Adverse Possession is the Denial of Title of the True Owner. Mistaken or Fraudulent Possession will Not be ‘Adverse’.

Jojy George Koduvath

Abstract

Illegal, mistaken or fraudulent registration of a deed, and subsequent mutation will not perfect adverse possession. Because,

• If a fraudulent act, no denial. 
• There will be no hostile animus.
• A registered deed, is a paper transaction.
• The Sub Registrar does not enquire title .
• Mutation of Govt. land – no adverse possession.
• Adverse Possession must have commenced in wrong. 
• Registration of a deed is not a ‘notice’ to the true owner or the Government.
• Payment of tax on “Government” property – no “adverse” claim can be raised.
• Registration of the title deed by itself will not cure the inherent defect in the title.

Part I

Adverse Possession: When Attracted

1. To attract title by adverse possession, the acts of possession must be –

• peaceful, notorious, open and hostile to the true owner
• for 12 years,
• ‘commenced in wrong and aimed against right‘
• admitting the title of the true owner.

2. Adverse possession is expressed in the classical formulation of adverse possession in the Latin maxim: “nec vi, nec clam, nec precario”

• That is –
  • not by force: nec vi,
  • not in secrecy: nec clam
  • not by permission: nec precario.

3. Mere possession, however long, will not give rise to title by adverse possession.

4. Claim of title by adverse possession cannot be validly raised based (i) on a defective (for nemo dat quod applies) title or (ii) on a fraudulent title deed, for

• the claim of title on adverse possession is based on “adverse” claims against the true owner, accepting his title and
• the claim presupposes the claimant has no subsisting or legally recognisable title and no title deed in support thereof.

5. Under the changed law in the 1963 Limitation Act, what is in the mind (animus) of the claimant of the Adverse Possession is decisive.

Also Read: How to Plead Adverse Possession? Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept.

Illegal, Mistaken or Fraudulent Registration of Deed, and Subsequent Mutation: No Adverse Possession

Illegal, mistaken or fraudulent registration of a deed, subsequent mutation and possession on that basis, however long, will not perfect title by adverse possession. Because there will be no hostile animus, and denial of the title of true owner, admitting the title of the true owner. ‘Animus possidendi’ must be to hold the land adverse to the title of the true owner and commenced in wrong and aimed against right. See: Shri Uttam Chand v. Nathu Ram, AIR 2020 SC 461; 2020-11 SCC 263, where the following decisions were relied on –

• 1. T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa, (2006) 7 SCC 570 (Commenced in wrong and is aimed against right; Possession is not adverse if referred to a lawful title.).
• 2. Kurella Naga Druva Vudaya v. Galla Jani Kamma, (2008) 15 SCC 150 (Payment of tax on behalf of someone else and mere possession, insufficient. Required: hostile possession, denying the title of the true owner. Possession of the defendant, holding that the plaintiff was not the true owner, is insufficient.)
• 3. Brijesh Kumar v. Shardabai, (2019) 9 SCC 369 (Assertion of a hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner, demonstrating a wrongful ouster of the rightful owner with continuous open and undisturbed possession over 12 years .)
• 4. Chatti Konati Rao v. Palle Venkata Subba Rao, (2010) 14 SCC 316, (Mere possession does not ripen into possessory title, required to establish the date on which he came in possession, nature of possession, the factum of possession, knowledge to the true owner, duration of possession and that possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour as he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner; it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish adverse possession. The courts always take an unkind view towards statutes of limitation overriding property rights.)
• 5. Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, (2019) 8 SCC 729. (Possession must be visible, notorious and peaceful, to the knowledge of the owner (if due diligence he would have known it). Cannot be decreed if not pleaded. Trespasser’s long possession is not synonymous with adverse possession. The owner can take possession of a trespasser at any point in time. Trespasser’s possession is construed to be on behalf of the owner.)
• 6. M. Siddiq (D) v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2020-1 SCC 1 (Ram Janmabhumi Temple case). (Claim of adverse possession would amount to an acceptance of a title in another. The possession has to be to the knowledge of the true owner. A plea of adverse possession seeks to defeat the rights of the true owner, and a clear and cogent basis must be made out in the pleadings and established in the evidence.)
• In Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India, (2004) 10 SCC 779 (It is held – A person who claims adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed.)

Fraudulent Regn. of deeds & Mutation will Not Give Rise to Adv. Possession

If the deed is fraudulently registered and mutation entries were caused to be made, they will not ripen into adverse possession. The same will be the position (even) with respect to the government property. The following are the reasons:

