions

“Mutation of property and acceptance of land tax will not, by itself, either create or extinguish title”.

• Sawarni v. Inderkaur, 1996 (6) SCC 223 (Quoted in: S. Rajkumar v. Tahsildar, Devikulam, ILR 2020-2 Ker 883; 2020-3 KHC 270; 2020-3 KLT 403)
• John v. Village officer, Koottickal Village, 2026-3 KerLT 532.

Pendency of civil suits cannot be a ground for refusing land tax –

• Rimmy v. State of Kerala, reported in 2012(4)KLT SN118; Sudan v. State of Kerala, 2013 (4) KLT 563; Vijayarajan v. Tahsildar, 2013 (2) KLT SN 93; (2013) KHC 2764, Nevin Raju v. S. Basheer, 2015-3 KLJ 197; 2015-3 KLT(SN); George Pothen v. State of Kerala, 2018-4 KHC 795; 2019-2 KLT(SN) 14; .

Pendency of civil suits cannot be a ground for refusing mutation –

• Tulasibhai v. State of Kerala, 2010(4) KLT 215, Sudan v. State of Kerala, 2013 (4) KLT 563, Nevin Raju v. S. Basheer, 2015-3 KLJ 197; 2015-3 KLT(SN); Babu R v. State of Kerala, 2024-7 KHC (SN) 9; 2024-6 KLT 486; 2013 (4) KHC 201; Lodge & Hotel Mazdoor Sangh v. K. K. Sidharthan, 2017-1 LLJ 320.

There was a Bank Loan when the property was transferred. The bank had initiated revenue recovery proceedings. The revenue officials refused to effect mutation. The Court directed Mutation.

• Tulasibhai v. State of Kerala: 2010 (4) KLT 215
• (Referred to in Nevin Raju v. S. Basheer, 2015-3 KLJ 197; 2015-3 KLT(SN);
• Laila v. Village Officer, Thrikkovilvattom Village, 2019-4 ILR(Ker) 51; 2019-4 KHC 799; 2019-3 KLT 1012.

“Irrespective of disputes pending, a landholder is liable to pay tax and the same is bound to be accepted by the officers.”

• S. Rajkumar v. Tahsildar, Devikulam, ILR 2020-2 Ker 883; 2020-3 KHC 270; 2020-3 KLT 403

“This Court expresses its anguish in the revenue officials refusing to abide by the legal position laid down by this Court and the mechanical manner in which land tax is refused to be accepted.”

• S. Rajkumar v. Tahsildar, Devikulam, ILR 2020-2 Ker 883; 2020-3 KHC 270; 2020-3 KLT 403

General Legal Principles on Revenue Records

• Relevant Provisions in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
  • S. 29, BSA: Entry in public record or an electronic record made in performance of duty are relevant.
  • S. 82, BSA – Court shall presume maps or plans made by the Central Government or State Government are accurate.
• Survey Would Not Confer Title; Survey Authorities Not to Decide Title
  • The properties are identified by title deeds. The survey or resurvey would not confer title. Survey or resurvey records are not documents of proof of title.
  • State of A.P. v. Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Co., (2013) 9 SCC 319; Survey authorities not to decide title: Cochin Devaswom Board v. Union of India, 2023-6 KHC 328; 2023-5 KLT 706.
• Entry in resurvey and revenue records (on subjective satisfaction) will not lose title
  • Cochin Devaswom Board v. Union of India, 2023-6 KHC 328.
• Simply because resurvey plan, no title conferred
  • Kathirummal Chirammal Karthyayani v. Kunnool Balakrishnan, 2014-2 KHC 108; 2014-2 KLJ 289; 2014 Supp2 KLT 67 (N.K. Balakrishnan, J.).
• Title and Possession Decided by Civil Court
  • The title and possession are matters to be decided by a Civil Court. Resurvey under S. 13 has to yield to the adjudication by the Civil Court based on title: Sundaresan Nair v. Mallan Nadar, the Kerala High Court (2012 – K. Vinod Chandran, J.)
• Title would prevail over Revenue/Survey records
  • In title declaration suits, survey plan & revenue records are less significant; in suits involving title dispute, title would prevail over revenue records: Laxkshmi B. v. Suku (A. Badharudeen, J.), 2024-1 KerHC 380.
  • Title to property has to be determined not with reference to the survey demarcation but based on other cogent materials, the primary of which is the title deed: Elambilan Nani Amma v. Mulavana Antony (K. Babu, J.), 2023-7 KHC 418.
  • Reliefs are not denied merely on entries in revenue records/resurvey records – Laxkshmi B. v. Suku (A. Badharudeen, J.), 2024-1 KerHC 380.
• Survey Conclusive Proof on Boundaries
  • Survey authorities determine the boundaries of the land: Cochin Devaswom Board v. Union of India, 2023-6 KHC 328; 2023-5 KLT 706.
  • Survey conclusive proof, boundaries determined & recorded correctly; it will not affect the right and title: Elambilan Nani Amma v. Mulavana Antony (K. Babu, J.), 2023-7 KHC 418.
• Title to be Established by Title Deeds; Not with reference to the Survey demarcation
  • A party to the suit has to establish the title to a property by producing its title deed. In Title declaration suits, survey plan & revenue records are less significant.
  • Elambilan Nani Amma v. Mulavana Antony (K. Babu, J.), 2023-7 KHC 418; Laxkshmi B. v. Suku (A. Badharudeen, J.), 2024-1 KerHC 380.
• Survey and Revenue Records can be Relied on to show Boundary and Possession
  • Survey Records shall be conclusive proof of boundaries and presume correctness. Therefore, one can rely on the presumption that the survey records establish possession and boundary.
  • Elambilan Nani Amma v. Mulavana Antony (K. Babu, J.), 2023-7 KHC 418 (Vide: Cheriyanad Grama Panchayath v. The State of Kerala  (2019 (5) KHC 699, Venugopalan Nair v. Saraswathy Amma (2013 (4) KLT 717), Karthyayani v. Balakrishnan [2014 (2) Suppl. 67 (Ker.)], Ibrahim v. Saythumuhammed (2013 (4) KLT 435) and Achama Alexander v. Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records (2022 (2) KHC 131); Thomas v. Philip,2022(4) KerHC 451;.
• This view is fortified by the decisions of the Kerala High Court in:
  • Kannan v. Kannan (1964 KLT 228),  The Cheriyanad Grama Panchayath v. The State of Kerala  (2019 (5) KerHC 699), Venugopalan Nair v. Saraswathy Amma (2013 (4) KLT 717); Karthyayani v. Balakrishnan (2014 (2) KLT Suppl. 67 (Ker.); Ibrahim v. Saythumuhammed, (2013 (4) KLT 435); Achama Alexander v. Asst. Director, Survey and Land Records (2022 (2) KerHC 131: 2022-3 KLT 198); Thomas v. Philip (2022(4) KerHC 451); Elambilan Nani Amma v. Mulavana Antony (2023-7 KHC 418).
• Survey Raises Presumption of Possession
  • When a person is holding a survey division, there is presumption of possession: Achuthan Unni v. Vally, 1962 KLT 1010. Damodara Panicker v. Ayyappan Kutty, 1962 KLT 637; 1962 KHC 153, (Quoted in: Susi v. Sujathan, 2022-1 KHC 671, K Babu, J. and in Kathirummal Chirammal Karthyayani v. Kunnool Balakrishnan, 2014-2 KHC 108; 2014-2 KLJ 289; 2014 Supp2 KLT 67)
  • Survey authorities determine boundaries – Based on Possession, predominantly based on possession: Thomas v. Philip, 2022(4) KerHC 451 (K. Babu, J.) It is.
  • Survey authority is empowered to determine the disputes regarding the fixation of boundary; not empowered the survey authority to change the ownership:  Achama Alexander v. Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records (K. Babu, J.), 2022-2 KHC 131; 2022-3 KLT 198
• Entries in Revenue Records or Jamabandi serve only a “fiscal purpose”
  • Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186; Jitendra Singh v. State of MP, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223.
• Mutation is for revenue or fiscal purposes
  • Vadiyala Prabhakar Rao v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 INSC 450; Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186;  Jitendra Singh v. State of MP, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191;  Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223.
• Mutation not create or extinguish title; No presumptive value of Title
  • Vadiyala Prabhakar Rao v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 INSC 450; Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., (1997) 7 SCC 137; Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191.
• Title is Not Proved by Revenue Entries
  • Vadiyala Prabhakar Rao v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 INSC 450; Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar v. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund, (2007) 13 SCC 565; State of A.P. v. Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Co., (2013) 9 SCC 319; Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186;  Jitendra Singh v. State of MP, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802.
  • Jubin v. Village Officer, Koottickal Village – 2026(3) KLT 532 [Relied on: Santhosh Jacob v. Tahasildar, Muvattupuzha Taluk, 2024(2) KHC 665;Marunnoli Vijayalakshmi v. Tahasildar, Koyilandi, 2019(2) KLT 373, 2019(1) KHC 142]
• Revenue Records can raise a presumption regarding possession.
  • Vadiyala Prabhakar Rao v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 INSC 450; Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar v. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund, (2007) 13 SCC 565; State of A.P. v. Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Co., (2013) 9 SCC 319.
• Fabricated records in collusion – not defeat rights of Govt.
  • Vadiyala Prabhakar Rao v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2026 INSC 450; Baleshwar Tewari v. Sheo Jatan Tiwary, (1997) 5 SCC 112 ; State of Punjab v. Sadhu Ram, (1997) 9 SCC 544; R. Hanumaiah v. Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department, (2010) 5 SCC 203.

Read Also

• Title is Not Proved by Revenue Entries; Title Claims are Investigated by Civil Courts, Not by High Courts: Vadiyala Prabhakar Rao v. The Government of AP
• Survey Authorities Do Not Decide TITLE
• Revenue Records, ‘Mutation’ & Survey Records will not Confer Title; They merely Raise a Presumption on Possession
• 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
• Can the Forest Tribunal Render a Finding on Title so as to Operate as Res Judicata?
• Sub-Registrar has no Authority to Ascertain whether the Vendor has Title
• Is Registration of a Deed, Notice to Government and Public so as to Attract Adverse Possession?

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “

Read in this Cluster (Click on the Topic)

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

• Striking off defence under Order XV Rule 5 CPC (U.P. Amendment): Consequence is Drastic; Mere Denial of the Landlord–Tenant Relationship Not Absolve Tenant from the Statutory Obligation to Deposit Rent
• Maurice W. Innis v. Lily Kazrooni – Executing Court Executes Decree as it Stands, Without any Modification. It cannot Go Beyond or Vary its Term
• Channappa v.  Parvatewwa, 2026 INSC 343: Suit Dismissed for Order II Rule 2 Bar: For No ‘Consequential Declaration’ on Title, in the Earlier Suit 
• Applicability of Res Judicata on IA Orders (at Different Stages of the Same Suit) 
• Rejection of Plaint is a Procedural Termination, and Dismissal of Suit on Preliminary Issue is a Summary Decision on Merits
• Can a Suit be Rejected on the Inherent Power of the Court?
• Did the Supreme Court Depart From its Earlier Position in Hussain Ahmed Choudhury v. Habibur Rahman, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 892, in its Subsequent Decision in Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi, 2025 INSC 1105?
• Time City Infrastructure and Housing Ltd v. State of UP: Non-Compliance in taking Postal Steps – Court Should Vacate the Ad-Interim Injunction Order
• “Due Process of Law” in Civil Suits
• Can a suit be Rejected (Order VII rule 11 CPC) on the Ground of Res Judicata?
• Operation Asha  v. Shelly Batra, a Landmark Judgment on Sec. 92 CPC– Critical Appreciation
• If a Sharer Dies & the LRs are Not Impleaded – Partition Suit as a Whole Abates. But the Court SHOULD Direct Either Side to Take Steps to Bring in the Legal Heirs
• Order IX Rule 9 CPC: Earlier Suit for Injunction; Subsequent Suit for Recovery & Injunction – No Bar
• H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar: An ‘Aggrieved’ Stranger or a ‘Prejudicially Affected’ Third-Party (also) Can File Appeal with the ‘Leave of the Court’.
• Replication, Rejoinder and Amendment of Pleadings
• Can a Suit be Withdrawn in Appeal, on the Ground that Appeal is Continuation of the Suit?
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• Suit under Sec. 6, Specific Relief Act – Is it a ‘Summary Suit’ under Order XXXVII CPC?
• Is it Mandatory to Lift the Attachment on Dismissal of the Suit? Will the Attachment Orders Get Revived on Restoration of Suit?
• Will Interlocutory Orders and Applications Get Revived on Restoration of Suit?
• Can an ‘Ex-parte’ Defendant Cross Examine Plaintiff’s Witness?
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
• Civil Rights and Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata
• Constructive Res Judicata
• Applicability of Res Judicata on IA Orders (at Different Stages of the Same Suit) 
• Res Judicata and Judicial Precedent
• What is Binding Judicial Precedent – In a Nutshell
• No Res judicata on Finding on Title in an Injunction Suit
• Res Judicata: ‘Same issue’ must have been ‘Adjudicated’ in the former suit
• Res Judicata and Appeal: No Res Judicata on Adverse Findings, in a Favourable Decree
• Order II, Rule 2 CPC – Not to Vex Defendants Twice
• A Land Mark Decision on Order II rule 2, CPC – Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. v. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Ltd., Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 73
• Order I rule 8, CPC (Representative Suit) When and How? Whether Order I rule 8 Decree is Enforceable in Execution?
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• Pleadings in Defamation Suits
• Previous Owner is Not a Necessary Party in a Recovery Suit
• UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian Law
• PLEADINGS IN ELECTION MATTERS
• Declaration and Injunction
• Law on Summons to Defendants and Witnesses
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful Acts
• Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
• Mandatory Injunction – Law and Principles
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• Interrogatories: When Court Allows, When Rejects?
• Decree in OI R8 CPC-Suit & Eo-Nomine Parties
• Pecuniary & Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• Doctrine of Substantial Representation in a Suit by or against an Association
• Who are Necessary Parties, Proper Parties and Pro Forma Parties in Suits
• What is Partnership, in Law? How to Sue a Firm?
• ‘Legal Representatives’, Not ‘Legal Heirs’ to be Impleaded on Death of Plaintiff/Defendant
• Powers and Duties of Commissioners to Make Local Investigations, Under CPC
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
• Burden on Plaintiff to Prove Title; Weakness of Defence Will Not Entitle a Decree
• Is it Mandatory to Set Aside the Commission Report – Where a Second Commissioner is Appointed?
• Can a Commission be Appointed to Find Out the Physical Possession of a Property?
• Can the Court issue a Second Commission without Setting Aside First Commission Report?
• Withholding Evidence and Adverse Inference
• Pendente Lite Transferee Cannot Resist or Obstruct Execution of a Decree
• Family Settlement or Family Arrangement in Law
• ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
• Will Findings of a Civil Court Outweigh Findings of a Criminal Court?
• Relevancy of Civil Case Judgments in Criminal Cases
• Waiver and Promissory Estoppel
• Can a Christian Adopt? Will an adopted child get share in the property of adoptive parents?
• Principles of Equity in Indian Law
• Thangam v.  Navamani Ammal: Did the Supreme Court lay down – Written Statements which deal with each allegation specifically, but not “para-wise”, are vitiated?
• No Criminal Case on a Dispute Essentially Civil in Nature.
• Doctrine of Substantial Representation in Suits
• Order I rule 8, CPC (Representative Suit) When and How? Whether Order I rule 8 Decree is Enforceable in Execution?
• Appointment of Guardian for Persons Suffering from Disability or Illness: Inadequacy of Law – Shame to Law Making Institutions
• Can Documents be Marked In Cross Examination, If Witness Admits Them?
• Why Should Foundational or Crucial Documents Be Produced Along With the Plaint or WS
• Fraudulent or Void Transaction: Is ‘Declaration’ Necessary? No is the Answer: Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi, 2025 INSC 1105.

Principles and Procedure

• 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: Initial Burden and Shifting the Onus in Indian and English Law
• H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar: An ‘Aggrieved’ Stranger or a ‘Prejudicially Affected’ Third-Party (also) Can File Appeal with the ‘Leave of the Court’.
• Our Courts Apply Different ‘STANDADARDS of Proof’
• Ratio Decidendi (alone) Forms a Precedent, Not a Final Order
• What is Binding Judicial Precedent – In a Nutshell
• BNSS – Major Changes from CrPC
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Important Changes from the Indian Penal Code
• Substantive Rights and Mistakes & Procedural Defects in Judicial Proceedings
• Can Documents be Marked In Cross Examination, If Witness Admits Them?
• Will Boundaries of Properties (Always) Preferred Over Survey Number, Extent, Side Measurements, etc.?
• Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a Decree
• 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
• Declaration and Injunction
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• Does Alternate Remedy Bar Civil Suits and Writ Petitions?
• Void, Voidable, Ab Initio Void, and Sham Transactions
• If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set Aside
• Can Courts Award Interest on Equitable Grounds?
• Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse
• Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State Of M.P, 29 January, 2025 – Law on Natural Justice Revisited
• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’
• Prescriptive Rights – Inchoate until the Title thereof is Upheld by a Competent Court
• ‘Title’ and ‘Ownership’ in Indian Law
• Can a Party to Suit Examine Opposite Party, as of Right?
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
• Cheating and Breach of Contract: Distinction – Fraudulent Intention at the time of Promise.
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs
• What is COGNIZANCE and Application of Mind by a Magistrate?
• Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle: Rejection of Plaint on ‘Bar of Limitation’ on Plea of Fraud.
• Why Should Foundational or Crucial Documents Be Produced Along With the Plaint or WS
• Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. The State of Gujarat: The Police have No Discretion to conduct a Preliminary Inquiry Before Registering an FIR in Cognizable Offences

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

• Gratuitous Possession – Owner can Reclaim Even Without Knowledge of the Other
• Suit on Possessory Remedy, Other side Admits Possession; Should the Will be Proved?
• M.V. Ramachandrasa v.  Mahendra Watch Company, 2026 INSC 348: Decision on Subletting Without Consent of Landlord
• ‘Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet’
• Section 27, Limitation Act Gives-Rise to a Substantive Right so as to Seek Declaration and Recovery
• Sale Deeds Without Consideration – Void
• Tenancy at Sufferance in Indian Law
• “Due Process of Law” in Civil Suits
• Revenue Settlement Registers of Travancore in 1910, Basic Record of Land matters
• Govt. of AP v. Thummala Krishna Rao, AIR 1982 SC 1081, 1982 (2) SCC 134, Misread by High Courts
• Can the Forest Tribunal Make a Finding on Title?

