Chinmaya Mission Educational & Cultural Trust v. Sree Hari R. Menon, 2026 KER 56668 (CR): A Suit Cannot be Rejected if there is a ‘Cause of Action’, for the Plaint discloses One ESSENTIAL FACT that Gives Rise to a ‘Right to Sue’

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Abstract

Ratio Decidendi of Chinmaya Mission Educational & Cultural Trust, 2026 KER 56668:

• The High Court of Kerala (Syam Kumar V.M., J) considered what constitutes ‘Cause of Action’ under Order VII rule 11 CPC (plaint rejection).
• It found under Order VII rule 11 CPC:
  • No mini-trial –
    • to test the veracity or
    • the likelihood of success.
• The court solely assess the plaint,
  • assuming them to be true
    • taken as a whole,
    • see whether a prima facie cause of action, and
    • cannot embark on merits and legality of claim require evidence.

Facts in a Nutshell (Chinmaya Mission Educational & Cultural Trust Case)

• A student filed the suit against school management.
• He challenged fee increases and sought for formation of a PTA.
• The school management argued – no cause of action and suit was vexatious.
• The trial court dismissed the I.A under O. VII r. 11 . Defendants challenged this order.

Arguments of the Defendant

• Plaintiff had created an illusion of a cause of action.
• Only a bogus cause of action.
• Suit is liable to be struck down at the very inception.
• Plaint did not disclose any cause of action.
• Alleged failings regarding the conduct of the school did not constitute a ‘cause of action’.
• The school had been run adherence to the norms of the CBSE, which is the authority vested with the power to supervise and regulate the running of the school.
• Though arrayed as 3^rd defendant, no relief had been sought against the CBSE. It reveals the lack of bona fides in filing the suit.
• The suit is nothing, but an abuse of process of court.
• Though there were 2011 students in the school, the respondent alone had challenged the policy decision of the management.
• What had been put forth was not his individual grievance as a student. The suit, thus not having been filed on a representative capacity.
• There is lack of good faith in filing the suit.
• The petitioner school being a reputed institution.
• It was to maintain high stands of education and to ensure that competent teachers are employed. It was inevitable that the fee structure of an institution must be drawn up keeping in mind the infrastructure and facilities as mandated by the CBSE.
• It is the recognised principle of law that each institution must have the freedom to fix its own fee structure taking into consideration the need to generate funds to run the institution and to provide facilities necessary for the benefit of the students.

Decisions Relied on by the Defendants

• Patasibai and others v. Ratanlal [(1990) 2 SCC 42];
• T.Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and another [(1977) 4 SCC 467 and
• Vinod Pathak v. Shankar Chaudhary [2025 (5) KHC SN 22].
• M. Aamira Fathima and others v. Annamalai University and others [2018 KHC 6503] and
• Nesammal and others v. Edward and others [1999 AIHC 470].
• State of Kerala and others v. V.D.Vincent [2018 (3) KLT 677];
• Prema Kumari C.V. v. C.V. Pavithran and others [2018 (5) KHC 943];
• Anand Anoop v. Union of India and others [2014 (3) KLT 171] and
• The Principal, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar Vidhya Mandir v. Sankara Narayanan and others (W.A.No.1662 of 2018 in W.P.(C) No.22249 of 2018 of this Court).

Arguments of the Plaintiff

• The impugned order does not call for any interference.
• It is on the well-settled principle that
  • cause of action needs to be prima facie seen as per the averments in the plaint itself and
  • no further enquiry regarding the cause of action is needed at the threshold.
• The plaint averments prima facie reveals a cause of action.
• It had also been concluded by the learned Munsiff – with regard to the applicability of Education Act, disputes as to the fee structure, prayer to constitute a parent-teacher association etc. are questions which cannot be decided at the threshold and-
  • they can be considered only after adducing evidence on both sides;and
  • they require tendering and appreciation of evidence.
• The Munsiff had concluded that averments in the plaint itself reveal that the plaintiff had a cause of action of his own, which is not a cause of action applicable to each and every student of the school.
• A specified amount has been received by the school from the plaintiff as donation on a particular date and he has been directed to pay the said amount.
• Similarly a specified amount as fee in the increased rate within a prescribed period had also been claimed from the plaintiff by the school, against which he had sought a relief in the suit.
• Such reliefs sought affect the individual only, even though similar reliefs could have been sought by some other students of the school too.
• That no other student took up such a cause does not by itself render the suit to be maintained only in a representative capacity or in the nature of a representative suit.
• Distinction between ‘ no cause of action’ and ‘the plaint does not disclose cause of action’: Reliance is placed on State of Orissa v. Klockner and Company [1996 KHC 1115 – SC] to highlight the distinction.

The Often Recurring Question on O. VII r. 11(a): What Constitutes a ‘Cause of Action’

The conscientious Judge began the Order with the following observation:

• “The often recurring question as to what constitutes a ‘cause of action’ for the purposes of Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (C.P.C.) again comes up for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition.”