• 1. Registration of a deed is not a ‘notice’ to the true owner (even against the Government when a deed is executed on Government property, as if it were private property) to commence adverse possession. The Sub Registrar has no right to require the executant to satisfy the executant’s title to the property while registering a deed (Satya Pal Anand v. State of MP, AIR 2016 SC 4995; 2016-10 SCC 767).
  • The Sub-Registrar’s duty under the Registration Act, 1908 is formal, not adjudicatory. He does not certify title.
  • Even if some scrutiny occurs, it does not validate the title, and it does not amount to a ‘notice to Government’ to commence the adverse possession. It is clear from Explanation I to Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It says – registration operates as constructive notice only to subsequent transferees, not to the true owner whose title is being denied.
• 2. What is required in adverse possession is – open and hostile acts to the knowledge (actual or inferable) of the true owner; not indirect or implied attribution.
  • A unilateral or inter se transaction between private parties does not bind or notify the true owner. There must be overt acts of possession that are – visible, hostile and attributable to knowledge of the true owner.
  • A registered deed, in this regard, by itself, is a paper transaction that does not prove actual and hostile possession against the Government. That is, it does not prove hostility communicated to the Government.
• 3. Mutation based on a registered deed presupposes a lawful claim on property. Because the existence of a deed presupposes a lawful right. A void or fraudulent deed on Government property (shown in the deed as private property) also cannot open the doors for adverse possession, for the commencement will not be in denial of the title of the rightful owner, admitting the title of the ‘true owner’.
• 4. Mutation or payment of tax will not confer title.
• 5. A taxpayer of a particular “Government” property cannot validly raise any “adverse” claim against that Government property (for he could not have lawfully mutated it by admitting it to be the Government property).
• 6. The ingredients of adverse possession will not be attracted – such as: OPEN, actual, and NOTORIOUS (visible, not secret) exclusive possession, hostile to the true owner (Government). A sham/void/fraudulent transaction will not satisfy these ingredients. (See: Madhavrao Waman Saundal Gekar v. Raghunath Venkatesh Desh Pande, AIR 1923 PC 205; Lakshmi Dutt v. Gopal Dutt, AIR 1974 (All) 316; Radhabai and Ram Chandra Konher v. Anantray Bhagvant Despande, ILR (1885) 9 Bom 198).
• 7. Courts must be cautious to apply adverse possession where public property is sought to be grabbed.
• 8. Fraud vitiates everything. It cannot be used as the beginning of adverse possession. One cannot base adverse possession on a fraudulent foundation.
• 9. Courts strictly scrutinise adverse possession in cases involving public property.

In Vishwa Vijai Bharti v. Fakhrul Hasan, AIR 1976 SC 1485, it is held as to the presumption of correctness on revenue-records as under:

• “It is true that the entries in the revenue record ought, generally, to be accepted at their face value and courts should not embark upon an appellate inquiry in to their correctness. But the presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine, not forged or fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine but it is real. The distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of what the entry is the revenue record states but the entry is open to the attack that it was Made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title.”

Registration of Title deed Insignificant; Inherent defect in title Will Not be Cured

The inherent defects in the title of a party to a suit will not stand cured by the existence of a lawfully registered sale deed (P.  Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K.  Patkar, 2023  INSC 1009; 2023 14 SCR 796). The title of the executant does not automatically stand confirmed, even if the subsistence of a deed is proved. It is also a trite law that if the vendor had no pre-existing rights, a document could not convey any interest (Neelakantan Damodaran Namboothiri v. Velayudhan Pillai Narayana Pillai, AIR 1958 SC 832; K. Vattakandiyil Madhavan v. Janaki, 2024(2) KLT 789 (SC).

‘Slept-over Rights’ – No Meaning in Argument, If No case on Adv. Possn.

Assuming (or even if), the true owner slept-over its rights for a long period and accepted the title deeds of the claimant (executed long back), such sleeping-over or acceptance gets relevance or meaning, only if –

• the claimant has founded its case on ‘adverse possession’ (and not title); and the claimant raised adverse possession in his pleadings
• “admitting the State to be the rightful owner”
  • (Uttam Chand v. Nathu Ram, 2020-11 SCC 263, AIR  2020 SC 461;
  • Ayodhya case Judgment, M Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2020-1 SCC 1) and
• stating that the claimant had come into possession of the land by “a wrongful dispossession” of the State (under Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963)
  • (Karnataka Board of Wakaf v. Govt of India – (2004) 10 SCC 779;
  • T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa – [(2006) 7 SCC 570];
  • PT Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma – AIR 2007 SC 1753;
  • Government of Kerala v. Joseph,AIR 2023 SC 3988).

As shown above, a trespasser’s long possession is not synonymous with adverse possession. (Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, (2019) 8 SCC 729). If no adverse possession, mere possession of a claimant (of adverse possession) or trespasser,  however long, will not lose the right of the true owner (on the ground of limitation) to recover property on the basis of his title (Government of Kerala v. Joseph, AIR 2023 SC 3988; Uttam Chand v. Nathu Ram, 2020-11 SCC 263, AIR  2020 SC 461 etc.). For the above, under Art. 65 (which is based on title alone; and not previous possession), time-length of previous possession – or its lose – of true owner (or even the claimant) is immaterial. What matters is the ‘dispossession’ within 12 years by the claimant. It is to be pleaded and proved by him. (Ramiah v. M. Narayana Reddy, AIR 2004 SC 4261, 2004(7) SCC 541).

Nemo Dat Qod Non Habet and Title

If the vendors had ex facie no ownership rights (under any prior document) to convey the same to the transferee, the doctrine Nemo Dat Qod Non Habet applies (Kavita Kanwar v. Pamela Mehta, (2021) 11 SCC 209; Rusoday Securities v. National St. Exchange 2021-3 SCC 4017; Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Diocese, AIR 2022 SC 1640; P. Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K Patkar, 2024-1 CTC 547; Chandra Gopiv. U. K. Gopalakrishnan, 2013-1 KHC 174, Sarojini v. Santha Trading Co., 1969 KLT 412).

Claim of title by Adverse Possession based on a Fraudulent Title Deed

Adverse possession presupposes –

• (i) the claimant has no subsisting or legally recognisable title and no title deed in support thereof, and
• (ii) hostility against the true owner.
• See:
  • Mohan Lal v. Mirza Abdul Gaffar (1996) 1 SCC 639
  • Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil v. Balwant (1995) 2 SCC 543
  • L.N. Aswathama v. P. Prakash (2009) 13 SCC 229
  • Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India (2004) 10 SCC 779
  • M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das (Ayodhya case) (2020) 1 SCC 1
  • Nand Ram v. Jagdish Prasad (2020) 9 SCC 393

The claim of adverse possession is based on “adverse” claims against the true owner, accepting his title. It cannot be founded on possession traceable to any title deed. Because, this doctrine presupposes absence of title and requires hostile assertion against the true owner. Hence, the claim of title by adverse possession cannot validly be founded on a defective (for nemo dat quod applies) or on a fraudulent title deed.

Until prescriptive rights are brought in question, they are inchoate

Until prescriptive rights are brought in question, they are inchoate only. In Siti Kantapal v. Radha Gobindaen, AIR 1929 Cal 542,

Part II

Ingredients of Adverse Possession

• (a) hostile animus,
• (b) denial of title of true owner – admitting the title of the true owner,
• (c) wrongful dispossession of true owner,
• (d) placing the date of starting of wrongful dispossession,
• (e) some overt act,
• (f) hostile (or notorious) acts must be peaceful, open and hostile to the true owner.
  • It is expressed in the classical formulation of adverse possession in the Latin maxim: “nec vi, nec clam, nec precario”
  • That is –
    • not by force: nec vi,
    • not in secrecy: nec clam
    • not by permission: nec precario.

Note:

• (i) For perfecting adverse possession, the statutory requirement of ’12 years’ in the Limitation Act, 1963 (particularly Article 65) must also be satisfied.
• (ii) It starts only – “when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff” (Art. 65).

Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt of India, (2004) 10 SCC 779; T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa, (2006) 7 SCC 570; PT Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma, AIR 2007 SC 1753

Drastic Change on Adverse Possession

Drastic change has been made, on the law on Adverse Possession, by 1963 Limitation Act. It introduced the words – “when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff“.

• Under the changed law in the 1963 Limitation Act, what is in the mind (animus) of the claimant of the Adverse Possession is decisive; knowledge of the actual situation by the true owner is not a point at all.
• Under Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the true owner would have lost his right to recover the property from a trespasser if he failed to file a suit within the period of 12 years; otherwise, there would have been adverse possession.
• The burden lies solely on the claimant of adverse possession to establish hostile animus, denial of the title of the true owner, wrongful dispossession, and other overt acts constituting adverse possession.
• Bar of limitation arises, in a title suit (by the true owner), if only the defendants have a sustainable claim of adverse possession, after the 1963 Limitation Act.

Effects of the Drastic Change

• The limitation starts ‘when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff‘ (Art. 65, Limitation Act).
• Mere possession, however long, will not be adverse.
• Even if Plaintiff has knowledge of defendants’ possession (however long) – no relevance.
• Adverse possession and title claim will not go together.
• The claimant must (first) admit the ownership of the true owner.
• An issue as to ‘adverse possession’ necessary.
• Proper animus (pleading and proof) needed.
• The ‘mindset/attitude’ (animus) of the true-owner is immaterial.
• Defendants must have relinquished the title claim, if raised, to prop up adverse possession.

Gaya Prasad Dikshit v. Dr. Nirmal Chander, 1984-2 SCC 286, Thakur Kishan Singh v. ArvindKumar, 1994-6 SCC 591, Ramiah v. M. Narayana Reddy,  AIR 2004 SC 4261, T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa, 2006-7 SCC 570, P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma, (2007) 6 SCC 59, Chatti Konati Rao v. Palle Venkata Subba Rao, 2010-14 SCC 316, Ram NaginaRai v. DeoKumarRai, 2019-13 SCC 324, Mallikarjunaiah v. Nanjaiah, 2019-15 SCC 756,  Uttam Chand v. Nathu Ram, 2020-11 SCC 263, Govt of Kerala v. Joseph, AIR 2023 SC 3988.

Suit on Title – No Limitation Unless Defendant has Claim of Adverse Possession

• No question of limitation arises unless the defendant substantiates his plea of adverse possession. This is because, after the significant change brought about by the Limitation Act, 1963, mere possession—however long—does not, by itself, become ‘adverse’.

Neelam Gupta v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta, AIR 2024 SC 5374 Mallavva v. Kalsammanavara Kalamma, 2024 INSC 1021; 2024 KLT(Online) 3051, K.J. Abraham v. Mariamma Itty, ILR 2016-3 Ker 98; C. Natrajan v. Ashim Bai, AIR 2008 SC 363; 2007-14 SCC 183 Indira v. Arumugam, AIR 1999 SC 1549, C. Mohammad Yunus v. Syed Unnissa, AIR 1961 SC 808.

Acquiescence, Inaction, etc.

• The same is the position even if – acquiescence, inaction, etc. on the part of true owner.
• Even if the plaintiff admits that the defendant has been a trespasser for a hundred years, there will be no bar of limitation to a recovery suit based on title, if the defendant does not claim adverse possession.