Recovery of Possession: 

• Suit on Possessory Remedy, Other side Admits Possession; Should the Will be Proved?
• Recovery of Possession Based on Title and on Earlier Possession
• Recovery of Possession (Based on Title) and Eviction (of Tenants)
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs
• Title and Ownership and Possessory Title in Indian Law
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• POSSESSION is a Substantive Right in Indian Law
• 22nd Law Commission  Report on ‘Law on Adverse Possession’
• Adverse Possession Against Government
• Government of Kerala v. Joseph – Law on Adverse Possession Against Government
• Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery Suits
• How to Plead Adverse Possession? Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
• Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
• Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
• When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
• Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
• ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
• 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
• 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

• 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
• 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

• Ten Square Miles Concession and Kanan Devan Hills Concession – State Grants of Travancore Governments
• Plantation-Tenants Not Approached The Land Tribunal are Ineligible for Plantation-Exemption-Orders from the Land Board
• Acquisition of (Exempted) Plantation Property: Should the Govt. Pay Full Land Value to Land Owners?
• Relevant provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act in a Nutshell
• Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in Kerala
• Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery Suits
• ‘Janmam’ Right is FREEHOLD Interest and ‘Estate’ in Constitution – By Royal Proclamation of 1899, The Travancore Sircar became Janmi of Poonjar Raja’s Land
• Government is the OWNER of (Leasehold) Plantation Lands in Kerala.
• Title of the Government Property in India: Government is the Ultimate Owner of Every Property; Hence, Government Need Not Prove Title.
• Glen Leven Estate v. State of Kerala: Not Correctly Decided?
• Law on Acquisition of Private Plantation Land in Kerala
• Plantation Exemption in Kerala Land Reforms Act–in a Nutshell
• Kerala Land Reforms Act – Provisions on Plantation-Tenancy and Land-Tenancy
• Grant in Law
• Balanoor Plantations & Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala – Based on the Principle: LT to fix Tenancy’; TLB to Fix Plantation Exemption.  
• 1910 Settlement Register of Travancore – Basic Record of Land Matters
• Do the Plantation-Tenants have the Right to Seek ‘Assignment’ of the Entire Plantation-Tenancy-Land (under Purchase Certificates)?

Power of attorney

• M.S. Ananthamurthy v. J. Manjula: Mere Word ‘Irrevocable’ Does Not Make a POWER OF ATTORNEY Irrevocable
• Can a Power of Attorney file a Civil Suit? Is there any bar by virtue of Manisha Mahendra Gala v. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani, 2024-6 SCC 130?
• No Adjudication If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
• Notary-Attested Documents and Presumptions
• Permission when a Power of Attorney Holder Files Suit
• If Power of Attorney himself Executes the Document, S. 33 Registration Act will NOT be attracted
• Should a Power of Attorney for Sale must have been Registered –
• Is Registered Power of Attorney Necessary for Registration of a Deed? No.

Evidence Act – General

• Newspaper Reports are ‘Hearsay Secondary Evidence’
• Major Changes in the Evidence Act by Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• Sec. 27 Recovery/Discovery in Evidence Act and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• Evidence in Court – General Principles
• Expert Evidence and Appreciation of Evidence
• Handwriting Expert Evidence: Relevant, But Merely an Opinion
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
• 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

• 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
• Sec. 65B (Electronic Records) and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Arjun Paditrao Criticised.
• Sec. 65B Evidence Act Simplified
• ‘STATEMENTS’ alone can be proved by ‘CERTIFICATE’ u/s. 65B
• Sec. 65B,  Evidence Act: Certificate forms
• “Nothing In This Adhiniyam Shall Apply To Deny The Admissibility” – New Provision (Sec. 61, BSA) to ensure that Sec. 65B (Sec. 63, BSA) is an enabling provision
• Certificate is Required Only for ‘Computer Output’; Not for ‘Electronic Records’: Arjun Panditrao Explored.
• How to Prove ‘Whatsap Messages’, ‘Facebook’ and ‘Website’ in Courts?

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

• ‘Admission’ in Indian Law
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
• Handwriting Expert Evidence: Relevant, But Merely an Opinion
• Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• Judicial Admissions in Pleadings: Admissible Proprio Vigore Against the Maker
• Document Exhibited in the Writ Petition as ‘True Copy’ – Can it be Used in a Civil Suit as ‘Admission’?
• Modes of Proof of Documents
• Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Should Objection to Marking Documents be Raised When it is Admitted; Is it Enough to Challenge them in Cross-Examination?
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
• Burden on Plaintiff to Prove Title; Weakness of Defence Will Not Entitle a Decree
• Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Proof of Documents – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Can Documents be Marked In Cross Examination, If Witness Admits Them?
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting 
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
• Relevancy of Civil Case Judgments in Criminal Cases
• Prem Raj v.  Poonamma Menon (SC), April 2, 2024 – An Odd Decision on ‘Civil Court Judgment does not Bind Criminal Court’

Law on Documents

• Public Documents: Proof and Presumption
• Public Documents Admissible Without Formal Proof
• Admitted Documents – Can the Court Refrain from Marking, for no Formal Proof?
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• Is Registration of a Deed, Notice to Government?
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
• Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
• Effect of Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
• Time Limit for Registration of Documents
• Registration of Documents Executed out of India
• How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
• Are RTI Documents Admissible in Evidence as ‘Public Documents’?
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
• Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Notary-Attested Documents and Presumptions
• 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?
• 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?
• Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottay
• Visual and Audio Evidence (Including Photographs, Cassettes, Tape-recordings, Films, CCTV Footage, CDs, e-mails, Chips, Hard-discs, Pen-drives)
• Photograph Evidence, Its Admissibility and Photo-Identification in Court Cases
• Pictorial Testimony Theory and Silent Witnesses Theory
• No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
• Impounding of Documents – When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is Exhibited
• Sec. 35 Evidence Act: Presumption of Truth and Probative Value
• How to Prove Resolutions of a Company; Are Minutes Necessary?

Documents – Proof and Presumption

• Contents of a Document are to be Proved in Court by Producing Original or Secondary Evidence
• Handwriting Expert Evidence: Relevant, But Merely an Opinion
• Public Documents: Proof and Presumption
• 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

• What is the Period of Limitation for a Suit on a Promissory Note?
• Can Filing a Suit Amount to Notice of Termination of Contract
• Godrej Projects Development Limited v. Anil Karlekar, 2025 INSC 143 – Supreme Court Missed to State Something
• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’ in Indian Civil Laws
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian Law
• All Illegal Agreements are Void; but All Void Agreements are Not Illegal
• If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set Aside
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
• Cheating and Breach of Contract: Distinction – Fraudulent Intention at the time of Promise.

Law on Damages

• Law on Damages
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• Law on Damages in Defamation Cases
• Pleadings in Defamation Suits
• Godrej Projects Development Limited v. Anil Karlekar, 2025 INSC 143 – Supreme Court Missed to State Something

Easement

• Easement Simplified
• What is Easement? Does Right of Easement Allow to ‘Enjoy’ Servient Land After Making Improvements Therein ?
• “Implied Grant” in Law of Easements
• Implied Grant: A Valid Mode of Creation of Easement under Indian Law
• “Title Thereto” in the Definition of ‘Prescriptive Easement’ in Sec. 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882
• Prescriptive Rights – Inchoate until the Title thereof is Upheld by a Competent Court
• Will Easement of Necessity Ripen into a Prescriptive Easement?
• What is “period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit” in Easement by Prescription?
• Is the Basis of Every Easement, Theoretically, a Grant
• Extent of Easement (Width of Way) in Easement of Necessity, Quasi Easement and Implied Grant
• Easement of Necessity and Prescriptive Easement are Mutually Destructive; But, Easement of Necessity and Implied Grant Can be Claimed Alternatively
• Can Easement of Necessity and of Grant be Claimed in a Suit (Alternatively)?
• Can an Easement-Way be Altered by the Owner of the Land?
• Village Pathways and Right to Bury are not Easements.
• Custom & Customary Easements in Indian Law
• ‘Additional Burden Loses Lateral Support’ – Incorrect Proposition
• Grant in Law
• Travancore Grant Deeds, in Law
• Right of Private Way Beyond (Other Than) Easement
• Easement – Should Date of Beginning of 20 Years be pleaded?
• What is Easement, in law? Right of Easement Simplified
• One Year Interruption or Obstruction will not affect Prescriptive Easement
• Should the Plaintiff Schedule Servient Heritage in a Suit Claiming Perspective Easement?
• Necessary Parties in Suits on Easement
• Easement by Prescription – Grant or ‘Acquiring’ by “Hostile Act”
• Sec. 7 Easements Act – Natural Advantages Arising from the Situation of Land & Natural Flow of Water
• Licence and Irrevocable Licence: Section 60 Easements Act Applies only to ‘Bare Licences’ and Not to ‘Contractual Licences’

Stamp Act & Registration

• Sub-Registrar has no Authority to Ascertain whether the Vendor has Title
• Title Enquiry by the Sub Registrar is Illegal
• Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Settlement Deeds & Powers of Sub-Registrar in Cancelling Deeds
• Time-Limit For Adjudication of Unstamped Documents, before Collector
• Time Limit for Registration of Documents
• Presumptions on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
• Registration of Documents Executed out of India
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• Is Registration of a Deed, Notice to Government?
• LAW ON INSUFFICIENTLY STAMPED DOCUMENTS 
• Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
• Impounding of Documents, When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is Exhibited
• No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
• What is Torrens System

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
  • Expulsion of Members & Removal of Office-Bearers
  • Law on Meetings: An Overview
  • 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

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

Abstract

A Trust cannot be registered as a Society; why? Both are different legal conceptions. A trust is an obligation, in law. A society is a collection of members. The fundamental principles upon which a trust is founded cannot be varied. A Society cannot be converted into a Trust; why? Because, the fundamental rules of a society or a club cannot be altered even by a unanimous vote of the members. There is no provision in the SR Act to change the character of the society to a trust. The only provision is for the amalgamation of societies.

A Trust and a Society Carry Distinct Legal Characters

• A society is a compendium of persons. Concept of association of persons is not attached to a trust.  
• A trust is a legal concept alone. A society is a reality as it is a collection of its members.
• Administration of a property is the sole aim of a trust. Existence of property is not a necessary component of society.
• Trustees are determined or appointed as intended by the founder of the trust. The society itself determines its office bearers.
• A trust is always for the administration of properties.  A property need not be for a society.
• A trust is administered by the trustees appointed by the person who founded the trust. A society functions according to the byelaws adopted (written or otherwise) by the founding members.
• A trust is made for the benefit of one or more persons viewed by the founder. The aim and object of a society is determined by the  byelaws adopted by the founding members.
• Trust property automatically vest in the trustees. No such vesting in society.
• Different enacted laws govern the trust and society.
• Different procedure governs the administration and winding up of a trust and a society.

Difference  Between a Trust and a Society

• An association of persons, or a society, is formed with specific aims and objectives, by the joint effort of its founding members. It is governed under its byelaws. A trust is an obligation created by the author or founder of the trust, upon the trustee in whom burden is cast upon to administer the property for the benefit of the beneficiaries.  
• A society functions under its bye laws formulated by the founding members. The administration of a trust is carried on under the directions of the author (in the deed of foundation, or otherwise).
• The byelaws of a society can be amended as provided under the bye laws and/or under the provisions of the Act under which it is registered. The edicts of the founderin the founding deed of a trust cannot be varied.
• A society can be wound up following the procedures specified in the law. In trust, the principle is ‘once a trust always a trust’.
• The property of a society vests with its members subject to its basic principles or trustupon which it is founded and to the Act, if any, under which it is registered. A trustee is the legal-owner of the trust property and the property vets in him as such.
• A society functions under its bye laws which partake the character of a contract. The State and the Court protect the trust as ‘parens  patreae’.
• The administrators of a society can resign their office.  But the trustees cannot renounce.
• In terms of Section 5 of the Societies Registration Act, the property of a society could vest in the trustees; and only in the absence of vesting of such property in the trustees the same would be deemed to have been vested for the time being in the governing body of such society.  (Church of North India Vs. Lavajibhai  Ratanjibhai: AIR 2005 SC 2544: 2005 (10) SCC 760; Vinodkumar M. Malavia Vs. Maganlal  Mangaldas  Gameti: 2013 AIR (SCW) 5782: (2013) 15  SCC 394.)

What is Trust?

‘Trust’ is defined in Sec. 3 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 as under:

• “A ‘trust’ is an obligation annexed to the ownership of property, and arising out of a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owner, or declared and accepted by him, for the benefit of another, or of another and the owner,”

Therefore, in law:

• Trust is ‘an obligation’.
• It arises when a property is endowed by its owner for the benefit of another.
• Trust is created when a trustee is appointed.
• The trustee administers the property as required by the author.
• It has to be done by the trustee as if he is the owner of the property.

This obligation upon the trustee to administer the endowed property, as if he is its owner and as directed by the author, for the benefit of another, is ‘trust’ in law.

Essential elements for formation of a trust are the following:

• (a) Intention to create a trust on the property, for the specified purpose, by the author,
• (b) Reposing-in/declaring confidence in trustee by the author,
• (c) Acceptance of the confidence (reposed in or declared by the author) by the trustee,
• (d) Transfer of trust-property to the trustee,
• (e) Obligation upon the trustee to administer the trust property, (i) as its ‘legal owner’, (ii) for the benefit of the beneficiaries.

Trust being an ‘obligation’* annexed to or enjoined upon the dedicated property, ‘trust’ cannot be an association of persons or a juristic person.  In law, ‘trust’ is neither a tangible-endowment nor a corporal-institution.** Grammatically, it is an ‘abstract countable noun’, similar to ‘a business’, ‘an idea’ or ‘a duty’.

*Note: Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Sec. 2(a)] defines: “‘obligation’ includes every duty enforce by law’. **Duli Chand Vs. Mahabir  Pershad  Trilok Chand Charitable Trust: AIR 1984 Del 144; Ramdass Trust Vs. Damodardas 1967 Raj LW 273; It is referred to in Sagar Sharma Vs. Additional Commissioner of Incometax: 2011-239 CTR 169: 2011-336  ITR 611. See al so: Thiagesar Dharma Vanikam Vs.  CIT: AIR 1964 Mad 483: [1963] 50 ITR 798  (Mad);  Kishorelal  Asera Vs. Haji Essa Abba Sait Endowments: 2003-3 Mad LW 372: 2003-3 CCC 367. [It is quoted in Thanthi Trust Vs. Wealth Tax Officer: (1989) 78 CTR 54: (1989) 45 TAXMAN 121: (1989) 178  ITR 28; Sambandam Died Vs. Nataraja Chettiar: 2012-1 Mad LW 530].

‘Trust’ is Personified, Even In Legal Parlance

Sec. 6 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, reads as under:

• “Creation of trust: Subject to the provisions of section 5, a trust is created when the author of the trust indicates with reasonable certainty by any words or acts (a) an intention on his part to create thereby a trust, (b) the purpose of the trust, (c) the beneficiary, and (d) the trust-property, and (unless the trust is declared by will or the author of the trust is himself to be the trustee) transfers the trust-property to the trustee.”

Because, ‘a’ trust is ‘an’ obligation annexed to the trust property and has no existence without its trust property, generally, the endowment/institution, upon which the obligation of ‘trust’ is pervaded, is personified as ‘trust’, even in legal parlance. In any case, it has no corporate personality; and it is not a legal person.[Thiagesar Dharma Vanikam Vs.  CIT: AIR 1964 Mad 483].

• In Illustration (b) of Sec. 15 of the Trusts Act, the expression ‘trust’ is used an entity. The Illustration (b) of Sec. 15 reads: “(b) A, trustee of lease-hold property, directs the tenant to pay the rents on account of the trust to a banker, B, ….”

The term ‘trust’ is also used as a compendious expression taking in the trustees, the beneficiaries and the subject matter of the trust.[Thiagesar Dharma Vanikam Vs.  CIT: AIR 1964 Mad 483. It is quoted in Thanthi Trust Vs. Wealth Tax Officer: (1989)78 CTR 54: (1989) 178  ITR 28. See also: Kishorelal  Asera Vs. Haji Essa Abba Sait Endowments: 2003-3 Mad LW 372: 2003-3 CCC 367.]

Similarly, when ‘a trust’ is created under the auspices of an association, the terms ‘trust’ and ‘association’ are generally used as synonyms, in view of the underlying significant nexus between the members of the association and the ‘trust’. An association can be formed for the administration of a ‘trust’;[Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union Vs. Tata Memorial Centre: AIR 2010 SC 2943] and an artificial (or legal) person can be a trustee.[Yogendra  Nath  NaskarVs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta: AIR 1969 SC 1089]

No beneficial-Interest or Enjoyment over Property of Society – Interest Created is that of Bare Trustees

The vesting of legal ownership of the property of a society in the governing body is merely a ‘method or mechanism permitted by the law’. [Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic  &  Unani Tibia College Vs.  The State: AIR 1962 SC 458] During the subsistence of a registered society, or on dissolution, the members do not have any proprietary-interest or right of beneficial-enjoyment _{[That is, ‘proprietary interest’ or interest pertaining to owner]} in the property of the society. [Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic  &  Unani Tibia College Vs.  The State: AIR 1962 SC 458; Dharam Dutt Vs. Union of India: AIR 2004 SC 1295.]

In Pamulapati  Buchi Naidu College Committee, Nidubrolu  Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh,[AIR 1958 A  P 773: See also: Raj Kumar Gaba Vs. State of UP: 2012-49 VST 252; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Merchant Navy Club: 1974-96 ITR 261; Gurdwara  Prabandhak Committee Vs. Jagmonan Singh: ILR  1971-2 Del 515.] it was observed – what was vested in the College Committee or its governing body was a ‘right of management’ simpliciter, and there was no question of the members of the society or the members of the governing body being ‘beneficially interested’ in its property. Then, it was held as under:

• “The Societies Registration Act, therefore, does not create in the members of the registered society any interest other than that of bare trustees.”

Underhill, in his treatise, ‘Law of Trusts and Trustees’, explained:

• “However, the crucial difference surely is that no absolutely entitled members exist if the gift is on trust for future and existing members, always being for the members of the Association for the time being. The members for the time being cannot under the Association rules appropriate trust property for themselves for there would then be no property held on trust as intended by the testator for those persons who some years later happened to be the members of the Association for the time being.” [Quoted in Most Rev. PMA Metropolitan Vs.  Moran Mar Marthoma: AIR 1995 SC 2001- Para 69.]

“A trust is primarily a legal concept”

‘Trust’ is essentially a legal concept attached to the endowed property. It arises by the appointment of a trustee.  For creation of a trust, the trust-property must have been transferred to the trustee. (Maulavi Kamiruddin Khan Vs. BadrunNisa Bibi: AIR 1940 Pat 90; Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Vs. Banarsi Dass: AIR  1972 Del  128; Pankumari Kochar SmtVs. Controller of Estate Duty: 1969-73 ITR 373.)  The Delhi High Court held in Birdhi Chand Jain Charitable Trust Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Sham Lal, ILR 1973-1 Del  144, as under:

• “A trust is primarily a legal concept, a mode of transfer of property and of holding property. On the other hand, an institution is primarily a social concept. It is not a legal concept at all. For, there is established legal method by which an institution may come into being. It may be established by way of an organisation which may assume any or no legal form. It may be a trust or a company or a statutory corporation or a mere unincorporated association or a society registered or otherwise. It is its work and place in the society that is the hall-mark of an institution. As observed by Lord Macnaghten in Mayor, etc. of Manchester V. Mcadam,3 Tax Cases 491 at 497, ‘it is the body (so to speak) called into existence to translate the purpose as conceived in the mind of the founders into a living and active principle.’ In the present case, the founders of the trust may have transferred their property to a charitable purpose and thus created a public trust. But the body to translate the trust into a living and active principle has not yet come into existence. It is that body which will be entitled to be called an institution. It is not a mere legal arrangement like a trust but an active working body with a social impact which can be called an institution.”

Incidents of ‘Trust’ in Property of Clubs and Societies

Four views are possible.

(i) Positive view: The Common Law on Trust in India gives progressive and ‘wider’ or ‘general’ connotation to ‘trust’. Thereby, pointing-out that the governing body of a society or a club acquires and holds property for and on behalf of the members of the society or club, it is said that incidents of trust are impressed upon the property of the Society or Club. 

Salmond on Jurisprudence [12^th Edition, Page 326] reads:

• ‘The Club property is the joint property of the members, though in fact, it is often held by trustees on behalf of the members.’

Halsbury’s Law of England reads:[IV Edition, Vol. 6, Para 205]

• “Unincorporated Members’ Clubs. – An unincorporated members’ club is a society of persons each of whom contributes to the funds out of which the expenses of conducting the society are paid. ……. Subject to any rule to the contrary, the property and funds of the club belong to the members of the time being jointly in equal shares. “

The property of a registered Society cannot absolutely vest in its members. By registration of a society, its property ‘shall continue to exist in perpetuity’ [Church of North India Vs. Lavajibhai  Ratanjibhai: AIR 2005 SC 2544: 2005 (10) SCC 760. Followed in Vinodkumar M. Malavia Vs. Maganlal  Mangaldas  Gameti: 2013 AIR (SCW) 5782: (2013) 15  SCC 394] or something in the nature of perpetual succession is conceded. The property shall pass to succeeding trustees or governing body without assignment or transfer. [Board of Trustees, Ayur.  &  Unani Tibia College Vs.  The State of Delhi: AIR 1962 SC 458; Pamula  Pati  Buchi Naidu College Committee, Nidubrolu  Vs. Govt. of A P: AIR 1958 A  P 773]

If Valid Dedication, No Change of Character, On Regn. as Socieety

• “Any addition to those properties must also have the same character.”

Sec. 5 of the Societies Registration Act reads:

• “Property of Society how vested: The property movable and immovable, belonging to a society registered under this Act, if not vested in trustees shall be deemed to be vested, for the time being, in the governing body…”

Section 5 of the Societies Registration Act speaks as to vesting of property ‘belonging to a society’ [Board of Trustees, Ayur  &  Unani Tibia College Vs.  The State of Delhi: AIR 1962 SC 458] in the trustees; and only in the absence of vesting of such property in the trustees the same would be deemed to have been vested for the time being in the governing body of such society. [Church of North India Vs. Lavajibhai  Ratanjibhai: AIR 2005 SC 2544: 2005 (10) SCC 760; Vinodkumar M. Malavia Vs. Maganlal  Mangaldas  Gameti: 2013 AIR (SCW) 5782: AIR 2013 SC (CIV) 2849; (2013) 15  SCC 394.] Therefore, it can be legitimately concluded from Section 5 that general characteristics of ‘trust’ are impressed upon the property of a society and that the members of a registered Society are trustees for* the future members who have to continue the aim and objects of the Society as envisaged by the founders or as manifested in the Rules or Bylaws.

• *[Pamula  Pati  Buchi Naidu College Committee, Nidubrolu Vs. Govt. of A  P: AIR 1958 A  P 773. See also: Raj Kumar Gaba Vs. State of UP: 2012-49 VST 252; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Merchant Navy Club: 1974-96 ITR 261; Gurdwara  Prabandhak Committee Vs. Jagmonan Singh: ILR  1971-2 Del 515.]

If there was a charitable trust created by the public, the fact of its subsequent transformation, or its registration, as a society could not change the already invested trust-character [Sukumaran Vs. Akamala  Sree Dharma Sastha Idol: AIR 1992 Ker 406] and any addition to those properties must also have the same character. [Keshava  Panicker Vs. Damodara  Panicker: AIR 1976 Ker 86]  In such a case, suit can be filed, as if it is a trust itself, under Sec.  92 of the CPC. [Amrithakumari  Vs. VP Ramanathan 1999 (1) CCC 238 (Ker).  Followed in ‘Abhaya’ a Society Vs. Raheem: AIR 2005 Ker 233]

Property of a Society being maintained for the benefit of its future members also, and therefore encumbered with obligations attached to ‘trust’, it cannot be dealt with by the members or its administrators disregarding the objectives of foundation of the societies. When the property is in the hands of an agent for the principal, the agent stands in the fiduciary capacity as a trustee. He has a duty and responsibility to properly account for the profits or benefits he derived while acting as the agent. [Balram Chunnilal Vs. Durgalal  Shivnarain : AIR1968 MP 81. RV Sankara  Kurup Vs. Leelavathy  Nambiar (AIR 1994 SC 2694]

(ii) Negative view: (a) A society or club is formed by a group of people joined together on the basis of bye laws. It has the characteristics of a contract. Therefore, principles of fiduciary obligations as arises in trust do not apply to the acts and deeds of the administrators or members of a society or a club; but they are guided only by contractual obligations, either express or implied.

(b) A trust is formed only when a property is dedicated by its owner for a specified religious or charitable purpose. For a valid dedication there should be proof for divesting of the title of the founder/author* or of the person who dedicated the property. Since the property of a society or club belongs to the members of the club or society (or it vests in the society or club) there will be no ‘trust’ at all.

• *M R Goda Rao Sahib Vs. State of Madras: A. I. R. 1966 S. C. 653; Ram Charan Das Vs. Mst. Girjanandani Devi AIR 1959 All. 473. Shri Ram Kishan Mission Vs. Dogar Singh AIR 1984  All 72;    See also: S. Shanmugam Pillai Vs. K. Shanmugam Pillai AIR 1972 SC 2069; Controller of Estate Duty WB Vs. Usha Kumar: AIR 1980 SC 312.

(c) Even if characteristics of a trust are adumbrated upon the property of a society, as stated above, it must be noticed that once the bylaws, the Societies Registration Act or the Common Law as to societies/clubs provide a particular procedure for a particular affair (such as management or dissolution), the same has to be carried on as per that procedure. [It is trite law that if a thing is prescribed to be done in a particular way, it can be done in that way alone, and by no other way.

• See: Nazir Ahmed case: AIR 1936 PC 253; Indian National Congress (I) Vs. Institute of Social Welfare AIR 2002 SC 1258; Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. The Registrar of Societies ILR 2012-22-Dlh-1031; Patna Improvement Trust Vs. Smt. Lakshmi Devi:   1963  SCR Supp. 812;   State of Bihar   Vs. J.A.C. Saldanha   (1980) 1 SCC 554: AIR 1980 SC 326; Vinodkumar M. Malavia Vs. Maganlal  Mangaldas  Gameti:  2013 AIR (SCW) 5782; (2013) 15 SCC 394.

It will not be guided by general principles applicable to a trust. Thus, the intent of the Societies Registration Act is not to invest properties of the society with the character of trust property. [Keshava  Panicker Vs. Damodara  Panicker: AIR 1976 Ker 86. Followed G. Chikka  Venkatappa  Vs. D. Hanumandappa (1970(1) My. LJ]

If the property destined for religious or charitable purposes is acquired with money collected by way of contribution by the members of a society, and the society itself manages the same without dedication in favour of the public, there will be no divesting of ownership of property in favour of the trust or institution. [See: Comner. of HRE Board Vs. Vinayakar AT Sabha: AIR 1953 Mad 407.]  In such a case, it may be possible to affirm – no trust is predicated. [G. Chikka  Venkatappa  Vs. D. Hanumandappa: 1970(1) My. LJ 196; Keshava  Panicker Vs. Damodara  Panicker: AIR 1976 Ker 86] The effect of the Societies Registration Act was not to invest the property ‘belonging to a society’* with the character of Trust property. [G. Chikka  Venkatappa  Vs. D. Hanumandappa: 1970(1) My. LJ 196] Even if the purpose for which the society was formed was charitable purpose the property acquired for this purpose will ‘belong’ to the society and there is no trust and no trust can be predicated. [Keshava  Panicker Vs. Damodara  Panicker: AIR 1976 Ker 86. Followed G. Chikka  Venkatappa  Vs. D. Hanumandappa: 1970(1) My. LJ 196]

• *Sec. 5 reads: “Property of Society how vested: The property movable and immovable, belonging to a society registered under this Act, if not vested in trustees shall be deemed to be vested, for the time being, in the governing body…”

(iii) Contract with express or implied fiduciary liabilities as are applicable to trusts: The members of a club or society, both registered and unregistered, are bound by the memorandum of association and its rules and regulations. The bye laws bind its members as a contract.

• [Board of Trustees, Ayur.  &  Unani Tibia College Vs.  The State of Delhi: AIR 1962 SC 458;  Siddheshwar Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Vs. Commr. of IT, Kolhapur: AIR 2004 SC 4716; Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society Vs. Registrar of Societies: AIR 2000 SC 301; Co- op. Central Bank Vs. Addl. Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh: AIR 1969  SC 245;  Naresh Chandra Sanyal Vs. Calcutta Stock Exchange Assn Ltd. : AIR 1971  SC 422;   Damyanti Naranga Vs. Union of India: AIR 1971 SC 966; Daman Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1985 SC 973.]

Even the formation of a society itself is based on a contract. [Zoroastrian Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. District Registrar: AIR 2005  SC 2306; State Bank of India Staff Association Vs. Mohindra Bhattacharyya:  AIR 1991 Cal 378] Salmond [12^th Edition, Page 326] reads:

• “The rules of the club or society constitute the basic contract to which all the members are parties.”

Since the administrators of a club or a society manage its property for and on behalf of its members, there are fiduciary liabilities akin to ‘trust’ upon such administrators. When the property is in the hands of an agent for the principal, the agent stands in the fiduciary capacity as a trustee. He has a duty and responsibility to properly account for the profits or benefits he derived while acting as an agent or a trustee to the principal. [Balram Chunnilal Vs. Durgalal  Shivnarain: AIR 1968 MP 81. RV Sankara  Kurup Vs. Leelavathy  Nambiar (AIR 1994 SC 2694]

(iv) It remains as academic alone – to explore, whether trust or contract: In case of a breach of fiduciary duty or mismanagement on the part of the administrators of the society, it gives rise to a cause for civil action under the principles of contract, or under the doctrines such as membership rights, ultra virus the bye laws, rule of majority, oppression of minority, etc.

Our law being dealt with these matters under a developed branch of law (club/society-law), one can justifiably argue that it remains as academic alone, or lingers as superfluous, to explore whether these doctrines are sprouted from express or implied trust. It is more so in view of Sec. 88 and 95 of the Indian Trusts Act.

No Trust upon the “Property Belonging to a Society”: Exceptions

A trust cannot be created upon the “property belonging to a society”. But this proposition is subject to certain qualifications.

That is, certain properties held by a Society may be that vest with the Society only for administration – E.g., (i) where a charitable association is established, after a valid ‘dedication‘ of property – for the enjoyment of the public – by a group of persons, for the administration of the dedicated property (or the trust); (ii) a society formed with the object of dedicating property for a public charitable purpose; (iii) a Society is formed by the beneficiaries for administering a charitable institution (already) established by valid ‘dedication‘ of property.

Fundamental Rules Cannot Not Be Altered

The trustees or the governing body administer the ‘property of the society’ as per its bye laws so as to fulfill or attain the ‘aim and objects’ the founders viewed.

The expressions in the Societies Registration Act, ‘property belonging to a society’ (Sec. 5) and ‘property of the society’ (Sec. 8 and 10), do not give the society a corporate status; it ‘merely describes the property which vests in trustees or Governing Body.’ [Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic  &  Unani Tibia College, Delhi Vs.  The State of Delhi: AIR 1962 SC 458: Para 11]

They acquire and hold the property for and on behalf of _{[See: Harbour Division II, Madras Vs. Young Men’s Indian Association: AIR 1970 SC 1212]} the members of the society subject to the obligations imposed by law, the bye laws and the fundamental principles _{[Prasanna Venkitesa Rao Vs. Srinivasa Rao: AIR 1931 Mad. 12: Milligan Vs. Mitchel: 40 ER 852; Free Church of England Vs. Overtoun: (1904) AC 515 referred to. See also: Inderpal Singh Vs. Avtar Singh (2007-4 Raj LW 3547)]} or trust* upon which it is founded. These propositions upheld by our courts also lead to the unerring conclusion that our law brings in principles of trust in the affairs of societies and clubs.

• *See: Church of North India Vs. Lavajibhai  Ratanjibhai: AIR 2005 SC 2544; Vinodkumar M. Malavia Vs. Maganlal Mangaldas: 2013 AIR (SCW) 5782; (2013) 15 SCC 394. See also: Harbour Division II, Madras Vs. Young Men’s Indian Association: AIR 1970 SC 1212.

In Noel Frederick Barwell Vs. John Jackson AIR 1948 All 146 it was held as under:

• “51. It has been argued by Mr. Pathak on the basis of this decision and the decision of the House of Lords in Hole v. Garnsey (1930) 1930 A.C. 472, already referred to, that the rules of every association may be divided into two classes – the rules relating to fundamentals and the ordinary rules. Learned Counsel went on to urge that the fundamental rules could not be altered even by a unanimous vote of the members, though, if the rules provided for amendments, the other rules could be ant ended. It is not necessary for me to go into this question as the point does not arise in this case, but if I may say so without meaning any disrespect, the cases cited above have entirely been misunderstood. All that their Lordships intended to say was that the rules of any club being framed for the purpose of carrying on the objects of the club, ordinarily any power to amend such rules must be limited to the contemplated scope of the original rules and that under the general powers of amendment the alteration should not affect the foundation of the club or should not be incompatible with its fundamental objects.
• 52. Dealing with this question Lord Han – worth, Master of the Bolls, in Doyle v. White City Stadium Ltd (1935) 1 K.B. 110 said:
• ‘When these rules as altered are still for the purpose of carrying out the original purpose of the society or body of persons, the altered rules are made binding on the plaintiff. If there was an attempt fundamentally to alter the purpose for which the rules had been originally drawn up, the prospective agreement to adhere to-fresh rules, or any alteration in the rules, would not apply. It is quite plain from the decision in Thelluson v. Viscount Valentia (1907) 2 Ch. 1 that if and so long as the rules are akin to the purpose for which a society exists, there is no inherent, objection to an alteration of those rules or to further rules being made for the same purpose’.”

