#propertylaw Archives

15 Apr

“Supreme Court Rules Out Easement by Necessity in Presence of Alternative Property Access”

Blog, Supreme court #CaseLaw, #CivilAppeal, #EasementaryRights, #LandOwnership, #LegalDispute, #LegalPrecedent, #LegalProceedings, #propertydispute, #propertylaw, #SupremeCourt

Case title: Manisha Mahendra Gala & Ors. V. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani & Ors.

Case no.: Civil Appeal No. 9643 Of 2010

Dated on: 10^th April 2024

Quorum: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the legal realm, disputes often arise over property rights, particularly when it comes to access and usage of shared pathways or roads. The case of Manisha Mahendra Gala & Ors. vs. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani & Ors., hereafter referred to as the Gala case, delves into the intricacies of easementary rights over a 20ft. wide road situated on land owned by the respondents, the Ramani family. The Supreme Court of India, through its judgment dated April 10, 2024, provided a detailed analysis of the facts, submissions, issues, and the ultimate legal decision.

The dispute revolves around a 20ft. wide road located on Survey No.57 Hissa No.13A/1, presently owned by the Ramani family. The appellants, Gala family, claimed easementary rights over this road for access to their property, Survey No. 48 Hissa No.15. The Gala family argued that they had been using the road for many years and that their access to their land depended solely on this pathway. The case stemmed from two separate suits: Suit No.14 of 1994 filed by Joki Woler Ruzer (later succeeded by Mahendra Gala and then the Gala family) for declaration of easementary rights, and Suit No.7 of 1996 filed by the Ramani family to declare the Gala family’s lack of rights over the road.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The appellants, represented by senior counsel Shri Huzefa Ahmadi, contended that the Gala family’s usage of the road for many years granted them easementary rights. They also argued that the Sale Deed dated 17.09.1994, transferring land to Mahendra Gala, acknowledged their right of way over the road.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

On the other hand, the respondents, represented by counsel Shri Devansh Anoop Mohta, disputed the Gala family’s claims, asserting that they had no legal right to the road.

ISSUE –

Whether the appellants have acquired easementary rights over the disputed road.
Whether the findings of the lower courts were valid and justifiable.
Whether the Sale Deed dated 17.09.1994 conferred easementary rights.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Court analyzed the evidence presented and legal precedents. It concluded that the appellants failed to establish uninterrupted use of the road for over 20 years, a requirement for acquiring easementary rights by prescription. The Sale Deed did not confer such rights, as the appellants’ predecessors did not possess them. Additionally, the Court rejected the argument of easementary rights by necessity, as there was an alternative access route available. It upheld the decisions of the lower courts, dismissing the appellants’ appeals.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, ruling that the appellants had not acquired easementary rights over the disputed road. The judgement reaffirmed the principle that factual findings of lower courts can be reviewed by appellate courts, and highlighted the importance of clear evidence in establishing legal rights.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Chiraag K A

Click the Link to View Judgement

16 Jan

Additional compensation would not be granted in cases where the limitation period has barred and when an alternative remedy is available – Bombay HC

Prime Legal

Blog #bombayhc, #compensation, #law, #propertylaw

TITLE : Sardar v The state of Maharashtra

CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Ravindra v Ghuge

DATE : 15^th January 2024

CITATION : WP No. 14842 Of 2023

FACTS

The petition was filed under Article 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. The petitioner’s case was that his land was acquired by the government for public project under Section 4 of the Land acquisition Act,1894. A compensation of Rs. 1,26,110 was granted and it did not consider the value of 40 teak trees, 25 mango trees, 35 berry trees and 2 gooseberry trees and a well attached to the land. The petitioner has asked for an enhancement of compensation. It was contended that the petitioner had not used alternative remedies under Section18 of the Act. The petitioners father has received the compensation of Rs. 1,45, 566 without any protest.

LAWS INVOLVED

As per Section 18 of the Act, any person who has not accepted the compensation to make an application to the collector within a period of 6 weeks from the date of the award, if the interested person represented before the collector was present of in any other cases, within 6 months of the award.

ISSUES

Whether the petitioner entitled to additional compensation?

JUDGEMENT

The court held that the petitioner’s father has already received the compensation without any protest. The court found that no reference was made under Section 18 of the Act. The court in furtherance held that the petitioner has approached this court after 18 years withtout availaing alternative remedy available in law.

The writ was found to be without any merits and was subsequently dismissed.

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

11 Jan

Bombay HC calls demolition notice against the legal system, sets aside notice against shiv Sena member

Prime Legal

Uncategorized #bombayhc, #law, #legalnews, #partnership, #propertylaw

TITLE : Sadanand Gangaram Kadam V Additional Commissioner, Konkan Bhavan and Ors

CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Milind N. Jadhav

DATE : 6^th January 2024

CITATION : WP No. 203 Of 2024

FACTS

The present Writ Petition was against Demolition Notice against the petitioner. The petitioner purchased a property of a firm called M/s. Sai Star Distributors. One of the 5 partners were the respondent and the petitioner. The respondent retired from the firm and the share of his property was shifted to the petitioner. The petitioner then constructed a resort after obtaining permission from the appropriate authorities. It was submitted that NA permission was received and in the miscellaneous conditions, any dispute with respect to ownership of the said land would be on the Petitioner in the event of any dispute. The respondent filed a private complaint alleging a breach of the NA permission granted. Petitioner filed statutory Appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 before the Additional Collector along with the stay Application. Subsequently a demolition notice was issued.

LAWS INVOLVED

Section 247 of the Act :

(1) In the absence of any express provisions of this Code, or of any law for the time being in force to the contrary, an appeal shall lie from any decision or order passed by a revenue or survey officer specified in column I of the Schedule E under this Code or any other law for the time being in force to the officer specified in column 2 of that Schedule whether or not ,such decision or order may itself have been passed on appeal from the decision of order of the officer specified in column I of the said Schedule :

Provided that, in no case the number of appeals shall exceed two.

(2) When on account of promotion or change of designation, an appeal against any decision or order lies under this section to the same officer who has passed the decision or order appealed against, the appeal should lie to such other officer competent to decide the appeal to whom it may be transferred under the provisions of this Code.

ISSUES

Whether the complaint against the petitioner valid along with the demolition notice issued?

JUDGEMENT

The court held that though there is a statutory appeal pending, the facts are extremely strong and requires intervention of this court so no party can take advantage of the legal system and take is for granted.

The demolition notice was set aside and an ad-interim relief was given to the petitioners.

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

11 Jan

The supreme court sets aside the order of Madurai bench on property consideration not being paid; States Time would be the essence of the contract.

Prime Legal

Blog #consideration, #contract, #law, #propertylaw, #SupremeCourt

TITLE : Alagammal and Ors v Ganesan and Anr

CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath

DATE : 10^th January 2024

CITATION : Civil Appeal No. 8185 of 2009

FACTS

The appellant got into an agreement with the respondents for the consideration amount of Rs.21000. Out of which Rs.3000 was paid in advance. 6 months has elapsed since the last payment and the appellants did not pay the pending money and subsequently executed a sale deed to a third party for the consideration amount of Rs.22000.

LAWS INVOLVED

The supreme court relied on the judgement of K.S Vaidyanthan which stated that :

‘10.It has been consistently held by the courts in India, following certain early English decisions, that in the case of agreement of sale relating to immovable property, time is not of the essence of the contract unless specifically provided to that effect. The period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act for filing a suit is three years. From these two circumstances, it does not follow that any and every suit for specific performance of the agreement (which does not provide specifically that time is of the essence of the contract) should be decreed provided it is filed within the period of limitation notwithstanding the time-limits stipulated in the agreement for doing one or the other thing by one or the other party.”

However the court also stated that in matters of inaction by the purchasing party to buy, time is of the essence :

In the case before us, it is not mere delay. It is a case of total inaction on the part of the plaintiff for 2 1/2 years in clear violation of the terms of agreement which required him to pay the balance, purchase the stamp papers and then ask for execution of sale deed within six months. Further, the delay is coupled with substantial rise in prices — according to the defendants, three times — between the date of agreement and the date of suit notice. The delay has brought about a situation where it would be inequitable to give the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff.

ISSUES

Whether the agreement discloses a fixed time frame for making payment in full?

JUDGEMENT

The court set aside the Madurai bench judgement and holds that there being no willingness to pay the remaining amount, the time is of essence.

“the same being at great intervals and there being no willingness shown by them to pay the remaining amount or getting the Sale Deed ascribed on necessary stamp paper and giving notice to the appellants to execute the Sale Deed, it cannot be said that in the present case, judged on the anvil of the conduct of parties, especially the appellants, time would not remain the essence of the contract.”

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

3 Jan

Bombay HC dismisses the order set by appellate authority as the same person rejected the developer’s application for reconstruction

Prime Legal

Blog #bombayhc, #law, #legalnews, #propertylaw

TITLE : S.K Realty v State of Maharashtra

CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Milind N Jadhav

DATE : 2^nd January 2024

CITATION : WP No 13458 of 2023

FACTS

The writ petition was filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order passed by the Appellate authority. The order from the lower authority was that the plots should be treated as separate units to be certified as tenants and grant revised NOC for redevelopment of the property. The order was alleged to have seriously breached the principles of natural justice.

LAWS INVOLVED

The schedule 3 of the MAHADA, 1976 states the scale showing the percentage of built up area to be reserved by the co-operative society for allotment by the board for building reconstructed for residential purposes and commercial purposes

ISSUES

Whether the order passed by the appellate authority valid?

JUDGEMENT

It was found that the authority who passed the order was the same authority who was the vice president and chief executive officer who has rejected the application proposal for eligibility of the developer. The order was set aside on the ground that the authority had prior interest in the developer property.

The court took cognizance of 3^rd schedule of the Maharashtra and Area Development Act, 1976 to review the eligibility of allotment of tenants.

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

1 2