It is held in T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa, 2006-7 SCC 570, as under:

• “12. The concept of adverse possession contemplates a hostile possession i.e. a possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner. Possession to be adverse must be possession by a person who does not acknowledge the other’s rights but denies them. The principle of law is firmly established that a person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that his possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to denial of his title to the property claimed. For deciding whether the alleged acts of a person constituted adverse possession, the animus of the person doing those acts is the most crucial factor. Adverse possession is commenced in wrong and is aimed against right. A person is said to hold the property adversely to the real owner when that person in denial of the owner’s right excluded him from the enjoyment of his property.” (Quoted in: Uttam Chand v. Nathu Ram, 2020-11 SCC 263)

No Adverse Possession, Unless Claimant ‘Admits Title of the True Owner‘

• There can be no adverse possession where the claimant does not admit the title of the true owner.

Shri Uttam Chand v. Nathu Ram, AIR 2020 SC 461; 2020-11 SCC 263, M. Siddiq v. Suresh Das, 2020-1 SCC 1 (Ram Janmabhumi Temple case) Raghavan, v. Devayani, 2024-2 KHC 417, M. Radheyshyamlal v. V Sandhya, 2024 INSC 214, Nand Ram v. Jagdish Prasad, AIR 2020 SC 1884; 2020-9 SCC 393, Brijesh Kumar v. Shardabai, (2019) 9 SCC 369, Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, (2019) 8 SCC 729, Dagadabai v. Abbas alias Gulab Rustum Pinjari, (2017) 13 SCC 705, T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa, (2006) 7 SCC 570, Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India, (2004) 10 SCC 779, Kurella Naga Druva Vudaya Bhaskara Rao v. Galla Jani Kamma, (2008) 15 SCC 150.

• Our Apex Court, in Ayodhya case Judgment, M Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2020-1 SCC 1 (Ram Janmabhumi Temple case), it is held as under:
  • “747. A plea of adverse possession is founded on the acceptance that ownership of the property vests in another against whom the claimant asserts a possession adverse to the title of the other.”
• If the defendant (effectively) pleads adverse possession, admitting the plaintiff’s title, the plaintiff need not prove title.
• Similarly, if the plaintiff (effectively) pleads adverse possession, the defendant, true owner, need not prove title.

Burden is on the Claimant

• The burden to prove adverse possession is on the claimant (of adverse possession).

Mallavva v. Kalsammanavara Kalamma, 2024 INSC 1021; 2024 KLT(Online) 3051, Janata Dal Party v. Indian National Congress, 2014-16 SCC 731, C. Natrajan v. AshimBai, AIR 2008 SC 363; 2007-14 SCC 183, Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan, 2009-16 SCC 517, Mohammad Ali v. Jagdish Kalita, 2004-1 SCC 271, Mohan Lal v. Mirza Abdul Gaffar, (1996) 1 SCC 639.

Adverse Possession – Irrational, Illogical Claim

In Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan, 2009-16 SCC 517, it was pointed out that the claim of adverse possession must be read in the context of human rights. The law which ousts an owner on the basis of inaction within limitation is found in this case to be irrational, illogical and wholly disproportionate.

Part III

Sec. 3 of the TP Act

Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act defines the expression – “a person is said to have notice”.

S. 3 of the Transfer of Property Act

The relevant portion of S. 3 of the Transfer of Property Act reads as under:

• ” ‘a person is said to have notice‘ of a fact when he actually knows that fact, or when, but for wilful abstention from an inquiry or search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence, he would have known it.
• Explanation I – Where any transaction relating to immoveable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instruments, any person acquiring such property or any part of, or share or interest in, such property shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration or (where the property is not all situated in one sub-district, or where the registered instrument has been registered under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 30 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, from the earliest date on which any memorandum of such registered instrument has been filed by any Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district any part of the property which is being acquired, or of the property wherein a share of interest is being acquired, is situated ).
• Provided that- (1) the instrument has been registered and its registration completed in the manner prescribed by the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and the rules made thereunder,
• (2) the instrument (or memorandum) has been duly entered or filed, as the case may be, in books kept under S. 51 of that Act, and
• (3) the particulars regarding the transaction to which the instrument relates have been correctly entered in the indexes kept under S. 55 of that Act.

Explanation I to Section 3 of the TP Act is explained in Ranjit Singh v. Punjab State, 2014-4 LawHerald 3533; 2014-3 RCR(Civ) 766,  as under:

• “19. Explanation I to Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act clarifies that where any transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such property or any part of, or share or interest in, such party shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration

The Privy Council applied this Doctrine with ‘Some Modification’

In Tilakdhari Lal v. Khedan Lal, AIR 1921 PC 112, while dealing with notice of registered mortgages, it was held that ‘it would not be reasonable to hold that registration was notice to the world of every deed which the register contained’ and that ‘the doctrine must be subject to some modification’.  The Privy Council further observed on the doctrine ‘registration as notice to the world’ as under:

• “Their Lordships find it difficult to understand how such a difference can cause the register to be notice in the one case and not in the other. In either instance the doctrine of notice must necessarily depend upon the fact that there is a public register open for inspection, to which all persons having dealings with the property can have access; in each case they have before them the means of acquiring knowledge. In India that knowledge may afford complete protection even if notice be otherwise obtained of an unregistered deed. In England and Ireland that is not the case. But the completion of the register and the penal effect of non-registration do not appear to their Lordships to be any reason for causing the register to be notice in the one case and not in the other.
• For these reasons their Lordships think that notice cannot in all cases be imputed from the mere fact that a document is to be found upon the register under the Indian Registration Act.”