Findings in brief: ‘Cause of Action’ EVERY ESSENTIAL FACT Gives Rise To A Right To Sue

The Supreme Court and various High Courts have held –

• For the purposes of Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a “cause of action” means the bundle of material facts which the plaintiff must plead and, if disputed, prove in order to obtain the relief claimed.
• It comprises every essential fact that gives rise to the plaintiff’s right to sue, but does not include the evidence by which those facts are to be established.

The High Court referred the following decisions:

1. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India [(2004) 6 SCC 254]

It was held by the Supreme Court as under:

• “6. Cause of action implies a right to sue. The material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitute the cause of action. Cause of action is not defined in any statute. It has, however, been judicially interpreted inter alia to mean that every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Negatively put, it would mean that everything which, if not proved, gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be part of cause of action. Its importance is beyond any doubt. For every action, there has to be a cause of action, if not, the paint or the writ petition, as the case may be, shall be rejected summarily.”

2. Mohan Rawale v. Damodar Tatyaba [(1994) 2 SCC 392]

It was held as under:

• “A reasonable cause of action is said to mean a cause of action with some chances of success when only the allegations in the pleading are considered. But so long as the claim discloses some cause of action or raises some questions fit to be decided by a Judge, the mere fact that the case is weak and not likely to succeed is no ground for striking it out. The implications of the liability of the pleadings to be struck out on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action are quite often more known than clearly understood. It does introduce another special demurrer in a new shape. The failure of the pleadings to disclose a reasonable cause of action is distinct from the absence of full particulars.

3. Swamy Atmananda v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam [(2005) 10 SCC 51]

It was held as follows:

• “24. A cause of action, thus, means every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act, no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded.

The Next Question – When it could be said that the plaint ‘discloses a cause of action’

1. T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467]

Referring T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal it is observed by the High Court that the test for exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11, is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court held – what is required to be decided is to ascertain whether the plaint discloses a ‘real’ cause of action, or something purely illusory. It was held therein as follows:

• “5. …The learned Munsiff must remember that if on a meaningful – not formal – reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing …”

2. Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali [2020 SCC OnLine SC 562]

In Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, the Supreme Court has held that under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast on the Court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law. It was further held as under:

• “12.7 The test for exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 is that if the averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same result in a decree being passed. This test was laid down in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V.Sea Success I & Anr., which reads as :
• “139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. But whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said purpose, the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would be passed.”
• In Hardesh Ores (P.) Ltd. v. Hede & Co. the Court further held that it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage, and to read it in isolation. It is the substance, and not merely the form, which has to be looked into. The plaint has to be construed as it stands, without addition or subtraction of words. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact.”

3. Manjula v. D.A. Srinivas [2026 SCC OnLine SC 831]

In Manjula v. D.A. Srinivas [2026 SCC OnLine SC 831], after a reference to Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar [2025 SCC OnLine SC 793], held that the rejection of a plaint under the grounds mentioned under Order VII Rule 11 is essentially determinable on the basis of the averments contained in the plaint.

The High Court Explained the Decisions Relied on by the Defendants

In Chinmaya Mission Educational & Cultural Trust v. Sree Hari R. Menon, 2026 KER 56668, the Kerala High Court Explained the following decisions relied on thy the defendants:  

• T. Arivandandam (supra)
• Nesammal (supra)
• M.A.Amira Fathima (supra)
• The Principal, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar Vidhyala Mandir (supra)

Prema Kumari v. Pavithran [2018 (5) KHC 943]: A Note of caution on T. Arivandandam 

It is held in Chinmaya Mission Educational & Cultural Trust v. Sree Hari R. Menon as under:

• “In Prema Kumari C.V. v. C.V. Pavithran [2018 (5) KHC 943] the Kerala High Court had cautioned the subordinate courts not to understand the principles laid down in T. Arivandandam (supra) to mean that under any and all circumstances, a plaint can be rejected for reasons not mentioned in Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. It was held that it is the inviolable general rule that a plaint can be rejected only under the grounds of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, but at the same time, it should be borne in mind that the grounds of rejection stated in Rule 11 of Order VII are not exhaustive. It was thus clarified in Premakumari (supra) that a plaint can be rejected even for reasons not covered by Order VII Rule 11 of the Court if there are grave situations which may result in an abuse of the process of court or which may tend to promote frivolous, vexatious, and meritless litigations. This Court therein had further observed that it is only in extraordinary situations, that extraordinary remedies could be resorted to.”

Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi [1986 (supp) SCC 315] – No Mechanical Application of Nesammal (supra)

It is held in Chinmaya Mission Educational & Cultural Trust v. Sree Hari R. Menon as under:

• “It is trite that a plaint can indeed be rejected and ought to be rejected if found to be vexatious or, upon reading of the allegations therein, it is revealed that the same is an abuse of process of law. The said dictum settled in Nesammal (supra) and relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is no longer open to dispute. However, it is also settled that there cannot be a mechanical application of the said dictum. It would be apposite to reproduce the observations in Azhar Hussain V. Rajiv Gandhi [1986 (supp) SCC 315] reproduced in Nesammal (supra) explaining the power of rejection of a plaint vested in a civil court, which reads as follows:
• “The whole purpose of conferment of such powers is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to occupy the time of the court and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of democles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even in an ordinary civil litigation, the court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint if it does not disclose any cause of action. Or the power to direct the concerned party to strike out unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious parts of the pleadings, or such other pleadings which are likely to cause embarrassment or delay the fair trial of the action or which is otherwise an abuse of the process of law.”

M.A. Amira Fathima (supra) and Principal, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar Vidhyala (supra)

M.A. Amira Fathima (supra) and  The Principal, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar Vidhyala Mandir (supra)  are distinguished in Chinmaya Mission Educational & Cultural Trust v. Sree Hari R. Menon, pointing out to the following effect:

• The question as to whether the educational institutions are entitled to fix their own fee structure, and each institute must have the freedom to fix its own fee structure, taking into consideration the needs to generate funds to run the institution and to provide facilities necessary for the benefit of the students and for the betterment and growth of that educational institution are –
• aspects concern the merit of the matter, sustainability of which could only be decided after a trial.
• They cannot be a reason to reject a plaint on the ground of lack of cause of action by invoking Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C.

Conclusion in Chinmaya Mission Educational & Cultural Trust v. Sree Hari R. Menon

Chinmaya Mission Educational & Cultural Trust v. Sree Hari R. Menon concluded as under:

• The learned Munsiff rightly proceeded on the settled principle that, while considering an application questioning the maintainability of a suit at the threshold, particularly one seeking rejection of the plaint, the Court is required to confine its examination solely to the averments contained in the plaint and the documents, if any, produced.
• At that stage, the Court is neither expected nor permitted to embark upon an enquiry into the truthfulness, correctness, or evidentiary sufficiency of the allegations pleaded therein.
• The existence of a cause of action is to be determined on a meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole, assuming the averments therein to be true for the limited purpose of deciding whether the suit is maintainable.
• The Munsiff had unequivocally concluded that the plaint, on its face, disclosed a prima facie cause of action warranting adjudication through a regular trial.
• The applicability of the provisions of the Education Act, the legality of the fee structure adopted by the institution, and the maintainability of the relief sought for issuance of a direction to constitute a Parent-Teacher Association, are all questions that involve disputed questions of fact as well as mixed questions of law and fact.
• Such questions could not have been conclusively determined merely on the basis of pleadings at the threshold without affording the parties an opportunity to substantiate their respective contentions through oral and documentary evidence. All these matters could be  adjudicated after a full-fledged trial and upon appreciation of the evidence placed on record.
• Premature adjudication of these issues at the stage of considering the maintainability of the suit would have amounted to conducting a mini trial, which is not permissible in law.
• The learned Munsiff had rightfully forebeared from doing so.
• The plaint having disclosed a prima facie cause of action, the suit was liable to proceed to trial, where the rival claims can be adjudicated on their respective merits in accordance with law.

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

• Venkatesha v. KM Venkatamuniyappa: A Rectification Deed Cannot, in the Guise of Correcting an Error, Substitute the Very Subject Matter
• Striking off defence under Order XV Rule 5 CPC (U.P. Amendment): Consequence is Drastic; Mere Denial of the Landlord–Tenant Relationship Not Absolve Tenant from the Statutory Obligation to Deposit  Rent
• Maurice W. Innis v. Lily Kazrooni – Executing Court Executes Decree as it Stands, Without any Modification. It cannot Go Beyond or Vary its  Term
• Channappa v.   Parvatewwa, 2026 INSC 343: Suit Dismissed for Order II Rule 2 Bar: For No ‘Consequential Declaration’ on Title, in the Earlier Suit  
• Applicability of Res Judicata on IA Orders (at Different Stages of the Same Suit)  
• Rejection of Plaint is a Procedural Termination, and Dismissal of Suit on Preliminary Issue is a Summary Decision on  Merits
• Can a Suit be Rejected on the Inherent Power of the  Court?
• Did the Supreme Court Depart From its Earlier Position in Hussain Ahmed Choudhury v. Habibur Rahman, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 892, in its Subsequent Decision in Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi, 2025 INSC  1105?
• Time City Infrastructure and Housing Ltd v. State of UP: Non-Compliance in taking Postal Steps – Court Should Vacate the Ad-Interim Injunction  Order
• “Due Process of Law” in Civil  Suits
• Can a suit be Rejected (Order VII rule 11 CPC) on the Ground of Res  Judicata?
• Operation Asha   v. Shelly Batra, a Landmark Judgment on Sec. 92 CPC– Critical  Appreciation
• If a Sharer Dies & the LRs are Not Impleaded – Partition Suit as a Whole Abates. But the Court SHOULD Direct Either Side to Take Steps to Bring in the Legal  Heirs
• Order IX Rule 9 CPC: Earlier Suit for Injunction; Subsequent Suit for Recovery & Injunction – No  Bar
• H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar: An ‘Aggrieved’ Stranger or a ‘Prejudicially Affected’ Third-Party (also) Can File Appeal with the ‘Leave of the  Court’.
• Replication, Rejoinder and Amendment of  Pleadings
• Can a Suit be Withdrawn in Appeal, on the Ground that Appeal is Continuation of the  Suit?
• Suit and Counterclaim – No Necessity of Two Decrees; No Need for Two Appeals: Basudev v. Sanjay Kumar
• Does  Registration of a Document give  Notice to the Whole  World?
• Suit under Sec. 6, Specific Relief Act – Is it a ‘Summary Suit’ under Order XXXVII  CPC?
• Is it Mandatory to Lift the Attachment on Dismissal of the Suit? Will the Attachment Orders Get Revived on Restoration of  Suit?
• Will Interlocutory Orders and Applications Get Revived on Restoration of  Suit?
• Can an ‘Ex-parte’ Defendant Cross Examine Plaintiff’s  Witness?
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence  Act
• Civil Rights and Jurisdiction of Civil  Courts
• Res Judicata and Constructive Res  Judicata
• Constructive Res Judicata
• Applicability of Res Judicata on IA Orders (at Different Stages of the Same Suit)  
• Res Judicata and Judicial  Precedent
• What is Binding Judicial Precedent – In a  Nutshell
• Divergent Decisions of Co-Equal Benches and Doctrine of Decisions ‘PER INCURIAM’
• No Res judicata on Finding on Title in an Injunction  Suit
• Res Judicata: ‘Same issue’ must have been ‘Adjudicated’ in the former&nb sp;suit
• Res Judicata and Appeal: No Res Judicata on Adverse Findings, in a Favourable  Decree
• Principles of Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
• 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&nbs p;parents?
• Principles of Equity in Indian  Law
• Thangam v.   Navamani Ammal: Did the Supreme Court lay down – Written Statements which deal with each allegation specifically, but not “para-wise”, are  vitiated?
• No Criminal Case on a Dispute Essentially Civil in  Nature.
• Doctrine of Substantial Representation in  Suits
• Order I rule 8, CPC (Representative Suit) When and How? Whether Order I rule 8 Decree  is Enforceable in  Execution?
• Appointment of Guardian for Persons Suffering from Disability or Illness: Inadequacy of Law – Shame to Law Making  Institutions
• Can Documents be Marked In Cross Examination, If Witness Admits  Them?
• Why Should Foundational or Crucial Documents Be Produced Along With the Plaint or  WS
• Fraudulent  or Void Transaction: Is ‘Declaration’ Necessary? No is the Answer: Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi, 2025 INSC  1105.
• Civil Court to Adjudicate Title; Land Tribunal to Fix Tenancy; Taluk Land Board to Determine Plantation Exemption

Principles and Procedure

• Copyright and Copyright Infringement – Indian  Law
• Doctrines of ‘Legislation by Reference’ and ‘Legislation by  Incorporation’
• What is the Period of Limitation for a Suit on a Promissory  Note?
• Relevancy of a Civil Case Judgment in Criminal Cases: Does a Civil Court Judgment Bind a Criminal  Court?
• When can (i) a ‘Victim’ File an Appeal in a Criminal Case and   (ii) an ‘Aggrieved Person’ File an Appeal in a Civil  Case?
• Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu,  2025 INSC 828 – ‘Victim’ Can File an Appeal in a Criminal  Case
• BURDEN of PROOF: 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’.
• Suit and Counterclaim – No Necessity of Two Decrees; No Need for Two Appeals: Basudev v. Sanjay Kumar
• Our Courts  Apply Different ‘STANDADARDS of  Proof’
• Ratio Decidendi (alone) Forms a Precedent, Not a Final  Order
• What is Binding Judicial Precedent – In a  Nutshell
• Divergent Decisions of Co-Equal Benches and Doctrine of Decisions ‘PER INCURIAM’
• BNSS – Major Changes from  CrPC
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Important Changes from the Indian Penal  Code
• Substantive Rights and Mistakes & Procedural Defects in Judicial  Proceedings
• Can Documents be Marked In Cross Examination, If Witness Admits  Them?
• Will Boundaries of Properties (Always) Preferred Over Survey Number, Extent, Side Measurements,  etc.?
• Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a  Decree
• In a Suit for Fixation of Boundary, Property of the Defendant Need Not be  Scheduled
• All Illegal Agreements are Void; but All Void Agreements are Not  Illegal
• Doctrines on Ultra Vires, Rule of Law, Judicial Review, Nullification of Mandamus, and Removing the BASIS of the Judgment
• Can an ‘Ex-parte’ Defendant Cross Examine Plaintiff’s  Witness?
• Will – Probate and Letters of  Administration
• Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of  Evidence
• Effect of Not Cross-Examining a Witness & Effect of Not Facing Complete Cross-Examination by the  Witness
• Suggestions & Admissions by Counsel, in Cross Examination to  Witnesses
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer  Title
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian  Law
• 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