Power to Amend the Rules of a Society or Club

The power to amend the rules of a society or club is not a power to destroy its identity. An amendment, even if passed by the requisite majority, cannot alter the fundamental objects, foundation, or basic character of the association. The amendment power is confined to changes that remain within the contemplated scope of the original constitution and are consistent with its essential purposes.

If Principles of Trust in a Club, It is in a Very Limited Sense

In Noel Frederick Barwell Vs. John Jackson (supra) it was held (majority) further as under:

• “58. The next argument of learned Counsel is based on the law of trust. He has urged that the property of the club vests in the committee of management and the ordinary and temporary members are all beneficiaries and that under the law of trust all beneficiaries must join in the extinction of the trust. In a sense, “the office bearers of any public body or institution including a club, are trustees, but I am afraid this cannot be of much assistance to learned counsel. There is no question in this case of the right of the officers of the club to put an end to it and I have already said that if there is a trust it is in a very limited sense. This is a case where the members of the club have passed a resolution by a majority, that the club should be dissolved, and the decision must, therefore, to my mind, rest on the decision of two simple questions, firstly whether the rules of the club have made any provision with regard to its dissolution and, if so, whether the rules have been complied with, and secondly, if there is no such rule, whether the resolution is valid and should be given effect to.”

In this decision the minority judge pointed out, as to trust, as under:

• “Finally it is said that the committee of the club are trustees of the club property and that the trust could only be extinguished with the consent of all the beneficiaries. But if a trust exists, it is created by the rules of the club and the trustees held the trust property subject to those rules; and if the rules permit of a dissolution at the will of the majority of the members then with the winding up of the club there is an extinguishments of the trust.”

Societies Registration Act Brings-forth ‘Fixity’ or Permanency.

A society or a club is a compendium of its members. Its property is the ‘joint property’ held by the members as ‘non-partiable’ or as ‘joint tenants’ (as differentiated to ‘tenants in common’) till a decision is taken for dissolution. If such property is maintained for the benefit of its future members also (and therefore encumbered with obligations as in a ‘trust’), it cannot be dealt with by the members disregarding this objectives of its foundation.

Registration of a society under the Societies Registration Act makes a sea-change with respect to the disposal of the property on dissolution; and a perpetual succession is conceded thereto. even if the property could have been distributed among its members on its dissolution, by virtue of registration, the dealings as to the property on its dissolution, is governed under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act alone. [ Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic  &  Unani Tibia College, Delhi Vs.  The State: AIR 1962 SC 458. Dennis Lloyd, ‘Law relating to Unincorporated Associations’ (1938 Edn) quoted.]

The members of a registered Society are trustees for the future members of the Society. Registration of a Society brings-in permanency. The left-behind-property of a Society, on dissolution, goes to another Society as determined by the members of the Society or by the court (Sec. 14 of the So. Regn. Act ). Either during the subsistence of a Society or at the time of its dissolution, the members of a Society do not have any kind of beneficial-enjoyment over its property. [Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic  &  Unani Tibia College, Delhi Vs.  The State of Delhi:  AIR 1962 SC 458– Para 23]. As shown above, in Pamulapati  Buchi Naidu College Committee, Nidubrolu  Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, [AIR 1958 A  P 773: See: also: Raj Kumar Gaba Vs. State of UP: 2012-49 VST 252; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Merchant Navy Club: 1974-96 ITR 261; Gurdwara  Prabandhak Committee Vs. Jagmonan Singh: ILR  1971-2 Del 515] it was observed that the Societies Registration Act did not create in the members of the registered society any interest other than that of ‘bare trustees‘.

Sec. 14 of the So. Regn. Act reads as under:

• 14. Upon a dissolution no member to receive profit: If upon the dissolution of any society registered under this Act there shall remain, after the satisfaction of all its debts and liabilities, any property whatsoever, the same shall not be paid to or distributed among the members of the said society or any of them, but shall be given to some other society, to be determined by the votes of not less than three-fifths of the members present personally or by proxy at the time of the dissolution, or in default thereof, by such court as aforesaid:

Sec. 14 of the So. Regn. Act is enacted footing on the following general principles of law:

1.  once a trust,  always a trust;[See Narayanan Vs. Nil: AIR 2005 Mad. 17; M Ashok Kumar Vs. N Janarthana: 2013(7) Mad. LJ 273; T C Chacko Vs. Annamma:  AIR 1994 Ker. 107]
2. cypres doctrine; ie. the court will execute or accomplish the intention of the founder of a trust ‘as nearly as possible’ when it becomes impossible to carry out his intentions; and
3. the court is the protector of all charities. [C Chikka  Venkatappa Vs. D Hanumanthappa: 1970 (1) Mys LJ 296; Narayan Krishnaji Vs. Anjuman E Islamia: AIR 1952 Kar 14: Thenappa Chattier Vs. KuruppanChhietier AIR 1968 SC 915]

Fiduciary Position of Governing Body Members

The term ‘fiduciary’ as an adjective means ‘in the nature of a trust, having the characteristics of a trust, analogues to a trust; relating to or founded upon a trust or confidence’. ‘Fiduciary relationship’ invariably involves dominion over property which is wholly lacking in the case of a contract of suretyship or guarantee, that the surety has not received anything nor has he been given dominion with money or property and that he has no liability to account. There is no fiduciary capacity involving liability to account in relation to another. Mere confidence also cannot result in a fiduciary relationship.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘fiduciary relationship’ as under:

• “A relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on matters within the scope of the relationship. Fiduciary relationships, such as trustee-beneficiary, guardian-ward, agent-principal, and attorney-client, require the highest duty of care. Fiduciary relationships usually arise in one of four situations : (1) when one person places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who as a result gains superiority or influence over the first, (2) when one person assumes control and responsibility over another, (3) when one person has a duty to act for or give advice to another on matters falling within the scope of the relationship, or (4) when there is a specific relationship that has traditionally been recognized as involving fiduciary duties, as with a lawyer and a client or a stockbroker and a customer.”

Directors of a company stand in a fiduciary[Biji Pothen Vs. Thankamma John: 2012(3) Ker LT 658] position and they are legally bound to exercise their powers for the company’s benefit. They have to protect the interest of the company and its shareholders. They cannot take part in any resolution under which they gain any benefit. If interested directors take part in such transactions there would be an irregularity and it renders the resolutions voidable at the instance of the company. [See: Narayandas Shreeram Somani Vs. Sangli Bank Ltd. AIR 1966 SC 170; See also: Seth Mohan Lal   Vs. Grain Chambers Ltd.,  Muzaffarnagar: AIR 1968 SC 772; Shackleton on the Law and Practice of meetings, 7th edition (1983), Page 230]

The general principles as to the rights and responsibilities of the directors of a company apply to the governing body members of a society also.

Fiduciary Relationship Will Not be Allowed to be Varied

It is held by our Apex Court in Marcel Martins Vs. M Printer [AIR  2012 SC 1987. Relied on Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Adiya Bandopadhyay: (2011) 8 SCC 497] as under:

•  “It is manifest that while the expression “fiduciary capacity” may not be capable of a precise definition, it implies a relationship that is analogous to the relationship between a trustee and the beneficiaries of the trust. The expression is in fact wider in its import for it extends to all such situations as place the parties in positions that are founded on confidence and trust on the one part and good faith on the other.”

Principles in Sec. 46 and 47 of the Indian Trusts Act (a trustee cannot renounce or delegate duties) are applied to various affairs of fiduciary relationship,[Bonnerji Vs. Sitanath: 49 IA 46:   Referred to in Arjan Singh Vs. Deputy Mal Jain: ILR 1982- 1 Del 11.]by our Courts, as they contain the common law principles of the universal rules of equity, justice and good conscience upheld by the English judges.

S. 46 and 47 of the Indian Trusts Act reads:

• 46. A trustee who has accepted the trust cannot afterwards renounce it except (a).. (b)..(c)..
• 47. A trustee cannot delegate his office or any of his duties either to a co-trustee or to a stranger, unless (a) … (b) … (c) … (d) ….

In State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Bansi  Dhar[49]  it is held by VR Krishna Iyer J. –

• “But while these provisions (of Indian Trusts Act) proprio vigore do not apply, certainly there is a common area of legal principles which covers all trusts, private and public, and merely because they find a place in the Trusts Act, they cannot become ‘untouchable’ where Public Trusts are involved. Case must certainly be exercised not to import by analogy what is not germane to the general law of trusts, but we need have no inhibitions in administering the law by invoking the universal rules of equity and good conscience upheld by the English Judges, though also sanctified by the statute relating to private trusts. The Courts below have drawn inspiration from Section 83 of the Trusts Act and we are not inclined to find fault with them on that score because the provision merely reflects a rule of good conscience and of general application.”

Sec. 46 and 47 of the Indian Trusts Act make it clear: a fiduciary relationship and duties attached thereto should not be unilaterally allowed to be terminated or varied [Bonnerji Vs. Sitanath: 49 IA 46: Referred to in Arjan Singh Vs. Deputy Mal Jain: ILR 1982- 1 Del 11]  as it would be against the interests of society in general. These principles would apply with equal force to servants and, in fact, to anybody who has entered on another’s property in a fiduciary capacity. [Balram Chunnilal Vs. Durgalal  Shivnarain: AIR1968 MP 81]

‘If Not Vested in Trustees’: Property Management & Vesting may be Separate

Though the administrative affairs of the societies are carried on by its governing body, the properties of the same may be vested with (separate) trustees (like ecclesiastical authorities, in case of certain religious societies). It is obvious that this system of vesting-of-property in trustees and administration-of-affairs by governing body, is primarily viewed in the So. Regn. Act of 1860 when it refers – ‘if not vested in trustees, shall be deemed to be vested, for the time being, in the governing body’. It is obvious that our law accepts the ‘wider’ or ‘general’ expression as to ‘trust’ (used by the progressive jurists like Salmond and Halsbury) is adopted in the So. Regn. Act. The progressive jurists preferred investing principles of trust in the matters of various fiduciary relationships under which one holds property on behalf of, or for the benefit of, others.

Halsbury’s Laws of England defines ‘trust’ as a confidence reposed in a person with respect to property of which he has possession or over which he can exercise a power, to the intent, that he may hold the property or exercise the power for the benefit of some other person or object. Salmond brings-in principles of trust in the affairs of associations.  Salmond  reads [12^th  Edition, page 257]:

• “Thirdly, it is expedient that property in which large numbers of persons are interested in common should be vested in trustees.”

It is held by the Supreme Court in RV Sankara  Kurup Vs. Leelavathy  Nambiar[AIR 1994 SC 2694] that the property in the hands of the agent was for the principal and the agent stood in the fiduciary capacity for the beneficial interest he had in the property as a trustee. The petitioner had acted as an agent as a cestui que trust was a trustee and he held the property in trust for the respondent in his fiduciary capacity as an agent or trustee and he had a duty and responsibility to make over the unauthorised profits or benefits he derived while acting as an agent or a trustee and properly account for the same to the principal. Therefore, the High Court was right in its holding that the petitioner was an agent and trustee acted in the fiduciary capacity on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff as General power-of-attorney.

If a trust is created for the benefit of a religious society, such trust shall continue to exist and it would not cease to exist by the resolution of the society. Such ‘creation of trust’ is considered by our Apex Court in Vinodkumar M. MalaviaVs. Maganlal  Mangaldas  Gameti [2013 AIR (SCW) 5782: AIR 2013 SC (CIV) 2849; (2013) 15 SCC 394] and held:

• ^“The High Court has rightly observed that: ‘… the trust which has been created as public trust for a specific object and the charitable or the religious nature or for the bonafide of the Society or any such institution managed by such trusts for charitable and religious purpose shall continue to exist in perpetuity and it would not cease to exist by any such process of thinking or deliberation or the Resolution, which does not have any force of law’.”

In Church of North India Vs. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai [AIR 2005 SC 2544: 2005 (10) SCC 760.] it is held that in terms of Section 5 of the Societies Registration Act, the property would vest in the trustees, and that only in the absence of vesting of such properties in the trustees, the same would be deemed to have been vested for the time being in the governing body of such society. [Quoted in Vinodkumar M. Malavia Vs. Maganlal  Mangaldas  Gameti: 2013 AIR (SCW) 5782: AIR 2013  SC (CIV) 2849; (2013) 15  SCC 394]

In Pamulapati  Buchi Naidu College Committee, Nidubrolu Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh,* holding what was vested in the College Committee or its governing body was a right of management simpliciter and there was no question of the members of the society or the members of the governing body being beneficially interested in its property, it was observed that the Societies Registration Act, therefore, did not create in the members of the registered society any interest other than that of bare trustees.

• *AIR 1958 AP 773: See also: Raj Kumar Gaba Vs. State of UP: 2012-49 VST 252; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Merchant Navy Club: 1974-96 ITR 261; Gurdwara  Prabandhak Committee Vs. Jagmonan Singh: ILR  1971-2 Del 515; Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Vs. H Narasimhaiah: AIR 1991 Kar 392.

‘If not Vested in Trustees’: Principles of Trust , not Alien to Affairs of Societies

Sec. 5 SR Act reads:

•  “Property of Society how vested: The property movable and immovable, belonging to a society registered under this Act, if not vested in trustees shall be deemed to be vested, for the time being, in the governing body…”

The principles of trust are not alien to the affairs of societies. Following propositions can be legitimately put forward from Sec. 5, SR Act. That is,

• (a) The system of vesting-of-property in trustees is primarily viewed in the So. Regn. Act of 1860.
• (b) a society can be formed by the beneficiaries of a trust, or by its administrators;
• (c) one can ‘transfer’[Section 6 of the Indian Trust Act requires ‘transfer’ for formation of a trust] property to a society creating a trust; [See Note hereunder: “Can a Society or Corporation be a Trustee?”]
• (d) a trust can be created on the property of a society for the benefit of its (present and future) members and/or outsiders; and
• (e) a society can be formed simultaneously with creation of a trust over the property dedicated to, or set apart for the benefit of, the members of the society; or for the benefit of such members and outsiders.It is observed in Church of North India Vs. Lavajibhai  Ratanjibhai [AIR 2005 SC 2544: 2005 (10) SCC 760] that the society and (public) trust can be ‘one entity’.

If a society is formed by the beneficiaries of a public trust the trust nature of the property continues; and the trust property remains vested in (separate) trustees (if the trustees are not the governing body of the society as per the bye laws of the society).

In terms of Section 5 of the Societies Registration Act, property of a society would vest in the trustees; and only in the absence [See:  Church of North India Vs. Lavajibhai  Ratanjibhai: AIR 2005 SC 2544. Followed in Vinodkumar M. Malavia Vs. Maganlal  Mangaldas  Gameti: (2013) 15 SCC 394] of vesting of such property in the trustees the same would be deemed to have been vested for the time being in the governing body of such society. [See note below: Apparent Incongruity in Sec. 5 and 16 Explained]

Governing body is defined in Sec. 16 as under:

• The governing body of the society shall be the governors, council, directors, committee, trustees, or other body to whom by the rules and regulations of the society the management of its affairs is entrusted.   

Such trust can also be a ‘public/religious trust’ like a church that came for consideration of our Apex Court in Church of North India Vs. Lavajibhai  Ratanjibhai [AIR 2005 SC 2544: 2005 (10) SCC 7604] and Vinodkumar M. Malavia  Vs. Maganlal  Mangaldas  Gameti. [2013 AIR (SCW) 5782: AIR 2013 SC (CIV) 2849; (2013) 15 SCC 394] In public trust, the beneficiaries will be the general public or a class thereof.

• See: Deoki Nandan Vs. Murlidhar: AIR 1957 SC 133; Commissioner of Endowments Vs. Vittal Rao:  AIR  2005 SC 454; Bala Shankar Maha  Shanker  Bhattjee Vs. Charity Comr Gujarat State: AIR  1995 SC 167, Jammi Raja Rao Vs. Anjaneya Swami Temple Valu: AIR 1992 SC 1110, Radhakanta Deb Vs. Comr of Hindu Religious Endowments Orissa: AIR  1981 SC 798, Commissioner For Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Mysore Vs. Ratnavarma Hegade: AIR 1977 SC 1848, Dhaneshwarbuwa Guru Purshottambuwa Owner of Shri Vithal  Rukhamai  Sansthan Vs. Charity Commissioner State of Bombay : AIR  1976 SC 871; Mahant  Shri  Srinivas  Ramanuj Das Vs. Surajnarayan Das: AIR  1967 SC 256

The property of such a public/religious trust shall continue to exist in perpetuity, and it shall not cease to exist by the resolutions of the society. [Church of North India Vs. Lavajibhai  Ratanjibhai: AIR 2005 SC 2544: 2005 (10) SCC 760]

The definition of ‘Member’ (in Sec.15)* in the So. Regn. Act, 1860 is not exhaustive as it is ‘for the purposes of this Act’ alone. It is confined to the activities enjoined to the ‘members’ in the So. Registration Act [ie. to make bye laws (S. 9), to take part in the meeting to amend the ‘purposes’ (S. 12), to take decision to ‘amalgamate’ with another society (S.12), dissolution (S. 13), etc.]. Non-fulfillment of requirements specified in the definition (payment of subscription and signature in the roll/list of members) does not bar a person -especially when it is a religious society – to be its ‘member’, if he is eligible to be a member as per the bye laws of the society. It also does not downbeat the propositions on ultimate ‘vesting of property’ in ‘members’ of a society.

• *Sec. 15 reads: “Member defined: For the purposes of this Act a member of a society shall be a person who, having been admitted therein according to the rules and regulations thereof, shall have paid a subscription, or shall have signed the roll or list of members thereof, and shall not have resigned in accordance with such rules and regulations….”

If the property is set apart for the benefit of its present members (or society) alone, there will not be any trust. The effect of the Societies Registration Act is not to invest properties of the society with the character of trust property. [Keshava  Panicker Vs. Damodara  Panicker: AIR 1976 Ker 86; See also: C Chikka  Venkatappa Vs. D Hanumanthappa 1970 (1) Mys LJ 296; ‘Abhaya’ a Society Vs. Raheem: AIR 2005 Ker 233.]

Apparent Incongruity in Sec. 5 and 16 Explained

A conjoint reading of Sec. 5 and 16 may raise an inappropriateness as to the position of trustees; that is, whether trustees stand independent of the governing body (Sec. 5) or whether they stand included in the governing body (Sec. 16).

Because,

• Sec. 5 lays down that ‘the property, belonging to a society, if not vested in trustees shall be deemed to be vested, for the time being, in the governing body’; and
• Sec. 15 lays down that ‘the governing body of the society shall be the governors, council, directors, committee, trustees, or other body to whom by the rules and regulations of the society the management of its affairs is entrusted’.

It can be explained by the following propositions.

1. Both are used ‘independently’.
2. The scheme of the Act provides that the ‘property belonging to a society’ can be vested in an ‘independent’ trust (the trustees of which can be persons other than members of the society). [See Notes Hereunder: Church of North India Vs. Lavajibhai  Ratanjibhai]
3. The scheme of the Act provides that trustees of such trust (even though they are not members of the society) can be the governing body, if the bye laws so provide. (It is noteworthy that the So. Regn. Act does not expressly deal with election of Governing Body.)

No provision in the SR Act to change the character of the Society to a Trust

In Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Vs. H Narasimhaiah,  AIR 1991 Kar 392 (S. Mohan, Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.), it is found as under:

• “Further, according to section 14 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, the property, movable and immovable, belonging to the society, shall, if not vested in the trustees, shall vest with the governing body. Secondly, there is no provision in the Act to change the character of the society to a trust. The only provision is section 21 which provides for amalgamation of societies. As there is no provision to convert a society into a trust, the transaction in effect amounts to a transfer of the property thereby attracting higher stamp duty as a settlement. The term ‘declaration of trust’ as provided in article 54 of the Act is not defined but recourse can be had to the Indian Trusts Act where the term ‘trust’ has been defined as a confidence reposed in a person regarding a property. As such, a declaration of trust involves vesting of property out of confidence reposed in him. Here, in this case, there is already a society owning properties which transfers the property to a trust or transforms itself into a trust.”

Founding Endowment by Subscriptions or Donations

In ancient times religious institutions were founded and managed by rulers, or wealthy persons or families.  But, in modern times the trusts are mostly founded by associations of persons, and are administered by them, as trustees.

Where a person collects subscription from various persons and builds a choultry or a temple he has a right to direct in what manner the institution should be managed and what right the trustees should have in the management of that institution. This is recognised by the Hindu Law.

There is nothing illegal or improper in a person who builds a temple whether out of his own funds or out of the funds collected by subscriptions [Re St. Leonard (1884) 10 A.C. 304] or getting donations from people to create a trust and endow it, directing by the deed of endowment, in what manner and by whom it should be managed. [Settikara Venkatarama Chettiar Vs. Opdamodaram Chettiar: LAWS(PVC) 1925-11-220] If a number of persons provide the original endowment, they may apparently together constitute the founder. [Ananda Chandra Chuckerbutly Vs. Braja Lal Singh (1922) I.L.R. 50 C. 292;  Re St. Leonard (1884) 10 A.C. 304; Settikara Venkatarama Chettiar Vs. Opdamodaram Chettiar: LAWS(PVC) 1925-11-220] Every donor contributing at the time of foundation of a trust may not be a founder of the trust. Whether a contributor would become a joint founder of the trust would depend not merely upon the fact of his contribution but also upon the surrounding circumstances and the subsequent conduct of the parties. [Thenappa Chettiar Vs. N S Kr Karuppan Chettiar: AIR  1968 SC 915]

In Attorney-General Vs. Clapham [(1855) 43 E.R. 638] Lord Cranworth, Lord Chancellor observed as under:

• “Where a fund is raised for a charitable purpose like that of founding a chapel and the contributors are so numerous as to preclude the possibility of their all concurring in any instrument declaring the trusts, but such a declaration is made by the persons in whom the property is vested, at or about the time when the sums have been raised, that declaration may reasonably be taken prima facie as a true exposition of the minds of the contributors. The presumption is, that the trusts declared were those which the contributors intended. It would be open to them, if the trusts were not so framed as to effect the object they had in view, to take steps for getting any errors corrected. If no such steps are taken, it must be assumed that the instrument declaring the trusts fairly embodies the intentions of the contributors.” [Quoted in: Settikara Venkatarama ChettiarVs. OP Damodaram Chettiar: AIR 1926 Mad 1150: (1926) 51 MLJ 457]

Effect of Subsequent Transformation of a Trust as a Society

Section 2(13) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act reads:

• ” ‘Public trust’ means an express or constructive trust for either a public religious or charitable purpose or both and includes a temple, a math, wakf, a dharmada or any other religious or charitable endowment and a society formed either for a religious or charitable purpose or for both and registered under the Societies Registration Act. 1860.”

The registration of the trust under the Societies Act would not alter the nature and character of its property. [Sukumaran Vs. Akamala Sree Dharma Sastha Idol: AIR 1992 Ker 406]In Amrithakumari  Vs. VP Ramanathan, [1999 (1) CCC 238 (Ker.)] it has been held by the Kerala High Court that if there was a charitable trust created by the public, the fact of its subsequent transformation, or its registration, as a Society, could not change the trust-character of its property; and in such a case, suit could be filed under Sec.  92 CPC.

Even after formation of a society by the persons in management of an already existing trust/institution, the trust/ institution continues to hold its ‘trust-identity’. The same is the position even if the beneficiaries of a trust formed a society. In Rajan Devasahayam Vs. Hindustan Bible Institute of India, it was observed that a Trust can be registered under the Societies Registration Act. [1996 (1) L.W. 533. Referred to in Kishorelal  Asera Vs. Haji Essa Abba Sait Endowments : 2003-3 Mad LW 372: 2003-3 CCC367]

Minority Status of an Educational Institution will not Lose on Registration

The majority in the seven-judge Constitution Bench in Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal, 2024 SCC Online SC 3213, ruled that AMU’s minority status will be lost on its registration as a Society.

Governing Body Administers Subject To Trust

The trustees or the governing body administer the ‘property of the society’ as per its bye laws so as to fulfill or attain the ‘aim and objects’ the founders viewed. Expressions in the Societies Registration Act, ‘property belonging to a society’ (Sec. 5) and ‘property of the society’ (Sec. 8 and 10), do not give the society a corporate status; it ‘merely describes the property which vests in trustees or Governing Body.’[Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic  &  Unani Tibia College, Delhi Vs.  The State of Delhi: AIR 1962 SC 458: Para 11] They acquire and hold the property for and on behalf of [See: Harbour Division II, Madras Vs. Young Men’s Indian Association: AIR 1970 SC 1212] the members of the society subject to the obligations imposed by law, the bye laws and the fundamental principles [Prasanna Venkitesa Rao Vs. Srinivasa Rao: AIR 1931 Mad. 12: Milligan Vs. Mitchel: 40 ER 852; Free Church of England Vs. Overtoun: (1904) AC 515 referred to. See also: Inderpal Singh Vs. Avtar Singh (2007-4 Raj LW 3547)] or trust* upon which it is founded. These propositions upheld by our courts also lead to the unerring conclusion that our law brings-in principles of trust in the affairs of the societies and clubs.

• *See: Church of North India Vs. Lavajibhai  Ratanjibhai: AIR 2005 SC 2544; Vinodkumar M. Malavia Vs. Maganlal Mangaldas: 2013 AIR (SCW) 5782; (2013) 15 SCC 394. See also: Harbour Division II, Madras Vs. Young Men’s Indian Association: AIR 1970 SC 1212.

Effect of Unification of a Trust and a Registered Society

Trusts and societies can be dissolved only by adhering to the special procedures for the same. Unification of a registered society with a trust, under the resolutions, will not dissolve the society, automatically. Similarly, unless the properties vested in a trust are divested in accordance with law, a lawful merger cannot be claimed. Registered societies and trusts have to resort to the lawful modes for amalgamation. [Vinodkumar M. Malavia Vs. Maganlal  Mangaldas  Gameti: 2013 AIR (SC)(CIV) 2849; 2013 AIR (SCW)  5782; (2013) 15 SCC 394]

No principle of law permits transfer of trust

Trust is a confidential relationship which involves a special duty of loyalty to the purpose or object of the trust.  Our Apex Court has held that there is no principle of law or precedent which permits transfer of trust in favour of another body of persons. [Abdul Kayua Vs. Alibhai: AIR 1963 SC 309:   Referred to in Arjan Singh Vs. Deputy Mal Jain ILR 1982-1  Del 11] The Karnataka High Court held that the documents as to conversion of the properties of a society into a trust property fall within the meaning of ‘settlement’ under the Stamp Act.[Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Vs. H Narasimhaiah:  AIR 1991 Kar 392] _{(It may be noted that, in this case, the court did not consider whether ‘trust’ was an ‘institution’ and whether such a change amounts to dissolution of the society.)} In Shri Digambar Jain v. Sub Registrar, Stamps, Indore [AIR 1970 MadhPra 23(FB)] it is held in a similar situation that the documents would be ‘Declaration of Trust’ and not a ‘Conveyance’.

Duty of Courts to Protect Trusts

In AA Gopalakrishnan Vs. Cochin Devaswom Board [AIR 2007 SC  3162] while adverting to the need for protecting the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards, our Apex Court observed that it is also the duty of Courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation. [It is referred to in Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. Goundla Venkaiah: AIR 2010 SC 744]

‘Breach of an Obligation’ in Sec. 38 of the Specific Relief Act

Under Sec. 38 of the Specific Relief Act the court is expressly authorised to grant injunctions to prevent breach of an obligation existing in favour of the plaintiff or where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff. Sec. 38 of the Sec. 38 of the Specific Relief Act reads:

• “38. Perpetual injunction when granted.—(1) Subject to the other provisions contained in or referred to by this chapter, a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication.
• (2) When any such obligation arises from contract, the Court shall be guided by the Rules and provisions contained in Chapter II.
• (3) When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff’s right to, or enjoyment of property, the Court may grant a perpetual injunction in the following cases, namely;

•         (a)  where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff;
•         (b) where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely to be caused, by the invasion;
•         (c) where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief;
•         (d) where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.

The word obligation is defined in Sec. 2 of the Specific Relief Act with a wider meaning. It is so wide that it encompass obligations ‘whether expressly or by implication’.  It also reads: ” ‘obligation’ includes every duty enforceable by law to include ‘every duty enforceable by law”. The word ‘trust’ is also used in a wider sense _{[Rotopacking Materials Industry Vs. Ravider Kumar Chopra: 2003(6) BCR 6; Smt. Parul Bala Roy Vs. Srinibash Chowmal: AIR 1952 Cal 364; Referred to in Arun Kumar Mitra Vs. Gorachand Saheb Sekh Abdul: AIR 2005 Cal 178.]} in this Act as under:   ” ‘trust’ has the same meaning as in Section 3 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (2 of 1882), and includes an obligation in the nature of a trust within the meaning of Chapter IX of that Act.” It is also noteworthy that ‘trust’ is not alien to the affairs of a society inasmuch as the administrators of  societies can be ‘trustees’ as seen from Sec. 5 and 16 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

Court is the Ultimate Protector of All Charities

As in the case of English Law, Indian Law also accepts court as the ultimate protector of all charities. _{[Narayan Krishnaji Vs. Anjuman E Islamia:  AIR 1952 Kar 14; Thenappa Chattier Vs. Kuruppan Chhietier AIR 1968 SC 915;  P. Mdhadevayya v. G. Mallikarjuniah: 53 Mys. HCR 167; Referred to in C Chikka  Venkatappa Vs. D Hanumanthappa 1970 (1) Mys LJ 296]} Court is the guardian of the public charitable trust/institution._{[ChHoshiar Singh Mann Vs. Charan Singh 2009-162 DLT 208 : ILR 2009-19 Dlh 265]; See also: I Nel  Son Vs. Kallayam Pastorate  AIR 2007 SC 1337]}

The court has jurisdiction to enforce trusts.[See: CK Rajan Vs. Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee: AIR 1994 Ker 179 – Appeal Judgment: AIR 2004 SC 561:  (2003) 7 SCC 546; C  Chikka  Venkatappa Vs. D Hanumanthappa 1970 (1) Mys LJ 296; Thenappa Chattier Vs. Kuruppan Chhietier AIR 1968 SC 915 ; Ch Hoshiar Singh Mann Vs. Charan Singh ILR 2009 (19) Dlh 265; I Nel  Son Vs. Kallayam Pastorate:  AIR 2007 SC 1337; Sk. Abdul Kayum Vs. Mulla Alibhai: AIR 1963 SC 309; Subramonia  Pillai Chellam Pillai Vs. Subramonia  Pillai Chathan Pillai: AIR 1953 TC 198;  M.G. Narayanaswami Naidu Vs. M. Balasundaram Naidu: AIR 1953 Mad 750.]

Gift on Trust to a Society

If property is gifted to a registered society on condition tht the property should be used for public purposes and cast duties on the society to act as trustee a trust is brought home. [Swami Shivshankargiri Chella Swami Vs. SatyaGyan Nikethan: AIR 2017 SC 1221]

Church of North India Vs. Lavajibhai  Ratanjibhai [AIR 2005 SC 2544: 2005 (10) SCC 760]

Brief facts: The Church, FCDB, was a registered religious society.  This Church and the other 6 Churches resolved to dissolve and consolidate into a single entity, The Church of Northern India (CNI). The ‘CNI Trust Association’ was subsequently formed under the Companies Act and was appointed as the trustee of the CNI. Defendants 1 to 4 (though given consent to unification proceedings earlier) obstructed the functioning of the CNI and asserted their independent right to hold all the movable and immovable properties of their congregation (Valsad Brethren Church) and took the stand that there was no resolution for ‘dissolution’ as set out in the So. Regn. Act.

During the pendency of the suit, unification was ‘given effect to’ by the Charity Commr. under the BPT Act.  The plaintiffs filed the suit to declare ‘that the former FDCB has ceased to exist’ and ‘that the CNI is the legal continuation and successor of the FDCB …’ etc. The Civil Court may have jurisdiction over a matter which is outside the purview of the Act, or over a question that arises in relation to a matter unconnected with the administration or possession of the trust property.

The effect of ‘dissolving’ a registered society (FDCB) by taking a resolution for unification with other associations (Churches) to form a single entity (CNI) was placed for consideration of our Apex Court several times. Besides, this decision (Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai), Vinodkumar M. Malavia Vs. Maganlal Mangaldas Gameti [(2013) 15 SCC 394; 2013 AIR (SCW) 5782: AIR 2013 SC (CIV) 2849] is important among them. The dismissal of the suit was upheld by our Apex Court, holding that the civil court has no jurisdiction where a bar is imposed in relation to a matter over which the statutory authorities (under BPT Act) have the requisite jurisdiction and that a society created under a statute must conform to its provisions, and the courts would interfere in case of its violation.[See also: The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras Vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282; Ratilal Panachand Gandhi Vs. State of Bombay AIR 1954 SC 388.]

It was observed, inter alia, in this land-mark decision (Church of North India Vs. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai),rendered by SB Sinha, J:

• “In terms of Section 5 of the Societies Registration Act, all properties would vest in the trustees and only in case in the absence of vesting of such properties in the trustees would the same be deemed to have been vested for the time being in the governing body of such property. In this case, it is clear that the properties have vested in the trustees and not in the governing body of the society.” (Para 60)
• “Unless a suit is filed in terms of Section 13 of the Act, the society is not dissolved.” (Para 64)
• “Concededly, the properties of the trust being properties of the religious trust had vested in such trust.” (Para 64)
• “If the properties of the churches did not belong to the society, the appellant herein cannot claim the same as their successor.” (Para 64)
• “Even if it is contended that the administration of the property would mean the properties of the Brethren church both as a trust and as a society, still then having regard to the legal position, as discussed supra, the property belonging exclusively to the trust, the suit will not be maintainable (by virtue of the provisions of the BPTA).” (Para 64)

It was observed in Vinodkumar M. MalaviaVs. Maganlal Mangaldas Gameti,[(2013) 15 SCC 394; 2013 AIR (SCW) 5782: AIR 2013 SC (CIV) 2849] inter alia:

• “The argument that as per Article 254 of the Constitution, the Societies Registration Act overrides the BPTA or that the Societies Registration Act and BPTA are in conflict, does not stand either, since both the statutes are not in conflict with each other. On the contrary, they are in consonance with each other regarding the administration and regulation of public and religious trusts.”
• “The High Court has rightly observed that: ‘… The trust which has been created as public trust for a specific object and the charitable or the religious nature or for the bonafide of the Society or any such institution managed by such trusts for charitable and religious purpose shall continue to exist in perpetuity and it would not cease to exist by any such process of thinking or deliberation or the Resolution, which does not have any force of law’.”

Effect of Dedication of Property (for Public) by Society

Can a Society or Corporation be a Trustee?

A corporation can be a trustee. Earlier notion that a corporation could not be a trustee, as the property held by the Company or Corporation as its ‘beneficial owner’ could not be subjected to a trust for the benefit of third parties is not accepted by modern jurists.

N. SuryanarayanaIyer, in the Indian Trusts Act, observed as under: 

• “Formerly the notion was that the relationship of a trustee being one of confidence involving a personal element, a corporation could not be a trustee as there could not be a question of confidence being reposed in a corporation and therefore that it could not be a trustee. This notion, however, has long ago been given up. Corporate bodies have been held to be amenable to the jurisdiction in Chancery and compellable to carry out the intentions of the settlor of property which has been vested in them…. Under the Indian law also a corporation, whether aggregate or sole, can be a trustee and there is ample jurisdiction in the court to enforce the performance of its duty by such trustee.” [Quoted in: B. Ramachandra Adityan Vs. Educational Trustee Co. (P.) Ltd.: 2003-113 Comp Cases 334.]

As shown above, generally, a Society acquires property to use the same for its objectives or purposes and for its own benefit; or in other words, ultimately for the benefit of the ascertainable members of the society. And, there will be neither public trust nor dedication of property, divesting the rights of the society, for any ‘public purpose of a charitable or religious nature’.

But, if a contra indication is manifested from the basic documents and assertions of a society (or a Non-Trading-Company) or from the very nature of an institution — that is, where the property is raised solely for the purpose of dedicating the same for establishing and maintaining a public trust/institution for the benefit of the general public or of an unascertainable section thereof as in the case of a church or temple(or, where the society and trust ‘is only one entity’ as the one considered in Church of North India Vs. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai) [AIR 2005 SC 2544: 2005 (10) SCC 760] — no doubt, it cannot be treated as the property ‘exclusively’ belonging-to-the-society and not bound by Sec. 92 CPC. In other words, if a society is formed with the object of dedicating property for a public or charitable (including religious) purpose and the property procured by the society is validly dedicated, a trust will be predicated.

A Society May Be Subjectd To The Jurisdiction of Section 92 CPC

In Young Mens Christian Association of Ernakulam Vs. National Council YMCAs of India[101] the Delhi High Court considered whether the term “express or constructive trust” in Section 92 CPC was attracted when a society (National Council YMCAs of India) held ‘in trust’ property belonging to different organisations, and observed as under:

• “In this backdrop, a perusal of Section 92 of the CPC reveals that the term “express or constructive trust” does not relate to a trust constituted under the Indian Trusts Act, but anybody or entity which holds in trust any property and is created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature. A society can also satisfy the test of express or constructive trust created for public purposes.”

The court found that the National Council YMCAs was in both ‘express’ and ‘constructive’ trust of the properties belonging to its member YMCAs. The mere fact that the defendant is a registered society did not take away its true character. The defendant is an organisation which worked for a public purpose and is subject to the jurisdiction of Section 92 of the CPC.

The defendant (National Council YMCAs of India) contended that it was not a trust but a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. There was a clear distinction between the nature of a trust and a society. If only it could be proved that the society could in fact be termed as a trust created for public purposes of a charitable or a religious character, leave under Section 92 of the CPC could be granted. The settled position on this issue was that if a society that was functioning in a fully democratic fashion, and there was no settler who had vested property in the society, leave could not be granted under Sec. 92. The defendant relied upon the following judgments:

• K. Rajamanickam Vs. Periyar Self Respect Propaganda Institution, Tiruchirapalli: AIR 2007 Mad 25
• S. Guhans Vs. Rukmani Devi Arundale: 1987-100 LW 182
• Advocate General Vs. Bhartiya Adam Jati Sewak Sangh: 2001-3 ShimLC 319
• Abhaya A Society Registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary Vs. J.A. Raheem: AIR 2005 Ker 233
• Kesava Panicker Vs. Damodara Panicker, AIR 1976 Ker 86
• Swami Shivshankargiri Chella Swami Vs. Satya Gyan Niketan:  2017-4 SCC 771

The High Court distinguished Abhaya A Society, Rukmini Devi Arundale and Bhartiya Adam Jati Sewak Sangh pointing out that these cases did not show that they held ‘in trust’ any property belonging to a different organisation. The property was owned by the Society concerned and it belonged to it. In other cases also, no express or implied trust emerged.

If Valid Dedication, No Change of Character, On Regn. as Socieety

As stated above, normally, the property acquired by a society does not part-take the character of ‘public purpose’ stated in Sec. 92 CPC.[102] But, if a charitable or religious institution of a public nature[103] is expressly or constructively founded by an ascertainable number of persons or an association, by valid dedication of properties acquired by the members or society, it will accomplish the character of ‘public purpose’ stated in Sec. 92 CPC.

Subsequent registration of an association involved in a trust, under the Societies Registration Act, will not make any change to the trust character of the properties dedicated.  Kesava Panicker Vs. Damodara Panicker[104] was a case where the entire community in a particular area took an active interest and contributed funds for the purpose of creating ‘a trust fund’ for establishing a school. A committee was formed for collecting funds. Utilising that fund the school building was constructed. Subsequently a society was formed and registered under the Societies Registration Act for the purpose of management of the school. A question arose whether the character of the properties would be changed by the formation of the society. The Full Bench of the Kerala High Court held as under:

• “If there was a trust created by the public, for a public charitable purpose namely establishing, maintaining and running a school, the fact of the registration of a society could not change the character of the properties which had already been constituted as trust properties and impressed with the trust and any addition to those properties must also have the same character.”

A Society May Be Subjectd To The Jurisdiction of Section 92 CPC

In Young Mens Christian Association of Ernakulam Vs. National Council YMCAs of India[101] the Delhi High Court considered whether the term “express or constructive trust” in Section 92 CPC was attracted when a society (National Council YMCAs of India) held ‘in trust’ property belonging to different organisations, and observed as under:

• “In this backdrop, a perusal of Section 92 of the CPC reveals that the term “express or constructive trust” does not relate to a trust constituted under the Indian Trusts Act, but anybody or entity which holds in trust any property and is created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature. A society can also satisfy the test of express or constructive trust created for public purposes.”

The court found that the National Council YMCAs was in both ‘express’ and ‘constructive’ trust of the properties belonging to its member YMCAs. The mere fact that the defendant is a registered society did not take away its true character. The defendant is an organisation which worked for a public purpose and is subject to the jurisdiction of Section 92 of the CPC.

The defendant (National Council YMCAs of India) contended that it was not a trust but a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. There was a clear distinction between the nature of a trust and a society. If only it could be proved that the society could in fact be termed as a trust created for public purposes of a charitable or a religious character, leave under Section 92 of the CPC could be granted. The settled position on this issue was that if a society that was functioning in a fully democratic fashion, and there was no settler who had vested property in the society, leave could not be granted under Sec. 92. The defendant relied upon the following judgments:

• K. Rajamanickam Vs. Periyar Self Respect Propaganda Institution, Tiruchirapalli: AIR 2007 Mad 25
• S. Guhans Vs. Rukmani Devi Arundale: 1987-100 LW 182
• Advocate General Vs. Bhartiya Adam Jati Sewak Sangh: 2001-3 ShimLC 319
• Abhaya A Society Registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary Vs. J.A. Raheem: AIR 2005 Ker 233
• Kesava Panicker Vs. Damodara Panicker, AIR 1976 Ker 86
• Swami Shivshankargiri Chella Swami Vs. Satya Gyan Niketan:  2017-4 SCC 771

The High Court distinguished Abhaya A Society, Rukmini Devi Arundale and Bhartiya Adam Jati Sewak Sangh pointing out that these cases did not show that they held ‘in trust’ any property belonging to a different organisation. The property was owned by the Society concerned and it belonged to it. In other cases also, no express or implied trust emerged.

If Valid Dedication, No Change of Character, On Regn. as Socieety

As stated above, normally, the property acquired by a society does not part-take the character of ‘public purpose’ stated in Sec. 92 CPC [Keshava Panicker Vs. Damodara Panicker AIR 1976 Ker 86; C Chikka Venkatappa Vs. D Hanumanthappa 1970 (1) Mys LJ 296]. But, if a charitable or religious institution of a public nature [Eg. A temple or a math or Guru Granth Sahib, revered in a Gurudwara] is expressly or constructively founded by an ascertainable number of persons or an association, by valid dedication of properties acquired by the members or society, it will accomplish the character of ‘public purpose’ stated in Sec. 92 CPC.

Subsequent registration of an association involved in a trust, under the Societies Registration Act, will not make any change to the trust character of the properties dedicated.  Kesava Panicker Vs. Damodara Panicker [AIR 1976 Ker 86] was a case where the entire community in a particular area took an active interest and contributed funds for the purpose of creating ‘a trust fund’ for establishing a school. A committee was formed to collect funds. Utilising that fund, the school building was constructed. Subsequently, a society was formed and registered under the Societies Registration Act for the purpose of managing the school. A question arose whether the character of the properties would be changed by the formation of the society. The Full Bench of the Kerala High Court held as under:

• “If there was a trust created by the public, for a public charitable purpose namely establishing, maintaining and running a school, the fact of the registration of a society could not change the character of the properties which had already been constituted as trust properties and impressed with the trust and any addition to those properties must also have the same character.”

Strict English Principles as to Trust, Not Accepted by Indian Law

According to strict English principles, there should be dual ownership upon a trust property; i.e., the legal ownership which is vested with the trustees; and the equitable or beneficial ownership, vested with the beneficiaries [Salmond on Jurisprudence: Eleventh Edition, page 307]. But, the Law on Trust in India, as expounded by judicial decisions, does not recognise legal and equitable ownership, in both public and private trusts. The courts in India confer beneficial interest [Note: Not the ‘proprietary interest’ or interest pertaining to owner; it is the interest pertaining to beneficiaries] alone upon the beneficiaries. [See: Chhatra Kumari Devi Vs. Mohan Bikram Shah:  AIR 1931 PC 196; WO Holdsworth Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh: AIR 1957 SC 887; Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Kripashankar: AIR 1971 SC 2463, Bai Dosabai Vs. Mathuradas: AIR 1980 SC 1334;  Bomi Munchershaw Mistry Vs. Kesharwani Co Op Housing Society: 1993-2-BCR-301; Hem Chandra Vs. SuradhamDebya: AIR 1940 PC 134].

Under the orthodox English view of trust, the trust property should be one which is capable of being transferred in favour of the beneficiaries.  Since the property of a society does not go at par with the aforesaid English proposition, it can be demonstrated that properties of both registered and unregistered societies are not impressed with characteristics of ‘trust’ in its strict sense.

In Incorporated Body or Club, Trustees Act as Agents

The Supreme Court in Young Men’s India Association case [Harbour Division II, Madras Vs. Young Men’s Indian Association, Madras: AIR 1970 SC 1212] it was observed:

• “… The difficulty felt in the legal property ordinarily vesting in the trustees of the members’ club or in the incorporated body was surmounted by invoking the theory of agency, i.e., the club or the trustees acting as agents of the members. ….. What was essential was that the holding of the property by the agent or trustee must be a holding for and on behalf of and not a holding antagonistic to the members of the club. …. The final conclusion of the High Court in the judgment under appeal was that the case of each club was analogous to that of an agent or mandatory investing his own moneys for preparing things for consumption of the principal, and later recouping himself for the expenses incurred. As no transaction of sale was involved there could be no levy of tax under the provisions of the Act on the supply of refreshments and preparations by each one of the clubs to its members.”

Directors of a Company, to Some Extent Trustees

In Piercy Vs. S. Mills and Co. Ltd. [(1920) 1 Ch. 77.] their Lordships observed:

• “I cannot look upon the Directors otherwise than as trustees for a public Company, and I must judge of the propriety of their conduct in this matter on the ordinary principle applicable to cases of trustee and cestuique trust. If shares are issued with indecent haste and scramble ………for a different purpose, I have no doubt that the Court will interfere to prevent so gross a breach of trust. If they were issued with the immediate object of controlling the holders of greater number of shares in the Company and of obtaining the necessary statutory majority for passing a special resolution, then it will not be valid or bona fide exercise of power.” (Quoted in Kalinga Tubes Ltd Vs. Shanti Prasad Jain: AIR  1963 Ori 189).

In V S RamaswamyIyer Vs. Brahmayya and Company Official Liquidators Hanuman Bank Limited [ 1966-36 Comp. Cases 270: 1966-1 Mad LJ 234] the Madras High Court referred to various English authorities and pointed out that the directors of a company are not, properly speaking, trustees; yet they have always been considered and treated as trustees of money which comes to their hands. The High Court observed that the law in India regarding the nature of the liability of directors has not been different.

The Court referred to:

• Palmer’s Company Law: “Directors are not only agents, but they are in some sense and to some extent trustees or in the position of trustees, but their position differs considerably from that of ordinary trustees, and the strict rules applicable to such trustees do not apply in all respects to directors. “
• Charitable Corporation Vs. Sutton:[ 1742-2 Atk. 400] “The directors are persons selected to manage the affairs of the company for the benefit of the shareholders it is an office of trust, which, if they undertake, it is their duty to perform fully and entirely. A resolution by shareholders therefore, that shares or any other species of property shall be at the disposal of directors, is a resolution that it shall be at the disposal of trustees in other words, that the persons entrusted with that property shall dispose of it, within the scope of the functions delegated to them, in the manner best suited to benefit their cestuique trust. “
• York and North Midland Ry. Vs. Hudson [1853 16 Beav. 485]
• G.E. Ry. Vs. Turner:[ 1872 L.R. 8 Ch. 149] “The directors are the mere trustees or the agents of the company: trustees of the company’s money and property agents in the transaction which they enter into on behalf of the company.”
• In Re Forest of Dean Co.: “…….directors are called trustees. They are no doubt trustees of assets which have come into their hands, or which are under their control…… For most purposes it is sufficient to say that directors occupy a fiduciary position and all the powers entrusted to them are only exercisable in this fiduciary capacity. ” [1878 (10) Ch(D) 450]
• Buckley on the Companies Acts: “The directors of a company fill a double character. They are (i) agents of the company, and (ii) trustees for the shareholders of the powers committed to them. …. . The assets of the company are entrusted to the directors to be applied for certain defined objects, and they are responsible as for a breach of trust if they apply them to other objects.”
• Halsbury’s Laws of England: “A director who has misapplied or retained or become liable or accountable for any money or property of the company, or who has been guilty of nay breach of trust in relation to the company must make restitution or compensate the company for the loss. Where the money of the company has been applied for purposes which the company cannot sanction, the directors must replace it, however honestly they may have acted. The estate of a deceased director has always been liable for his breaches of trust. “
• Gore-Browne, Handbook of Joint Stock Companies: “In the case of the death of a director his estate remains liable for any breach of trust he may have committed (including any wrongful dealing with the company’s property, such as a payment of dividend out of capital or sale of its assets at an undervalue)…. ….. In regard to actions for deceit and other wrongs, the principle actiopersonalismoritur cum persona may be mentioned. Under this principle, with regard to actions for wrongs, independent of contract, done either to or by a deceased person in his lifetime, his legal personal representative could neither sue nor be sued. This is still so in some cases, e.g., defamation. Even at common law this principle is subject to the modification that where loss results to the estate of the extent of the loss or profit. “
• Flitcroft’s case:[1882 (21) Ch(D) 519] “They are trustees for the company, nor for the individual shareholders. The liquidator represents the company, and is bound to discharge towards the creditors all the duties which the company owes them. It is therefore his duty when such a breach of trust as this is discovered to get a return of the assets improperly expended that they may be applied in payments of debts. The act of the directors is impeached as a breach of trust, not on the ground of tort or misfeasance. There are persons who may be made liable under section 165, without having been guilty of a breach of trust but where the person charged under that section is a trustee, the act which brings him within the section is a breach of trust”
• Ramskill Vs. Edwards [1885 Ch(D) 100]
• In Re Faure Electric Accumulator Company:[1889 L.R. 40 Ch(D) 141]“ With respect to the capital of the company which is under their management, it has been said that they are `quasi-trustees’ for the company: Flitcroft’s case 1882 L.R. 21 Ch(D) 519. In that and other respects they are, `to a certain extent, trustees’ (Lindley on Partnership). In the language of Lord Romilly, in York and North Midland Ry. Co. Vs. Hudson 1845 16 Beav.485, `The directors are persons selected to manage the affairs of the company, for the benefit of the shareholders it is an office of trust, which, if they undertake, it is their duty to perform fully and entirely.’ They certainly are not trustees in the sense of those words as used with reference to an instrument of trust, such as a marriage settlement or a will. One obvious distinction is that the property of the company is not legally vested in them. Another and perhaps still broader difference is that they are the managing agents of a trading association, and such control as they have over its property, and such powers as by the constitution of the company are vested in them, are confided to them for purposes widely different from those which exist in the case of such ordinary trusts as I have referred to, and which required that a larger discretion should be given to them. Perhaps the nearest analogy to their position would be that of the managing agent of a mercantile house to whom the control of its property and very large powers for the management of its business are confided but there is no analogy which is absolutely perfect. Their position is peculiar because of the very great extent of their powers and the absence of control, except the action of the shareholders of the company.”
• Concha Vs. Murrieta:[1889 L.R. 40 Ch(D) 543] “It is true that no action for a tort can be revived or commenced against the representatives of the person who committed it but the case is quite different where the act is not a mere tort, but is a breach of a quasi-contract, where the claim is founded on breach of a fiduciary relation, or on failure to perform a duty. Here the father, though I do not call him a trustee, was in a position in which he owed duties of a fiduciary character to his daughter. In the very careful judgment of Lord Justice Bowen in Philips Vs. Homfray 1883 L.R. 24 Ch(D) 439, cases depending on breach of contract, express or implied, are excepted from the judgment. Here there is what we call a quasi-contract, the law implying a contract that a man will faithfully perform the duties which he has undertaken. Juan Jose Concha undertook a duty in consequence of his position, and losses arising from his breach of it can be followed up against his estate. “
• In Re Lands Allotment Company:[1894 L.R. 1 Ch(D) 616] “Then, if it was an improper transaction, all those directors who were parties to this improper investment, for in this point of view it was improper, would naturally and obviously be liable to make good the money……We are asked to say that the directors are liable for these moneys upon the footing that they committed a breach of trust, but that they are not entitled to the benefit of the Statute of Limitations which was passed for the benefit of trustees. I cannot be a party to any decision so supremely absurd. Although directors are not properly speaking trustees, yet they have always been considered and treated as trustees of money which comes to their hands or which is actually under their control and ever since joint stock companies were invented directors have been held liable to make good moneys which they have misapplied upon the same footing as if they were trustees, and it has always been held that they are not entitled to the benefit of the old Statute of Limitations because they have committed breaches of trust and are in respect of such moneys to be treated as trustees.. …….. Now, case after case has decided that directors of trading companies are not for all purposes trustees or in the position of trustees, or quasi-trustees, or to be treated as trustees in every sense but if they deal with the funds of a company, although those funds are not absolutely vested in them but funds which are under their control, and deal with those funds in a manner which is beyond their powers, then as to that dealing they are treated as having committed a breach of trust. I do not believe that there has ever been any deviation from the language of the late Sir George Jessel in the case of In re Forest of Dean Coal Mining Company 1878 L.R. 10 Ch(D) 450. Sir George Jessel said this `Directors are called trustees. They are no doubt trustees of assets which have come into their hands, or which are under their control, but they are not trustees of a debt due to the company.’ So that, when they get assets of the company under their control, or into their hands, and deal with them in a way which is beyond the powers of the company, they are liable as for a breach of trust. “

