Chennai Civil Lawyer

The Supreme Court in a recent ruling clarified that all the assets in Hindu Undivided Family are considered to be joint property and it belongs to all the members of the joint family. If any family member wants to claim it as self-acquired property then they are required to furnish requisite proof for the same. The apex court passed this order when a plea was made by members of a joint family as they were claiming ownership of agricultural land of the family on the ground that they have acquired the property and others have no rights over them. Considering the case, the bench comprising of Justice R K Agrawal and Akshay Manmohan Sapre explained that in such matters the burden of proof is always on the family member who is claiming ownership over a part of the property of the joint family. To claim his ownership he must put reliance over relevant oral or documentary evidence. The bench observed, “It is a settled principle of Hindu law that there lies a legal presumption that eve...

The Apex Court has prohibited government from taking over possession of private properties including those belonging to Hindu Religious Charitable institutions, in situations where the owners of these assets had no heirs and died without executing a will. The bench of Justices NV Ramana and DY Chandrachud completely prohibited collectors from adjudicating over the title of any property which fell within the jurisdiction of civil courts.  Justice Chandrachud observed, “To allow administrative authorities of the state — including the collector — to adjudicate upon matters of title involving civil disputes would be destructive of the rule of law. The collector is an officer of the state... An adjudicatory function could not have been arrogated to himself by the collector. Adjudication on titles must follow recourse to the ordinary civil jurisdiction of a court of competent jurisdiction under Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure.”  As per section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act, “...

In a matter where a Hindu woman converted to Islam after marrying a Muslim man and renounced Hindu faith, does not disqualify her to inherit father’s property.  As per the Hindu Succession Act, if a person has converted then it does not disqualify her from claiming her share in the ancestral property. The Act only disqualifies the descendants of the convert who are born to the convert after such conversion from inheriting the property of any of their Hindu relatives.  In the present matter, the state revenue authorities were of the opinion that since she has renounced her religion voluntary and hence does not have any right to share in father’s property.  Nasimbanu Friozkhan Pathan from Vadodara renounced Hinduism and embraced Islam on July 11, 1990. Subsequently, she married Firoz Khan on January 25, 1991, as per the Muslim rituals.  In 2004, her father passed away leaving behind sizeable parcels in land in their village. However, her siblings opposed her claims a...

The sale deed which was duly registered by both the parties under mutual agreement can be cancelled under following circumstances. 1.     When you are  Challenging registration of a unilaterally executed   cancellation   of a   sale   deed , a writ petition is maintainable under   Article 226   of the Constitution of India. 2.     A   cancellation   of a   sale   deed   executed by mutual consent by all parties to the   saledeed , if presented for registration, Registering Officer is bound to register the same if the other provisions like   Section 32-A   of the Registration Act are complied with. 3.     The Registering Officer is obliged legally to reject and to refuse to register a unilaterally executed   deed   of   cancellation   of a   sale   deed   without the knowledge and consent of other parties to the   sale ...

Where the purchaser does not take steps to complete the sale within the agreed period, and the vendor has not been responsible for any delay or   non - performance . A purchaser can no longer take shelter under the principle that time is not of essence in   performance  of   contracts relating to immovable property, to cover his delays, laches, breaches and ` non -readiness'. The precedents from an era, when high inflation was unknown, holding that time is not of the essence of the   contract  in regard to immovable properties, may no longer apply, not because the principle laid down therein is unsound or erroneous, but the circumstances that existed when the said principle was evolved, no longer exist. In these days of galloping increases in prices of immovable properties, to hold that a vendor who took an earnest money of say about 10% of the sale price and agreed for three months or four months as the   period for   performance , did not in...