• Title Deed Lost and Certified Copy Unavailable: The Law Does Not Leave the Owner Without a Remedy
• Right to Property: A Constitutional and Human Right That Cannot Be Taken Away on Mere Technical Grounds of Delay or the Fault of Public Authorities
• Gratuitous Possession – Owner can Reclaim Even Without Knowledge of the  Other
• Suit on Possessory Remedy, Other side Admits Possession; Should the Will be  Proved?
• M.V. Ramachandrasa v.   Mahendra Watch Company, 2026 INSC 348: Decision on Subletting Without Consent of  Landlord
• ‘Nemo Dat Quod Non  Habet’
• Section 27,  Limitation Act Gives-Rise to a Substantive Right so as to Seek Declaration and  Recovery
• Sale Deeds Without Consideration –  Void
• Tenancy at Sufferance in Indian  Law
• “Due Process of Law” in Civil  Suits
• 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
• In Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2026:KER:19290), it is Held: No Findings on Title in the Previous Decision – Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2018 (2) KLT 369
• FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a  Foreigner
• Marumakkathayam – A System of Law and Way of Life Prevailed in  Kerala
• Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in  Kerala
• Glen Leven Estate v. State of Kerala: Not Correctly  Decided?
• Sale Deeds Without Consideration –  Void
• If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set  Aside
• Law on SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE and LEGAL HEIRSHIP  CERTIFICATE
• Sec. 7 Easements Act – Natural Advantages Arising from the Situation of Land & Natural Flow of  Water
• Grant in Law
• Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery  Suits
• Title of the Government Property in India: Government is the Ultimate Owner of Every Property; Hence, Government Need Not Prove  Title.
• Survey under Survey Act – Raises a Presumption on  Boundary; though Not Confer  Title
• Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a  Decree
• In a Suit for Fixation of Boundary, Property of the Defendant Need Not be  Scheduled
• Property Rights Cannot be Taken Away on Technical Grounds of  Delay:  Rama S/o Gunda Malkapure v. The State of Maharashtra

Land Reform Laws

• 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)?
• Civil Court to Adjudicate Title; Land Tribunal to Fix Tenancy; Taluk Land Board to Determine Plantation Exemption

Power of attorney

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

Evidence Act – General

• A Defective Legislative Piece as regards Documents “Admitted in Writing” in the (Old) Evidence Act is Corrected in S. 58 of the BSA
• Tharammel Peethambaran vs T. Ushakrishnan, Pankaj Mithal, S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.,  AIR 2026 SC 938: A Classic Decision on Secondary Evidence
• Newspaper Reports are ‘Hearsay Secondary  Evidence’
• Marking Secondary Evidence Without Objection: Two Apparently Divergent Views on Waiver and the Mode of Proof of Documents
• Major Changes in the Evidence Act by Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,  2023
• Sec. 27 Recovery/Discovery in Evidence Act and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,  2023
• Evidence in Court – General  Principles
• Expert Evidence and Appreciation of  Evidence
• Handwriting Expert Evidence: Relevant, But Merely an  Opinion
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence  Act
• Can a Witness be Confronted with a Photograph During Cross-Examination Without its Prior  Production (Anu C.R. v. State of Kerala)
• Withholding Evidence and Adverse Inference
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian  Law
• What is Collateral  Purpose?
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting  Onus
• Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of  Evidence
• Effect of Not Cross-Examining a Witness & Effect of Not Facing Complete Cross Examination by the  Witness
• Suggestions & Admissions by Counsel, in Cross Examination to  Witnesses
• Proof of Documents  –  Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Public Documents: Proof and  Presumption
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer  Title
• How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered  Will?
• Significance of Scientific Evidence in Judicial  Process
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• What is Section 27 Evidence Act – Recovery or  Discovery?
• How ‘Discovery’ under Section 27, Evidence Act,  Proved?
• Pictorial Testimony Theory and Silent Witnesses  Theory
• Sec. 35 Evidence Act: Presumption of Truth and Probative  Value
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence  Act

Sec. 65B

• Grammatically and Contextually, the Non Obstante Clause in Section 63(1) BSA is Confined to the Deeming Fiction
• Is a Section 63(4) Certificate an Essential Prerequisite for the Admission of a Photograph in  Evidence?
• Admissibility of Electronic Evidence: Does Section 61 of the BSA Permit Oral Proof (Overriding Arjun  Panditrao)
• Law on Electronic Evidence in India: A Comparative Analysis with Other  Jurisdictions
• Hash Value Certificate – Mandatory or  Directory
• Sakshya Adhiniyam (Literally) Mandates Hashing the Original. But the Established Jurisprudence Requires Hashing the  Copy.
• Sec. 27 Recovery/Discovery in Evidence Act and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,  2023
• Electronic Evidence under   S. 61, 62, 63 of the  BSA
• Sec. 65B (Electronic Records) and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,  2023
• Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Arjun Paditrao  Criticised.
• Sec. 65B Evidence Act  Simplified
• ‘STATEMENTS’ alone can be proved by ‘CERTIFICATE’ u/s. 65B
• Sec. 65B,   Evidence Act: Certificate forms
• “Nothing  In This Adhiniyam Shall Apply To Deny The Admissibility” – New Provision (Sec. 61, BSA) to ensure that Sec. 65B (Sec. 63, BSA) is an enabling&nbs p;provision
• Certificate is Required Only for ‘Computer Output’; Not for ‘Electronic Records’: Arjun Panditrao  Explored.
• How to Prove ‘Whatsap Messages’, ‘Facebook’ and ‘Website’ in  Courts?

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

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

Law on Documents

• Public Documents: Proof and  Presumption
• Public Documents Admissible Without Formal  Proof
• Admitted Documents – Can the Court Refrain from Marking, for no Formal  Proof?
• Does  Registration of a Document give  Notice to the Whole  World?
• Is Registration of a Deed, Notice to  Government?
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of  Documents
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of  Documents
• Admission of Documents in Evidence on  ‘Admission’
• Effect of Marking Documents Without  Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
• Time Limit for Registration of  Documents
• Registration of Documents Executed out of  India
• How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered  Will?
• Are RTI Documents Admissible in Evidence as ‘Public  Documents’?
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
• Proof of  Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Notary-Attested Documents and Presumptions
• Documents Produced With the Plaint are Treated As ‘Part of The  Plaint’
• What is Collateral  Purpose?
• No Application Needed for  Filing or Admitting  Copy
• Presumptions on Documents  and Truth of  Contents
• Presumptions on  Registered Documents  & Truth of Contents
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil  Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule  12
• Modes of Proof of  Documents
• Secondary Evidence  of Documents & Objections to Admissibility  – How &  When?
• Tharammel Peethambaran vs T. Ushakrishnan, Pankaj Mithal, S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.,  AIR 2026 SC 938: A Classic Decision on Secondary Evidence
• Marking Secondary Evidence Without Objection: Two Apparently Divergent Views on Waiver and the Mode of Proof of Documents
• Should Objection to Marking Documents be Raised When it is Admitted; Is it Enough to Challenge them in Cross-Examination?
• 30 Years Old Documents and Presumption of Truth of Contents,  under  Sec. 90 Evidence  Act
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral  Purpose
• Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp  Act
• Marking Documents Without  Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Settlement Deeds & Powers of Sub-Registrar in cancelling  Deeds
• Cancellation, Avoidance or Declaration of a Void or Voidable  Deed
• If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set  Aside
• Can the True Owner Seek Cancellation  of a Deed, Executed by a Stranger to the  Property
• Substantive  Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting  
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence  Act
• Can a Witness be Confronted with a Photograph During Cross-Examination Without its Prior  Production?
• 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
• Marking Secondary Evidence Without Objection: Two Apparently Divergent Views on Waiver and the Mode of Proof of Documents
• Handwriting Expert Evidence: Relevant, But Merely an  Opinion
• Public Documents: Proof and  Presumption
• Is a Section 63(4) Certificate an Essential Prerequisite for the Admission of a Photograph in  Evidence?
• Can the Court Refuse to Mark a (Relevant and Admissible) Document, for (i) there is No Formal Proof or (ii) it is a  Photocopy?
• Photograph Evidence, Its Admissibility and Photo-Identification in Court  Cases
• Marking of Photocopy and Law on Marking Documents on Admission (Without Formal  Proof)
• Proof of Documents  –  Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence  Act
• Modes of Proof of  Documents
• ‘Admission’ in Indian  Law
• Marking Documents Without  Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence  Act
• Admitted Documents – Can the Court Refrain from Marking, for no Formal  Proof?
• Admission of Documents in Evidence on  ‘Admission’
• Effect of Marking Documents Without  Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
• Proof of  Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Should Objection to Marking Documents be Raised When it is Admitted; Is it Enough to Challenge them in Cross-Examination?
• Presumptions on Documents  and Truth of  Contents
• Presumptions on  Registered Documents  & Truth of Contents
• Secondary Evidence  of Documents & Objections to Admissibility  – How &  When?
• 30 Years Old Documents and Presumption of Truth of Contents,  under  Sec. 90 Evidence  Act

Interpretation

• Interpretation of Documents – Literal Rule, Mischief Rule and Golden  Rule
• Golden  Rule of Interpretation is Misapplied in Several Cases in  India
• Interpretation of  Statutes  – Literal Rule, Mischief Rule and Golden  Rule
• Golden  Rule of Interpretation is Not the Application of Plain Meaning of the  Words
• Interpretation of Wills
• Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of  Evidence‘
• Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a  Decree

Contract Act

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

Specific Relief Act

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

Law on Damages

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

Easement

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

Stamp Act & Registration

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

Natural Justice/Disciplinary Action

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

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

Divorce/Marriage

• Presumption of Valid Marriage – If lived together for Long  Spell
• Validity of Foreign Divorce Decrees in  India
• Is  ‘Irretrievable Brake-down of Marriage’, a  Valid Ground for Divorce in  India?
• Foreign Divorce Judgment against Christians having Indian  Domicile

Negotiable Instruments Act

• Does a Cheque-Case under NI Act Lie Against a Partnership/ Trust/  Society?
• Partnership Firm Need Not be an Accused in S. 138 NI Act  Complaint
• Mansi Finance (Chennai) Ltd. v. M. Lalitha (2026 INSC 547, May 26, 2026.): Cheque Bounce (NI Act) Cases: No Deemed Liability to the Directors of a Company or Society; The Complaint Must Disclose Factual  Basis
• Presumptions Regarding Consideration in Cheque Cases under the NI  Act
• An Inchoate Cheque (Signed Blank Cheque or Incomplete Cheque) Cannot be Enforced Through a Court of Law Invoking Presumptions under the NI  Act
• Does Cheque-Case under Sec. 138, NI Act Lie Against a  Trust?
• Sec. 138 NI Act (Cheque) Cases: Presumption of Consideration u/s. 118
• Even if ‘Signed-Blank-Cheque’, No Burden on Complainant to Prove Consideration; Rebuttal can be by a Probable  Defence
• “Otherwise Through an Account” in Section 142, NI  Act
• Where to file Cheque Bounce Cases (Jurisdiction of Court – to file NI Act  Complaint)?
• Cheque Dishonour Case against a Company, Firm or  Society
• What is ‘Cognizance’ in  Law
• What is COGNIZANCE and Application of Mind by a  Magistrate?

Criminal

• Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. The State of Gujarat: The police have no discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR in cognizable  offences
• Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. The State of Karnataka: Supreme Court held – Commission of Cognizable Offence, On the Face of it, Merit Police Investigation
• ‘Prima Facie Case’ in Criminal  Cases

Arbitration

• Seesaw of Supreme Court in NN Global Mercantile v. Indo Unique  Flame
• N.N. Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. and Ground Realities of Indian  Situation
• What are Non-Arbitrable Disputes? When a Dispute is Not Referred to Arbitration in spite of Arbitration  Clause
• Termination or Nullity of Contract Will Not Cease Efficacy of the Arbitration  Clause
• No Valid Arbitration Agreement ‘Exists’ – Can Arbitration Clause be  Invoked?

Will

• Interpretation of Wills
• Interpretation of Inconsistent Clauses in a  Will
• Executors of Will – Duties & their  Removal
• A Witness to Hindu-Will will not Lose  Benefit
• Will – Probate and Letters of  Administration
• How to Write a Will? Requirements of a Valid  Will
• Witnesses to the Will Need Not See the Execution of the  Will
• How to Prove a Will, in Court? Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered  Will?
• When Execution of a Will is ‘Admitted’ by the Opposite Side, Should it be ‘Proved’?
• 30 Years Old Documents- No ‘Absolute’ Presumption of Truth of Contents, under Sec. 90 Evidence  Act
• Suit on Possessory Remedy, Other side Admits Possession; Should the Will be  Proved?
• Presumption on Registered Documents & Truth of  Contents
• Presumptions on Documents and Truth of  Contents
• Parvathi Nairthi v. Laxmi Nairthy: Deprivation of Natural Heirs Not Amount to Suspicious Circumstance; A Will is not Required to be Proved with Mathematical Accuracy; Unregistered Will is  Valid.

Book No.  2:  A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

• Judicial & Legislative Activism in India: Principles and  Instances
• Can Legislature Overpower Court Decisions by an  Enactment?
• Separation of Powers: Who Wins the Race – Legislature or Judiciary?
• Kesavananda Bharati Case: Never Ending  Controversy
• Mullaperiyar Dam: Disputes and Adjudication of Legal  Issues
• Article 370: Is There Little Chance for Supreme Court  Interference
• Maratha Backward Community Reservation: SC Fixed Limit at  50%.
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• CAA Challenge: Divergent  Views
• FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a  Foreigner
• Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian  Law
• Doctrines on Ultra Vires and Removing the BASIS of the Judgment, in ED Director’s Tenure Extension Case (Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of  India)
• Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India – Mandamus (Given in a Case) Cannot be Annulled by Changing the  Law
• Art. 370 – Turns the Constitution on Its  Head

Religious issues

• Sabarimala Review: Supreme Court to Decide the Contours of Constitutional  Morality
• Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian  Constitution
• Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian  Panorama
• ‘Ban on Muslim Women to Enter Mosques, Unconstitutional’
• No Reservation to Muslim and Christian SCs/STs (Dalits) Why?
• Parsi Women – Excommunication for Marrying Outside
• Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of  India
• Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge  Bench
• SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee  Case
• Ayodhya  Disputes:  M. Siddiq case –Pragmatic Verdict

Book No.  3:  Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

• General
  • General  Features
  • Bye Laws  Fundamental
  • Effect of Registration of Societies and Incorporation of  Clubs
  • Societies and Branches
• Property & Trust
  • Vesting of Property in Societies and  Clubs
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and  Societies
  • Can a Trust be Registered as a  Society? Can a Society be Converted into a  Trust?
  • Juristic Personality of Societies and  Clubs
  • Legal Personality of Trustees and Office Bearers
• Suits
  • Suits and Criminal Complaints By and Against a Company
  • Suits By or Against Societies, Clubs
  • Court’s Jurisdiction to Interfere in the Internal Affairs
  • How to Sue Societies, Clubs and  Companies
  • Members of a Charitable Society which Runs a College are Tractable to Prevention of Corruption  Act
  • Does a Cheque-Case under NI Act Lie Against a Partnership/ Trust/  Society?
  • Lifting Corporate Veil of Companies and Subsidiary  Companies
• Amendment and Dissolution
  • Amendment of Bye laws of Societies and  Clubs
  • Dissolution of Societies and  Clubs
• Rights and Management
  • Rights & Liabilities of Members of Clubs and  Societies
  • Individual Membership Rights in Societies & Clubs
  • Management – Powers of General Body and Governing  Body
  • Expulsion of Members & Removal of  Office-Bearers
  • Law on Meetings: An  Overview
  • Adjournment of Meetings and Polling of Associations
  • How to Prove Resolutions of a Company; Are Minutes  Necessary?
• Election
  • Election & Challenge in Societies and  Clubs
  • Court Interference in Election  Process
• State Actions
  • State-Interference in Affairs of Societies &  Clubs
• Disciplinary Proceedings Against Employees Co-Operative Societies

Book No.  4:  Common Law of TRUSTS in India

• General Principles
  • Classification of Trusts
  • What is Trust in Law?
  • Public & Private Trusts in  India.
  • Trust is ‘An Obligation’; Not a Legal Entity
  • Indian Law Does Not Accept Salmond, as to Dual  Ownership
  • Trusts and Trust  Deeds
  • Lucknow Nagar Nigam v. Kohli Brothers Colour Lab, 2024-2 SCR  847
• Dedication and Vesting
  • Dedication of Property in Public  Trusts
  • Vesting of Property in  Trusts
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and  Societies
  • Can a Trust be Registered as a  Society? Can a Society be Converted into a  Trust?
  • What is Munambam Wakf Land Issue? If there is No Permanent Dedication, there will be No  Wakf.
• Trustees and Management
  • Trustees and Administration of Public Trusts
  • Alienation of Public Trust  Property
  • Extinction, Discharge, Revocation, etc. of Public  Trusts
  • Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920: Provisions as regards opinion, advice or direction of the  Court.
• Breach of Trust
  • Breach of Trust and Removal of Trustees
• Suits by or against Trusts
  • Suits By or Against Trusts and Trustees
  • A Trust Cannot Be Made as a Party  to a  Litigation
  • Remedies Under Sec. 92  CPC
  • Operation Asha   v. Shelly Batra, a Landmark Judgment on Sec. 92, CPC – Critical  Appreciation
  • Does a Cheque-Case under NI Act Lie Against a Partnership/ Trust/  Society?
• Law on Hindu Religious  Endowments
  • Philosophy of  Idol  Worship
  • Is an Idol a Perpetual  Minor?
  • Hindu Temples & Law of  Trusts
  • Law of Mutts and Other Hindu Endowments
  • Shebaits & Mahants and Law of Trustees
• Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and  Mosques  –  General
  • Legal Personality of Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and  Mosques
• Constitutional Principles
  • Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian  Constitution
  • Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian  Panorama
  • ‘Muslim Women: Ban to Enter Mosques, Is it Unconstitutional
  • Parsi Women Excommunication, Unconstitutional.
  • Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of  India
  • State & Court – Protectors of All Charities
  • Striking Down Legislation Relating to a Trust as Violative of  Article 14 and  300A
• Ayodhya and Sabarimala Disputes
  • Ayodhya  Disputes:  M. Siddiq case – Pragmatic Verdict
  • Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge  Bench
  • SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee  Case
• General
  • Public Trusts and (State) Endowments/Trusts Acts
  • Public Trusts and Indian Trusts Act – An  Overview
  • Business by Charitable Trusts &  Institutions