Implied Trust in Sec. 82 & 94 Applied in a Proposed Society

In Ramchandra Krishna Yadav Vs. Sakharam  Gangaram Mali [1996-1 All MR 338], it is observed that an elected Chairman of a proposed society, who admits that he was a leader of the villagers, collected various amounts from the proposed members and purchased the land out of that amount, was in the position as trustee qua the proposed members of the society and must hold the property for their benefit.

Applying Sec. 82 and 94 of the Indian Trusts Act, it was observed that implied trust is created though there was no express trust and no trust deed as such.  Section 82 of the Act says that where property is transferred to one person for a consideration paid or provided by another person, and it appears that such other person did not intend to pay or provide such consideration for the benefit of the transferee he must hold the property for the benefit of the person paying or providing the consideration. What are called ‘express trusts’ in English Courts are called merely ‘trusts’ in the Indian Trusts Act and are dealt with therein under Sections 4 to 79; while what are called ‘constructive or implied trusts’ in English Law are called “obligations in the nature of trust” and are dealt with in Chapter IX containing Sections 80 to 96 of the Indian Trusts Act.

Church: Voluntary Association & Religious Trusts

The word ‘church’ is used to denote, generally, two ideas: voluntary association of Christians and place where persons regularly assemble for worship.  Halbury’s Laws of England [4th Edition] gives the meaning of ‘Church’ as under:

• “Church, when used in relation to a religious body, has two distinct meaning; it may mean either the aggregate of the individual members of thechurch or it may mean the quasi-corporate institution which carries on the religious work of the denomination whose name it bears.”

Blacks Law Dictionary defines church as under:

• “Church. In its most general sense, the religious society founded and established by Jesus Christ, to receive, preserve, and propagate His doctrines and ordinances. It may also mean a body of communicants gathered into church order; body or community of Christians, united under one form of government by the profession of the same faith and the observance of the same ritual and ceremonies; place where persons regularly assemble for worship; congregation; organization for religious purposes; religious society or body; the clergy or officialdom of a religious body.”

It is observed in Most Rev. PMA Metropolitan Vs. Moran Mar Marthoma [AIR 1995 SC 2001] as under:

• “A church is formed by the voluntary association of individuals. And the churches in the commonwealth are voluntary body organised on a consensual basis their rights apart from statutes will be protected by the courts and their discipline enforced exactly as in the case of any other voluntary body whose existence is legally recognized. ……”

Two (Kinds of) “Trusts” over the Parish or Branch Property

One Property, Several Trusts Possible

Trust is a general term used in wider sense in law. Therefore –

1. If a property is acquired by a branch of a larger body, or a parish of a Church, the entire members of the larger body, from time to time, will be presumed to be the owners, subject to (i) the byelaws of the (entire) association or trust and (ii) the purposes or objectives ‘aimed to achieve’ by that particular property. 
2. If the bylaws (expressly or by necessary implication) provides for special beneficial enjoyment by the members of the branch or parish, over the branch/parish properties, definitely there will be two (kinds of) “trusts” over the same property – one, trust for the beneficial enjoyment of whole body; and the other, for the members of the branch/parish.

Are Shebait, Mahant, Mutawalli etc. Trustees in ‘True Sense’?

Can entre members put an end to the society?

The ownership of the property of a registered society vests in its members subject to the fundamental principles upon which it is founded [See Chapter: ‘Vesting of Property’] and the provisions of the Act under which it is registered.

It is not open for the majority of the members of a society to alter the fundamental principles upon which it is founded unless such a power is specifically reserved under the bye laws. [PrasannaVenkitesa Rao Vs. Srinivasa Rao: AIR 1931 Mad. 12 ; Milligan Vs. Mitchel: 40 ER 852 ; Free Church of England Vs. Overtoun: (1904) AC 515 referred to. See: also: Profulla Chorone RequitteVs. Satya Chorone Requitte: AIR 1979 SC 1682. Inderpal Singh Vs. Avtar Singh (2007-4 Raj LW 3547)]  If a public or permanent trust is predicated by the founders or by the bye laws, the entire members of an unregistered society of a particular time cannot put an end to the society and appropriate its property.

Intention of Founders & Basic Principles, Paramount

Underhill, in his treatise, ‘Law of Trusts and Trustees’, explained it thus:

• “However, the crucial difference surely is that no absolutely entitled members exist if the gift is on trust for future and existing members, always being for the members of the Association for the time being. The members for the time being cannot under the Association rules appropriate trust property for themselves for there would then be no property held on trust as intended by the testator for those persons who some years later happened to be the members of the Association for the time being”.[Quoted in Most Rev. PMA Metropolitan Vs.  Moran Mar Marthoma: AIR 1995 SC 2001- Para 69]

Sec. 92 CPC is Not Attracted to Matters of a Society

Because, there will be no ‘dedication’ of “property belonging to a society”

Sec. 92 CPC envisages ‘express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature’. This requirement is brought home only when there is dedication of property. That is, unless there is an ‘express or constructive’ public trust founded by explicit ‘express or constructive’ dedication of the property divesting the rights of former owner over the same, ‘for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature’, Sec. 92 CPC is not attracted. 

The characteristic distinguishing factor between a “Private Trust” and “Public Trust” is that in the former, beneficiaries are defined and ascertained individuals; but, in the latter, the beneficial interest must be vested in an uncertain and fluctuating body of persons, either the public at large or some considerable portion of it, answering particular description. Normally, there will be no explicit ‘express or constructive’ dedication of the ‘property belonging to a society’, divesting the rights of the society, ‘for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature’ (even if the society itself is formed for charitable and religious purposes); and therefore, Sec. 92 CPC will not be attracted to the ‘property belonging’ to the societies. A society has to use its property for its own purposes[‘Abhaya’ a Society Vs. Raheem: AIR 2005 Ker 233] and it will only be the property of the Society alone;[[128]  Keshava  Panicker Vs. Damodara  Panicker:AIR 1976 Ker 86. See: also: C Chikka  Venkatappa Vs. D Hanumanthappa 1970 (1) Mys LJ 296; ‘Abhaya’ a Society Vs. Raheem: AIR 2005 Ker 233] and it will not be a property in respect of which it is possible to predicate a public trust[See: Kripal Singh Bajwa Vs. Trust Manav Kendra: 2012-2 UAD 762] as envisaged in Sec. 92 CPC.

• [Section 6 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 reads as under: “6. Creation of trust. – Subject to the provisions of section 5, a trust is created when the author of the trust indicates with reasonable certainty by any words or acts (a) an intention on his part to create thereby a trust, (b) the purpose of the trust, (c) the beneficiary, and (d) the trust -property, and (unless the trust is declared by will or the author of the trust is himself to be the trustee) transfers the trust – property to the trustee.”]

The same will be the position of Non-Trading-Companies also. [See: Kripal Singh Bajwa Vs. Trust Manav Kendra: 2012-2 UAD 762]

In ‘Abhaya’ a Society Vs. Raheem,[AIR 2005 Ker 233] while dealing whether Sec. 92 CPC is attracted to the affairs of a registered society, it is pointed out that to constitute a trust there must be author, trustees, beneficiary, trust property and beneficial interest.

It is also clear from the wording of Sec. 92 CPC that express or constructive trust in its ‘strict sense’ is envisaged in Sec. 92; and not trust in its ‘wider or general sense’ so as to include all ‘fiduciary relationships’. [The ‘wider’ or ‘general’ expression as to ‘trust’, used by the progressive jurists, is adopted in the Societies Registration Act]

Section 92 CPC is held out on the principles of ‘parens patriae’, once a trust, always a trust [See Narayanan Vs. Nil: AIR 2005 Mad. 17; M Ashok Kumar Vs. N Janarthana: 2013(7) Mad. LJ 273; T C Chacko Vs. Annamma:  AIR 1994 Ker. 107]  and the court is the protector of all charities.[C  Chikka  Venkatappa Vs. D Hanumanthappa: 1970 (1) Mys LJ 296; Narayan Krishnaji Vs. Anjuman E Islamia: AIR 1952 Kar 14: Thenappa Chattier Vs. KuruppanChhietier AIR 1968 SC 915]

In Pragdasji  Vs. Ishwarlalbhai [AIR 1952 SC 143. Also See: HarendraNathVs. Kali Ram Das: AIR 1972 SC 246], our Apex Court pointed out that a suit under Sec. 92 is a suit of a special nature which presupposes the existence of a public trust of a religious or charitable character, and that it must pray for one or other of the reliefs that are specifically mentioned in the Section. It is only when these conditions are fulfilled that a suit could be brought under Sec. 92.

Section 92 CPC does not specifically make any provision to remove the persons in management of the society and to appoint new managing body. 

Majority of an Association Cannot Alter Fundamental Principles

The fundamental principles upon which a trust is founded cannot be varied. Therefore, the courts cannot sanction any drastic amendment to the document of trust which would destroy the basic purpose for which the trust was created. The trust properties will not be allowed to be sold even to the members of their community for whose benefit the trust was created, and the properties were acquired.[Pragji Savji VajaVs. Chhotalal Narsidas Parmar: AIR 2014-3 Bom R 211: 2013-6 BCR 72. See also: AA Gopalakrishnan Vs. Cochin Devaswom Board: AIR 2007 SC  3162; Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. GoundlaVenkaiah: AIR 2010 SC 744; Doongarsee Shyamji Vs.Tribhuvan Das: AIR 1947 All 375;  Lal Vs. Thakur Radha Ballabhji: AIR 1961 All 73; C Chikka  Venkatappa Vs. D Hanumanthappa 1970 (1) Mys LJ 296: Narayan Krishnaji Vs. Anjuman E Islamia:  AIR 1952 Kar 14; Thenappa Chattier Vs. Kuruppan Chhietier AIR 1968 SC 915; CK Rajan Vs. Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee: AIR 1994 Ker 179 [Appeal Judgment: AIR 2004 SC 561:  (2003) 7 SCC 546]

This principle in Milligan Vs. Mitchel [40 ER 852] Attorney General Vs. Anderson [(1888) 57 LJ Ch 543] and Free Church of England Vs. Overtoun [(1904) AC 515] is referred to in Prasanna  Venkitesa  Rao Vs. Srinivasa  Rao.[AIR 1931 Mad. 12]

In Free Church of England Vs. Overtoun the House of Lords (by a majority of 5-2) found that the minority was entitled to the assets of the Free Church. It was observed that when men subscribe money for a particular object, and leave it behind them for the promotion of that object, their successors have no right to change the object endowed. It was held that, by adopting new standards of doctrine (and particularly by abandoning its commitment to ‘the establishment principle’, which was held to be fundamental to the Free Church), the majority had violated the conditions on which the property of the Free Church was held.

S. 88 & 95 of Trusts Act Encompass Govg. Bodies of Societies

Section 88 of the Indian Trusts Act expressly refers to director of a company. Though they are not express trustees, with respect to their duties, the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 takes the position of ‘executor, partner, agent, director of a company, legal adviser, or other person bound in a fiduciary character to protect the interests of another person’ to that of trustees, in Chapter IX (Section 80 onwards) of the Indian Trusts Act. Their office is fiduciary in character.[V S Ramaswamy Iyer Vs. Brahmayya: 1966-36 Comp Cases 270, 1966-1 Mad LJ 234.] They are bound by the directives in Sec. 88.

Sec. 88 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 reads as under:

• 88. Advantage gained by fiduciary: Where a trustee, executor, partner, agent, director of a company, legal adviser, or other person bound in a fiduciary character to protect the interests of another person, by availing himself of his character, gains for himself any pecuniary advantage, or where any person so bound enters into any dealings under circumstances in which his own interests are, or may be, adverse to those of such other person, and thereby gains for himself a pecuniary advantage, he must hold for the benefit of such other person the advantage so gained.

It is legitimate to comprehend that the words ‘or other person’ in Sec. 88 of the Indian Trusts Act encompass the governing bodies of societies and clubs also. By virtue of Sec. 95 of the Indian Trusts Act it is further clear that the principles and incidents of ‘trust’ are impressed upon the property held by societies and clubs also.

Sec. 95 of the Indian Trusts Act reads as under:

• 95. Obligator’s duties, liabilities and disabilities: The person holding property in accordance with any of the preceding sections of this Chapter must, so far as may be, perform the same duties, and is subject, so far as may be, to the same liabilities and disabilities as if he were a trustee of the property for the person for whose benefit he holds it  ….. “

Also Read

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
  • Expulsion of Members & Removal of Office-Bearers
  • Law on Meetings: An Overview
  • 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

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

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “

Read in this Cluster (Click on the Topic)

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

• Striking off defence under Order XV Rule 5 CPC (U.P. Amendment): Consequence is Drastic; Mere Denial of the Landlord–Tenant Relationship Not Absolve Tenant from the Statutory Obligation to Deposit Rent
• Maurice W. Innis v. Lily Kazrooni – Executing Court Executes Decree as it Stands, Without any Modification. It cannot Go Beyond or Vary its Term
• Channappa v.  Parvatewwa, 2026 INSC 343: Suit Dismissed for Order II Rule 2 Bar: For No ‘Consequential Declaration’ on Title, in the Earlier Suit 
• Applicability of Res Judicata on IA Orders (at Different Stages of the Same Suit) 
• Rejection of Plaint is a Procedural Termination, and Dismissal of Suit on Preliminary Issue is a Summary Decision on Merits
• Can a Suit be Rejected on the Inherent Power of the Court?
• Did the Supreme Court Depart From its Earlier Position in Hussain Ahmed Choudhury v. Habibur Rahman, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 892, in its Subsequent Decision in Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi, 2025 INSC 1105?
• Time City Infrastructure and Housing Ltd v. State of UP: Non-Compliance in taking Postal Steps – Court Should Vacate the Ad-Interim Injunction Order
• “Due Process of Law” in Civil Suits
• Can a suit be Rejected (Order VII rule 11 CPC) on the Ground of Res Judicata?
• Operation Asha  v. Shelly Batra, a Landmark Judgment on Sec. 92 CPC– Critical Appreciation
• If a Sharer Dies & the LRs are Not Impleaded – Partition Suit as a Whole Abates. But the Court SHOULD Direct Either Side to Take Steps to Bring in the Legal Heirs
• Order IX Rule 9 CPC: Earlier Suit for Injunction; Subsequent Suit for Recovery & Injunction – No Bar
• H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar: An ‘Aggrieved’ Stranger or a ‘Prejudicially Affected’ Third-Party (also) Can File Appeal with the ‘Leave of the Court’.
• Replication, Rejoinder and Amendment of Pleadings
• Can a Suit be Withdrawn in Appeal, on the Ground that Appeal is Continuation of the Suit?
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• Suit under Sec. 6, Specific Relief Act – Is it a ‘Summary Suit’ under Order XXXVII CPC?
• Is it Mandatory to Lift the Attachment on Dismissal of the Suit? Will the Attachment Orders Get Revived on Restoration of Suit?
• Will Interlocutory Orders and Applications Get Revived on Restoration of Suit?
• Can an ‘Ex-parte’ Defendant Cross Examine Plaintiff’s Witness?
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
• Civil Rights and Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata
• Constructive Res Judicata
• Applicability of Res Judicata on IA Orders (at Different Stages of the Same Suit) 
• Res Judicata and Judicial Precedent
• What is Binding Judicial Precedent – In a Nutshell
• No Res judicata on Finding on Title in an Injunction Suit
• Res Judicata: ‘Same issue’ must have been ‘Adjudicated’ in the former suit
• Res Judicata and Appeal: No Res Judicata on Adverse Findings, in a Favourable Decree
• Order II, Rule 2 CPC – Not to Vex Defendants Twice
• A Land Mark Decision on Order II rule 2, CPC – Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. v. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Ltd., Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 73
• Order I rule 8, CPC (Representative Suit) When and How? Whether Order I rule 8 Decree is Enforceable in Execution?
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• Pleadings in Defamation Suits
• Previous Owner is Not a Necessary Party in a Recovery Suit
• UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian Law
• PLEADINGS IN ELECTION MATTERS
• Declaration and Injunction
• Law on Summons to Defendants and Witnesses
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful Acts
• Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
• Mandatory Injunction – Law and Principles
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• Interrogatories: When Court Allows, When Rejects?
• Decree in OI R8 CPC-Suit & Eo-Nomine Parties
• Pecuniary & Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• Doctrine of Substantial Representation in a Suit by or against an Association
• Who are Necessary Parties, Proper Parties and Pro Forma Parties in Suits
• What is Partnership, in Law? How to Sue a Firm?
• ‘Legal Representatives’, Not ‘Legal Heirs’ to be Impleaded on Death of Plaintiff/Defendant
• Powers and Duties of Commissioners to Make Local Investigations, Under CPC
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
• Burden on Plaintiff to Prove Title; Weakness of Defence Will Not Entitle a Decree
• Is it Mandatory to Set Aside the Commission Report – Where a Second Commissioner is Appointed?
• Can a Commission be Appointed to Find Out the Physical Possession of a Property?
• Can the Court issue a Second Commission without Setting Aside First Commission Report?
• Withholding Evidence and Adverse Inference
• Pendente Lite Transferee Cannot Resist or Obstruct Execution of a Decree
• Family Settlement or Family Arrangement in Law
• ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
• Will Findings of a Civil Court Outweigh Findings of a Criminal Court?
• Relevancy of Civil Case Judgments in Criminal Cases
• Waiver and Promissory Estoppel
• Can a Christian Adopt? Will an adopted child get share in the property of adoptive parents?
• Principles of Equity in Indian Law
• Thangam v.  Navamani Ammal: Did the Supreme Court lay down – Written Statements which deal with each allegation specifically, but not “para-wise”, are vitiated?
• No Criminal Case on a Dispute Essentially Civil in Nature.
• Doctrine of Substantial Representation in Suits
• Order I rule 8, CPC (Representative Suit) When and How? Whether Order I rule 8 Decree is Enforceable in Execution?
• Appointment of Guardian for Persons Suffering from Disability or Illness: Inadequacy of Law – Shame to Law Making Institutions
• Can Documents be Marked In Cross Examination, If Witness Admits Them?
• Why Should Foundational or Crucial Documents Be Produced Along With the Plaint or WS
• Fraudulent or Void Transaction: Is ‘Declaration’ Necessary? No is the Answer: Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi, 2025 INSC 1105.

Principles and Procedure

• 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: Initial Burden and Shifting the Onus in Indian and English Law
• H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar: An ‘Aggrieved’ Stranger or a ‘Prejudicially Affected’ Third-Party (also) Can File Appeal with the ‘Leave of the Court’.
• Our Courts Apply Different ‘STANDADARDS of Proof’
• Ratio Decidendi (alone) Forms a Precedent, Not a Final Order
• What is Binding Judicial Precedent – In a Nutshell
• BNSS – Major Changes from CrPC
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Important Changes from the Indian Penal Code
• Substantive Rights and Mistakes & Procedural Defects in Judicial Proceedings
• Can Documents be Marked In Cross Examination, If Witness Admits Them?
• Will Boundaries of Properties (Always) Preferred Over Survey Number, Extent, Side Measurements, etc.?
• Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a Decree
• 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
• Declaration and Injunction
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• Does Alternate Remedy Bar Civil Suits and Writ Petitions?
• Void, Voidable, Ab Initio Void, and Sham Transactions
• If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set Aside
• Can Courts Award Interest on Equitable Grounds?
• Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse
• Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State Of M.P, 29 January, 2025 – Law on Natural Justice Revisited
• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’
• Prescriptive Rights – Inchoate until the Title thereof is Upheld by a Competent Court
• ‘Title’ and ‘Ownership’ in Indian Law
• Can a Party to Suit Examine Opposite Party, as of Right?
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
• Cheating and Breach of Contract: Distinction – Fraudulent Intention at the time of Promise.
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs
• What is COGNIZANCE and Application of Mind by a Magistrate?
• Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle: Rejection of Plaint on ‘Bar of Limitation’ on Plea of Fraud.
• Why Should Foundational or Crucial Documents Be Produced Along With the Plaint or WS
• Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. The State of Gujarat: The Police have No Discretion to conduct a Preliminary Inquiry Before Registering an FIR in Cognizable Offences

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

• Gratuitous Possession – Owner can Reclaim Even Without Knowledge of the Other
• Suit on Possessory Remedy, Other side Admits Possession; Should the Will be Proved?
• M.V. Ramachandrasa v.  Mahendra Watch Company, 2026 INSC 348: Decision on Subletting Without Consent of Landlord
• ‘Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet’
• Section 27, Limitation Act Gives-Rise to a Substantive Right so as to Seek Declaration and Recovery
• Sale Deeds Without Consideration – Void
• Tenancy at Sufferance in Indian Law
• “Due Process of Law” in Civil Suits
• Revenue Settlement Registers of Travancore in 1910, Basic Record of Land matters
• Govt. of AP v. Thummala Krishna Rao, AIR 1982 SC 1081, 1982 (2) SCC 134, Misread by High Courts
• Can the Forest Tribunal Make a Finding on Title?

Recovery of Possession: 

• Suit on Possessory Remedy, Other side Admits Possession; Should the Will be Proved?
• Recovery of Possession Based on Title and on Earlier Possession
• Recovery of Possession (Based on Title) and Eviction (of Tenants)
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs
• Title and Ownership and Possessory Title in Indian Law
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• POSSESSION is a Substantive Right in Indian Law
• 22nd Law Commission  Report on ‘Law on Adverse Possession’
• Adverse Possession Against Government
• Government of Kerala v. Joseph – Law on Adverse Possession Against Government
• Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery Suits
• How to Plead Adverse Possession? Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
• Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
• Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
• When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
• Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
• ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
• Preemption is a Very Weak Right; For, Property Right is a Constitutional & Human Right
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• Family Settlement or Family Arrangement in Law
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
• Kesar Bai v. Genda Lal – Does Something Remain Untold?
• Grant in Law
• Termination of Tenancy (& Grant) by Forfeiture (for Claiming Title)
• SUIT on TITLE: Landlord can Recover Property on GENERAL TITLE (though Tenancy Not Proved) if Defendant Falsely Claimed Independent Title
• Even the Rightful Owner is NOT entitled to Eject a Trespasser, by Force
• Ryotwari System in Madras

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’
• 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

• 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’
• Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2026:KER:19290): Transfer of Registry can be Claimed only on Proper Application, with Supporting Documents
• FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
• Marumakkathayam – A System of Law and Way of Life Prevailed in Kerala
• Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in Kerala
• Glen Leven Estate v. State of Kerala: Not Correctly Decided?
• Sale Deeds Without Consideration – Void
• If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set Aside
• Law on SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE and LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE
• Sec. 7 Easements Act – Natural Advantages Arising from the Situation of Land & Natural Flow of Water
• Grant in Law
• Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery Suits
• Title of the Government Property in India: Government is the Ultimate Owner of Every Property; Hence, Government Need Not Prove Title.
• Survey under Survey Act – Raises a Presumption on Boundary; though Not Confer Title
• Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a Decree
• 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

• Ten Square Miles Concession and Kanan Devan Hills Concession – State Grants of Travancore Governments
• Plantation-Tenants Not Approached The Land Tribunal are Ineligible for Plantation-Exemption-Orders from the Land Board
• Acquisition of (Exempted) Plantation Property: Should the Govt. Pay Full Land Value to Land Owners?
• Relevant provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act in a Nutshell
• Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in Kerala
• Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery Suits
• ‘Janmam’ Right is FREEHOLD Interest and ‘Estate’ in Constitution – By Royal Proclamation of 1899, The Travancore Sircar became Janmi of Poonjar Raja’s Land
• Government is the OWNER of (Leasehold) Plantation Lands in Kerala.
• Title of the Government Property in India: Government is the Ultimate Owner of Every Property; Hence, Government Need Not Prove Title.
• Glen Leven Estate v. State of Kerala: Not Correctly Decided?
• Law on Acquisition of Private Plantation Land in Kerala
• Plantation Exemption in Kerala Land Reforms Act–in a Nutshell
• Kerala Land Reforms Act – Provisions on Plantation-Tenancy and Land-Tenancy
• Grant in Law
• Balanoor Plantations & Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala – Based on the Principle: LT to fix Tenancy’; TLB to Fix Plantation Exemption.  
• 1910 Settlement Register of Travancore – Basic Record of Land Matters
• Do the Plantation-Tenants have the Right to Seek ‘Assignment’ of the Entire Plantation-Tenancy-Land (under Purchase Certificates)?

Power of attorney

• M.S. Ananthamurthy v. J. Manjula: Mere Word ‘Irrevocable’ Does Not Make a POWER OF ATTORNEY Irrevocable
• Can a Power of Attorney file a Civil Suit? Is there any bar by virtue of Manisha Mahendra Gala v. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani, 2024-6 SCC 130?
• No Adjudication If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
• Notary-Attested Documents and Presumptions
• Permission when a Power of Attorney Holder Files Suit
• If Power of Attorney himself Executes the Document, S. 33 Registration Act will NOT be attracted
• Should a Power of Attorney for Sale must have been Registered –
• Is Registered Power of Attorney Necessary for Registration of a Deed? No.

Evidence Act – General

• Newspaper Reports are ‘Hearsay Secondary Evidence’
• Major Changes in the Evidence Act by Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• Sec. 27 Recovery/Discovery in Evidence Act and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• Evidence in Court – General Principles
• Expert Evidence and Appreciation of Evidence
• Handwriting Expert Evidence: Relevant, But Merely an Opinion
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
• 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

• 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
• Sec. 65B (Electronic Records) and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Arjun Paditrao Criticised.
• Sec. 65B Evidence Act Simplified
• ‘STATEMENTS’ alone can be proved by ‘CERTIFICATE’ u/s. 65B
• Sec. 65B,  Evidence Act: Certificate forms
• “Nothing In This Adhiniyam Shall Apply To Deny The Admissibility” – New Provision (Sec. 61, BSA) to ensure that Sec. 65B (Sec. 63, BSA) is an enabling provision
• Certificate is Required Only for ‘Computer Output’; Not for ‘Electronic Records’: Arjun Panditrao Explored.
• How to Prove ‘Whatsap Messages’, ‘Facebook’ and ‘Website’ in Courts?

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

• ‘Admission’ in Indian Law
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
• Handwriting Expert Evidence: Relevant, But Merely an Opinion
• Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• Judicial Admissions in Pleadings: Admissible Proprio Vigore Against the Maker
• Document Exhibited in the Writ Petition as ‘True Copy’ – Can it be Used in a Civil Suit as ‘Admission’?
• Modes of Proof of Documents
• Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Should Objection to Marking Documents be Raised When it is Admitted; Is it Enough to Challenge them in Cross-Examination?
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
• Burden on Plaintiff to Prove Title; Weakness of Defence Will Not Entitle a Decree
• Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Proof of Documents – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Can Documents be Marked In Cross Examination, If Witness Admits Them?
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting 
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
• Relevancy of Civil Case Judgments in Criminal Cases
• Prem Raj v.  Poonamma Menon (SC), April 2, 2024 – An Odd Decision on ‘Civil Court Judgment does not Bind Criminal Court’

Law on Documents

• Public Documents: Proof and Presumption
• Public Documents Admissible Without Formal Proof
• Admitted Documents – Can the Court Refrain from Marking, for no Formal Proof?
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• Is Registration of a Deed, Notice to Government?
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
• Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
• Effect of Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
• Time Limit for Registration of Documents
• Registration of Documents Executed out of India
• How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
• Are RTI Documents Admissible in Evidence as ‘Public Documents’?
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
• Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Notary-Attested Documents and Presumptions
• 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?
• 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?
• Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottay
• Visual and Audio Evidence (Including Photographs, Cassettes, Tape-recordings, Films, CCTV Footage, CDs, e-mails, Chips, Hard-discs, Pen-drives)
• Photograph Evidence, Its Admissibility and Photo-Identification in Court Cases
• Pictorial Testimony Theory and Silent Witnesses Theory
• No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
• Impounding of Documents – When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is Exhibited
• Sec. 35 Evidence Act: Presumption of Truth and Probative Value
• How to Prove Resolutions of a Company; Are Minutes Necessary?

Documents – Proof and Presumption

• Contents of a Document are to be Proved in Court by Producing Original or Secondary Evidence
• Handwriting Expert Evidence: Relevant, But Merely an Opinion
• Public Documents: Proof and Presumption
• 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

• What is the Period of Limitation for a Suit on a Promissory Note?
• Can Filing a Suit Amount to Notice of Termination of Contract
• Godrej Projects Development Limited v. Anil Karlekar, 2025 INSC 143 – Supreme Court Missed to State Something
• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’ in Indian Civil Laws
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian Law
• All Illegal Agreements are Void; but All Void Agreements are Not Illegal
• If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set Aside
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
• Cheating and Breach of Contract: Distinction – Fraudulent Intention at the time of Promise.

Law on Damages

• Law on Damages
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• Law on Damages in Defamation Cases
• Pleadings in Defamation Suits
• Godrej Projects Development Limited v. Anil Karlekar, 2025 INSC 143 – Supreme Court Missed to State Something

Easement

• Easement Simplified
• What is Easement? Does Right of Easement Allow to ‘Enjoy’ Servient Land After Making Improvements Therein ?
• “Implied Grant” in Law of Easements
• Implied Grant: A Valid Mode of Creation of Easement under Indian Law
• “Title Thereto” in the Definition of ‘Prescriptive Easement’ in Sec. 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882
• Prescriptive Rights – Inchoate until the Title thereof is Upheld by a Competent Court
• Will Easement of Necessity Ripen into a Prescriptive Easement?
• What is “period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit” in Easement by Prescription?
• Is the Basis of Every Easement, Theoretically, a Grant
• Extent of Easement (Width of Way) in Easement of Necessity, Quasi Easement and Implied Grant
• Easement of Necessity and Prescriptive Easement are Mutually Destructive; But, Easement of Necessity and Implied Grant Can be Claimed Alternatively
• Can Easement of Necessity and of Grant be Claimed in a Suit (Alternatively)?
• Can an Easement-Way be Altered by the Owner of the Land?
• Village Pathways and Right to Bury are not Easements.
• Custom & Customary Easements in Indian Law
• ‘Additional Burden Loses Lateral Support’ – Incorrect Proposition
• Grant in Law
• Travancore Grant Deeds, in Law
• Right of Private Way Beyond (Other Than) Easement
• Easement – Should Date of Beginning of 20 Years be pleaded?
• What is Easement, in law? Right of Easement Simplified
• One Year Interruption or Obstruction will not affect Prescriptive Easement
• Should the Plaintiff Schedule Servient Heritage in a Suit Claiming Perspective Easement?
• Necessary Parties in Suits on Easement
• Easement by Prescription – Grant or ‘Acquiring’ by “Hostile Act”
• Sec. 7 Easements Act – Natural Advantages Arising from the Situation of Land & Natural Flow of Water
• Licence and Irrevocable Licence: Section 60 Easements Act Applies only to ‘Bare Licences’ and Not to ‘Contractual Licences’

Stamp Act & Registration

• Sub-Registrar has no Authority to Ascertain whether the Vendor has Title
• Title Enquiry by the Sub Registrar is Illegal
• Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Settlement Deeds & Powers of Sub-Registrar in Cancelling Deeds
• Time-Limit For Adjudication of Unstamped Documents, before Collector
• Time Limit for Registration of Documents
• Presumptions on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
• Registration of Documents Executed out of India
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• Is Registration of a Deed, Notice to Government?
• LAW ON INSUFFICIENTLY STAMPED DOCUMENTS 
• Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
• Impounding of Documents, When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is Exhibited
• No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
• What is Torrens System

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