An alienee, expected to make inquiry, presumed to have constructive notice

The Kerala High Court, in Gomathy Ammal v. Padmavathi Amma, AIR 1967 Ker 58, observed as under:

• “Under S. 3 of the Act as amended, registration of a document by itself imports notice thereof. The law prior to the amendment has been laid down by the Privy Council in Tilakdhari Lal v. Khedan Lal AIR. 1921 P. C. 112, and in the concerned area by the Travancore High Court in Mariyadumperumal Chidambarathanu v. Namasivayom Sivakami 17 Trv.LJ 321 at p. 329.
• The Privy Council said:
  •  “…. but nonetheless it shows that it would not be reasonable to hold that registration was notice to the world of every deed which the register contained. The doctrine must be subject to some modification. There may be circumstances in which omission to search the register would, even under the definition already given, result in notice being obtained and the circumstances necessary for this purpose may be very slight, but in the present case no such circumstances are found.
• In Mariyadumperumal Chidambarathanu v. Namasivayom Sivakami, 17 Trv. LJ. 321 at p. 329 after a consideration of previous decided cases on the subject, the court said:
  • ‘without going so far as to lay down as an absolute proposition that registration is notice to subsequent alienees, we would hold that a subsequent alienee, who is expected as a prudent person to make inquiry or inspection in the Registry Officer, should be presumed to have had constructive or imputed notice of the prior registered deed, and consequently also of its contents as notice of the existence of a deed affecting title is notice of its contents’.”

Deems (only) ‘Constructive Notice’ of (earlier) Deed

That too to one who Subsequently Acquired the Property

In R. Ravichandran v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2002-2-LW 590, it is held as under:

• “37. The legal position is well settled in that every document affecting an immovable property as provided in section 17 has to be registered so that any person who wants to deal or desire to acquire interest with such property could find out encumbrances if any, the legal obligations, rights and ownership or claim over such property, and registration acts as constructive notice to a person who subsequently acquires such property or interest or any part thereof or interest or fraction of interest thereof”.

Proposition ‘as to Notice to entire world’ is Not accepted in Adv. Possn. Claim

In Arabia Bibi v. Sarbunnisa (2011, R. Subbiah, J.), the suit property was sold only within the family members. Therefore, the co-owner against whom adverse possession was claimed was not in a position to know about the sale. She knew only at a later point of time. Hence it was held – that the registration is only a constructive notice to the person who has subsequently acquired such property; and that if the proposition  that the registration is a notice to the entire world is accepted, it would defeat the legitimate right of the co-sharers.

Explanation I of Sec. 3 of the Transfer of Property Act is Explained in this decision as under:

• “29. On going through the dictum laid down in the above judgments relied on either side, I am of the opinion that the registration of document isonly a constructivenotice to a person, who subsequently acquired that property or interest or any part thereof or interest or fraction of interest thereof. In this regard, it would be proper to refer Explanation I of Sec. 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, which reads as follows:
  • “Where any transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such property or any part of, or share or interest in, such property shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration or, …..”
• Thus, it is clear that the registration is only a constructive notice to the person who has subsequently acquired such property. If the submission of the learned counsel for defendants 1, 3, 5 and 7 that the registration is a notice to the entire world is accepted, it would defeat the legitimate right of the co-sharers when the property was sold without their knowledge. Further, I find that the subject property was sold only within the family members and therefore, as contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, she might have been in a position to know about the same only at a later point of time. Moreover, the judgments relied upon by the appellants deal with the alienation of the property to the strangers. Further, I do not find any evidence in this case with regard to open assertion of hostile title, coupled with exclusive possession and enjoyment by one of them to the knowledge of other co-owner, namely, the plaintiff in this case so as to constitute ouster. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the principle of ouster cannot be applied in this case. The courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence and the documents adduced by the parties. The concurrent findings of the courts below reflect the evidence on record.”

In KS Natraj v. NIL, 2020-2 KarLJ 356 (B.V. Nagarathna, Suraj Govindaraj, JJ.) it is observed as under:

• “20. The most important purpose of registration is to secure that persons dealing with the property, where such dealings require registration, may rely upon the statements contained in the register of the Registrar of Assurances with confidence that the full and complete account of all transactions relating to or affecting the property is covered in such register.”

Apply When Wilful Abstention from Making (expected) Enquiry

In Godhan Son of Pola v. Ram Bilas, AIR 1995 All. 357, it is observed as under:

• (22) FROM the reading of this provision along with Explanation-I, it comes out that the person is said to have notice of a fact when he actually knows that fact, or when but for wilful abstention from making such enquiry which a person normally ought to have made he would have known it. In such cases the persons can also be deemed to have notice. According to Explanation-I, where law requires a transaction to be recorded or to be entered in, completed by registered deed then in respect of such transactions which satisfy two conditions i. e. a requirement of law that transaction is to be entered into by registered instrument only and the same has been completed by registered document, then persons shall be deemed to have knowledge of that instrument from the date of registration. The registration of the document has (sic) taken to complete notice to world at large. The agreement to sale immoveable property of value of more than Rupees One Hundred, under the Transfer of Property Act, is required to be entered into by the registered document.”

Sec. 3 TP Act Notice is on immovable property; & It is not a Notice In Rem

In truth, the proposition, ‘registration of a document gives notice to the world‘ is not followed in India. In  Parganas Lawyers Clerks Association  v. State, AIR 1986  Cal. 205, it is held as under:

• “(30) THE notice contemplated under Explanation 1 of S. 3 of the Transfer of Property Act by registration of a document relates to transactions with regard to immovable propertywhich is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument and that also for a person acquiring such property or any part or share or interest in such property. It is not a notice in rem. Testamentary documents do not come within the purview of the notice as contemplated by the said section.

As regards the object of the Explanation to Section 3, it is observed as under:

• It enables people to find out whether any particular property with which they are concerned, has been subjected to any legal obligation or liability. (Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2009) 7 SCC 363).
• The object of the Explanation to Section 3 is to safeguard the interests of a third party who has (already) acquired a good title under a previous registered instrument. (Kuldip Singh v. State, AIR 1954 P&H 31).

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

• 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
• Res Judicata and Judicial Precedent
• What is Binding Judicial Precedent – In a Nutshell
• No Res judicata on Finding on Title in an Injunction Suit
• Res Judicata: ‘Same issue’ must have been ‘Adjudicated’ in the former suit
• Res Judicata and Appeal: No Res Judicata on Adverse Findings, in a Favourable Decree
• Order II, Rule 2 CPC – Not to Vex Defendants Twice
• A Land Mark Decision on Order II rule 2, CPC – Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. v. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Ltd., Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 73
• Order I rule 8, CPC (Representative Suit) When and How? Whether Order I rule 8 Decree is Enforceable in Execution?
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• Pleadings in Defamation Suits
• Previous Owner is Not a Necessary Party in a Recovery Suit
• UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian Law
• PLEADINGS IN ELECTION MATTERS
• Declaration and Injunction
• Law on Summons to Defendants and Witnesses
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful Acts
• Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
• Mandatory Injunction – Law and Principles
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• Interrogatories: When Court Allows, When Rejects?
• Decree in OI R8 CPC-Suit & Eo-Nomine Parties
• Pecuniary & Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• Doctrine of Substantial Representation in a Suit by or against an Association
• Who are Necessary Parties, Proper Parties and Pro Forma Parties in Suits
• What is Partnership, in Law? How to Sue a Firm?
• ‘Legal Representatives’, Not ‘Legal Heirs’ to be Impleaded on Death of Plaintiff/Defendant
• Powers and Duties of Commissioners to Make Local Investigations, Under CPC
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
• Burden on Plaintiff to Prove Title; Weakness of Defence Will Not Entitle a Decree
• Is it Mandatory to Set Aside the Commission Report – Where a Second Commissioner is Appointed?
• Can a Commission be Appointed to Find Out the Physical Possession of a Property?
• Can the Court issue a Second Commission without Setting Aside First Commission Report?
• Withholding Evidence and Adverse Inference
• Pendente Lite Transferee Cannot Resist or Obstruct Execution of a Decree
• Family Settlement or Family Arrangement in Law
• ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
• Will Findings of a Civil Court Outweigh Findings of a Criminal Court?
• Relevancy of Civil Case Judgments in Criminal Cases
• Waiver and Promissory Estoppel
• Can a Christian Adopt? Will an adopted child get share in the property of adoptive parents?
• Principles of Equity in Indian Law
• Thangam v.  Navamani Ammal: Did the Supreme Court lay down – Written Statements which deal with each allegation specifically, but not “para-wise”, are vitiated?
• No Criminal Case on a Dispute Essentially Civil in Nature.
• Doctrine of Substantial Representation in Suits
• Order I rule 8, CPC (Representative Suit) When and How? Whether Order I rule 8 Decree is Enforceable in Execution?
• Appointment of Guardian for Persons Suffering from Disability or Illness: Inadequacy of Law – Shame to Law Making Institutions
• Can Documents be Marked In Cross Examination, If Witness Admits Them?
• Why Should Foundational or Crucial Documents Be Produced Along With the Plaint or WS
• Fraudulent or Void Transaction: Is ‘Declaration’ Necessary? No is the Answer: Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi, 2025 INSC 1105.

Principles and Procedure

• Doctrines of ‘Legislation by Reference’ and ‘Legislation by Incorporation’
• What is the Period of Limitation for a Suit on a Promissory Note?
• Relevancy of a Civil Case Judgment in Criminal Cases: Does a Civil Court Judgment Bind a Criminal Court?
• When can (i) a ‘Victim’ File an Appeal in a Criminal Case and  (ii) an ‘Aggrieved Person’ File an Appeal in a Civil Case?
• Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu, 2025 INSC 828 – ‘Victim’ Can File an Appeal in a Criminal Case
• BURDEN of PROOF: Initial Burden and Shifting the Onus in Indian and English Law
• H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar: An ‘Aggrieved’ Stranger or a ‘Prejudicially Affected’ Third-Party (also) Can File Appeal with the ‘Leave of the Court’.
• Our Courts Apply Different ‘STANDADARDS of Proof’
• Ratio Decidendi (alone) Forms a Precedent, Not a Final Order
• What is Binding Judicial Precedent – In a Nutshell
• BNSS – Major Changes from CrPC
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Important Changes from the Indian Penal Code
• Substantive Rights and Mistakes & Procedural Defects in Judicial Proceedings
• Can Documents be Marked In Cross Examination, If Witness Admits Them?
• Will Boundaries of Properties (Always) Preferred Over Survey Number, Extent, Side Measurements, etc.?
• Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a Decree
• All Illegal Agreements are Void; but All Void Agreements are Not Illegal
• Doctrines on Ultra Vires, Rule of Law, Judicial Review, Nullification of Mandamus, and Removing the BASIS of the Judgment
• Can an ‘Ex-parte’ Defendant Cross Examine Plaintiff’s Witness?
• Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
• Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
• Effect of Not Cross-Examining a Witness & Effect of Not Facing Complete Cross-Examination by the Witness
• Suggestions & Admissions by Counsel, in Cross Examination to Witnesses
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• Declaration and Injunction
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• Does Alternate Remedy Bar Civil Suits and Writ Petitions?
• Void, Voidable, Ab Initio Void, and Sham Transactions
• If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set Aside
• Can Courts Award Interest on Equitable Grounds?
• Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse
• Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State Of M.P, 29 January, 2025 – Law on Natural Justice Revisited
• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’
• Prescriptive Rights – Inchoate until the Title thereof is Upheld by a Competent Court
• ‘Title’ and ‘Ownership’ in Indian Law
• Can a Party to Suit Examine Opposite Party, as of Right?
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
• Cheating and Breach of Contract: Distinction – Fraudulent Intention at the time of Promise.
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs
• What is COGNIZANCE and Application of Mind by a Magistrate?
• Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle: Rejection of Plaint on ‘Bar of Limitation’ on Plea of Fraud.
• Why Should Foundational or Crucial Documents Be Produced Along With the Plaint or WS
• Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. The State of Gujarat: The Police have No Discretion to conduct a Preliminary Inquiry Before Registering an FIR in Cognizable Offences

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

• ‘Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet’
• Section 27, Limitation Act Gives-Rise to a Substantive Right so as to Seek Declaration and Recovery
• Sale Deeds Without Consideration – Void
• Tenancy at Sufferance in Indian Law
• “Due Process of Law” in Civil Suits
• Revenue Settlement Registers of Travancore in 1910, Basic Record of Land matters
• Govt. of AP v. Thummala Krishna Rao, AIR 1982 SC 1081, 1982 (2) SCC 134, Misread by High Courts

Recovery of Possession: 

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

Adverse Possession

• Illegal, Mistaken or Fraudulent Registration of Deed, and Subsequent Mutation: No Adverse Possession
• Adverse Possession: A Concise Overview
• What is Adverse Possession in Indian Law?
• Neelam Gupta v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta (AIR 2024 SC 5374) – Supreme Court Denied the Tenant’s Claim of Adverse Possession
• Adverse Possession: How to Plead Adverse Possession? Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
• Adverse Possession Against Government
• Govt. of AP v. Thummala Krishna Rao, AIR 1982 SC 1081, 1982 (2) SCC 134, Misread by High Courts
• Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
• Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
• When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
• Government of Kerala v. Joseph – Law on Adverse Possession Against Government
• Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery Suits
• ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• Ouster and Dispossession in Adverse Possession
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs
• Mallavva v. Kalsammanavara Kalamma, 2024 INSC 1021, Composite Suit (Cancellation & Recovery) – Substantive Relief Determines Limitation  
• The Laws of ‘Doctrine of Election’ and ‘Doctrine of Waiver’

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

• Bona Fide Purchaser for Value Deserves Stronger Equity than a Prior Contract Holder
• Travancore Royal Pattom Proclamations of 1040 (1865 AD) and 1061 (1886 AD), And 1922 Devaswom Proclamation
• Revenue Settlement Registers of Travancore in 1910, Basic Record of Land matters
• Tenancy at Sufferance in Indian Law
• Freehold Property in Law
• What is Patta or Pattayam?
• Does ‘Pandaravaka Pattom’ in Kerala Denote Full-Ownership?
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• Previous Owner is Not a Necessary Party in a Recovery Suit
• Recovery of Possession Based on Title and on Earlier Possession
• Vested Remainder and Contingent Remainder
• Vested interest and Contingent Interest
• Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
• Land Acquired Cannot be Returned – Even if it is Not Used for the Purpose Acquired
• ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
• Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2026:KER:19290): Transfer of Registry can be Claimed only on Proper Application, with Supporting Documents
• FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
• Marumakkathayam – A System of Law and Way of Life Prevailed in Kerala
• Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in Kerala
• Glen Leven Estate v. State of Kerala: Not Correctly Decided?
• Sale Deeds Without Consideration – Void
• If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set Aside
• Law on SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE and LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE
• Sec. 7 Easements Act – Natural Advantages Arising from the Situation of Land & Natural Flow of Water
• Grant in Law
• Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery Suits
• Title of the Government Property in India: Government is the Ultimate Owner of Every Property; Hence, Government Need Not Prove Title.
• Survey under Survey Act – Raises a Presumption on Boundary; though Not Confer Title
• Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a Decree

Land Reform Laws

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

Power of attorney

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

Evidence Act – General

• Newspaper Reports are ‘Hearsay Secondary Evidence’
• Major Changes in the Evidence Act by Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• Sec. 27 Recovery/Discovery in Evidence Act and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• Evidence in Court – General Principles
• Expert Evidence and Appreciation of Evidence
• Handwriting Expert Evidence: Relevant, But Merely an Opinion
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
• Withholding Evidence and Adverse Inference
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• What is Collateral Purpose?
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
• Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
• Effect of Not Cross-Examining a Witness & Effect of Not Facing Complete Cross Examination by the Witness
• Suggestions & Admissions by Counsel, in Cross Examination to Witnesses
• Proof of Documents – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Public Documents: Proof and Presumption
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
• Significance of Scientific Evidence in Judicial Process
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• What is Section 27 Evidence Act – Recovery or Discovery?
• How ‘Discovery’ under Section 27, Evidence Act, Proved?
• Pictorial Testimony Theory and Silent Witnesses Theory
• Sec. 35 Evidence Act: Presumption of Truth and Probative Value
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act

Sec. 65B

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

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

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

Law on Documents

• Public Documents: Proof and Presumption
• Public Documents Admissible Without Formal Proof
• Admitted Documents – Can the Court Refrain from Marking, for no Formal Proof?
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
• Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
• Effect of Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
• Time Limit for Registration of Documents
• Registration of Documents Executed out of India
• How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
• Are RTI Documents Admissible in Evidence as ‘Public Documents’?
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
• Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Notary-Attested Documents and Presumptions
• What is Collateral Purpose?
• No Application Needed for Filing or Admitting Copy
• Presumptions on Documents and Truth of Contents
• Presumptions on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Modes of Proof of Documents
• Secondary Evidence of Documents & Objections to Admissibility – How & When?
• Should Objection to Marking Documents be Raised When it is Admitted; Is it Enough to Challenge them in Cross-Examination?
• 30 Years Old Documents and Presumption of Truth of Contents, under Sec. 90 Evidence Act
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
• Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Settlement Deeds & Powers of Sub-Registrar in cancelling Deeds
• Cancellation, Avoidance or Declaration of a Void or Voidable Deed
• If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set Aside
• Can the True Owner Seek Cancellation of a Deed, Executed by a Stranger to the Property
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting 
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
• Visual and Audio Evidence (Including Photographs, Cassettes, Tape-recordings, Films, CCTV Footage, CDs, e-mails, Chips, Hard-discs, Pen-drives)
• Photograph Evidence, Its Admissibility and Photo-Identification in Court Cases
• Pictorial Testimony Theory and Silent Witnesses Theory
• No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
• Impounding of Documents – When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is Exhibited
• Sec. 35 Evidence Act: Presumption of Truth and Probative Value
• How to Prove Resolutions of a Company; Are Minutes Necessary?

Documents – Proof and Presumption

• Contents of a Document are to be Proved in Court by Producing Original or Secondary Evidence
• Handwriting Expert Evidence: Relevant, But Merely an Opinion
• Public Documents: Proof and Presumption
• Can the Court Refuse to Mark a (Relevant and Admissible) Document, for (i) there is No Formal Proof or (ii) it is a Photocopy?
• Photograph Evidence, Its Admissibility and Photo-Identification in Court Cases
• Marking of Photocopy and Law on Marking Documents on Admission (Without Formal Proof)
• Proof of Documents – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
• Modes of Proof of Documents
• ‘Admission’ in Indian Law
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
• Admitted Documents – Can the Court Refrain from Marking, for no Formal Proof?
• Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
• Effect of Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
• Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Should Objection to Marking Documents be Raised When it is Admitted; Is it Enough to Challenge them in Cross-Examination?
• Presumptions on Documents and Truth of Contents
• Presumptions on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
• Secondary Evidence of Documents & Objections to Admissibility – How & When?
• 30 Years Old Documents and Presumption of Truth of Contents, under Sec. 90 Evidence Act

Interpretation

• Interpretation of Documents – Literal Rule, Mischief Rule and Golden Rule
• Golden Rule of Interpretation is Not the Application of Plain Meaning of the Words
• Interpretation of Wills
• Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence

Contract Act

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

Law on Damages

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

Easement

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

Stamp Act & Registration

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

Divorce/Marriage

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

Negotiable Instruments Act

• Presumptions Regarding Consideration in Cheque Cases under the NI Act
• An Inchoate Cheque (Signed Blank Cheque or Incomplete Cheque) Cannot be Enforced Through a Court of Law Invoking Presumptions under the NI Act
• Does Cheque-Case under Sec. 138, NI Act Lie Against a Trust?
• Sec. 138 NI Act (Cheque) Cases: Presumption of Consideration u/s. 118
• Even if ‘Signed-Blank-Cheque’, No Burden on Complainant to Prove Consideration; Rebuttal can be by a Probable Defence
• “Otherwise Through an Account” in Section 142, NI Act
• Where to file Cheque Bounce Cases (Jurisdiction of Court – to file NI Act Complaint)?
• Cheque Dishonour Case against a Company, Firm or Society
• What is ‘Cognizance’ in Law
• What is COGNIZANCE and Application of Mind by a Magistrate?

Criminal

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

Arbitration

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

Will

• Witnesses to the Will Need Not See the Execution of the Will
• Interpretation of Wills
• Interpretation of Inconsistent Clauses in a Will
• Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
• Executors of Will – Duties & their Removal
• How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
• How to Write a Will? Requirements of a Valid Will
• When Execution of a Will is ‘Admitted’ by the Opposite Side, Should it be ‘Proved’?
• A Witness to Hindu-Will will not Lose Benefit

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
  • 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
• 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
  • 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 Cheque-Case under Sec. 138, NI Act Lie Against a Trust?
• 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