• 

  Karnataka Land Revenue Act. A suit against the State or its officers regarding entries in revenue records is expressly barred by Section 135. Such a suit is liable to be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code for not disclosing cause of action. Karnataka High Court.

  • 18-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. In a suit for a perpetual injunction concerning immovable property, the plaintiff is permitted under Section 26(c) to value the relief sought. The trial court has the discretion to allow an amendment to a plaint to correct a clerical mistake in the suit's valuation, as long as it aligns with the relief sought and does not change the nature of the suit itself. Karnataka High Court.

  • 18-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A person invoking Order XXI Rule 97 CPC must first show a prima facie right, title, or interest in the property to qualify as an ‘’obstructor.’’ A revisional court cannot decide ownership when the property’s status—such as whether it belongs to a public trust—is already pending before another competent court. Without initial credible evidence, the court will not conduct a detailed inquiry under this provision. Karnataka High Court.

  • 18-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Hindu Law. A Karta has broad discretion and authority to sell joint family property for ‘legal necessity’. Burden on the purchaser to prove legal necessity is not absolute. They are not required to prove facts that are within the special knowledge of the coparceners, such as how the sale proceeds were distributed. A purchaser who acts with ‘ordinary prudence’ is considered a bona fide purchaser. Supreme Court.

  • 18-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  CGST/KGST Act. While a tax officer must inform a taxable person that an inspection or search is being carried out under a valid authorization, the officer is not legally required to provide a copy of the authorization itself. The non-disclosure to the taxable person does not invalidate the inspection or subsequent actions. Karnataka High Court.

  • 18-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A person who was denied registration under the Inams Abolition Act can claim tenancy under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Karnataka High Court.

  • 17-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Application of Limitation Act to proceedings in relation to any claim or interest pertaining to immovable property comprised in a waqf cannot be said to be prima facie arbitrary. Supreme Court.

  • 17-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Compulsory registration of wakf created before or after the commencement of the amendment to Wakf Act by execution of a waqf deed. Provision cannot be said to be prima facie arbitrary. Supreme Court.

  • 17-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Bar of declaration of any land in Scheduled or Tribal area as waqf under the amendment to Wakf Act cannot be said to be prima facie arbitrary. Supreme Court.

  • 17-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  ‘’Ancient monuments are a vital part of the cultural heritage of our country and therefore they need to be protected’’. Amendment to Wakf Act terming declaration of protected monument or protected area as waqf as void cannot, prima facie, be held to be arbitrary. Supreme Court.

  • 17-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Wakf Act amendment: Government property belongs to the citizens and is held by the Government in trust for them. The provision authorising a senior officer to determine whether a property is government property cannot, prima facie, be termed arbitrary, even though a revenue officer cannot adjudicate title. Supreme Court.

  • 17-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Abolition of ‘’Waqf by User’’, aimed at preventing alleged large-scale encroachment of government property, cannot, prima facie, be termed arbitrary. Supreme Court.

  • 17-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal