Rejection of plaint. Where several reliefs are sought in suit, if any one of the reliefs is within the period of limitation, the plaint cannot be rejected as barred by law by taking recourse to Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC. Supreme Court.
Rejection of plaint. Where several reliefs are sought in suit, if any one of the reliefs is within the period of limitation, the plaint cannot be rejected as barred by law by taking recourse to Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC. Supreme Court.
  • 17-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
When a sufficient joint family nucleus formed by pooling income from inherited property and family benefits is proven to exist, the burden shifts to the individual co-sharer to affirmatively demonstrate that any subsequent acquisition was made solely from their independent, separate funds; failure to discharge this burden leads to the acquisition being treated as joint family property subject to partition. Karnataka High Court.
When a sufficient joint family nucleus formed by pooling income from inherited property and family benefits is proven to exist, the burden shifts to the individual co-sharer to affirmatively demonstrate that any subsequent acquisition was made solely from their independent, separate funds; failure to discharge this burden leads to the acquisition being treated as joint family property subject to partition. Karnataka High Court.
  • 16-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Pre-emptive suit by testator for avoiding disputes regarding execution and proof of Will.
Pre-emptive suit by testator for avoiding disputes regarding execution and proof of Will.
  • 21-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
Article
News
An application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC for removal of obstruction cannot be entertained to resolve dispute between the decree holder and a person claiming title through the decree holder - an alleged purchaser. The applicant has liberty to file a separate suit to establish his claim. Karnataka High Court.
An application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC for removal of obstruction cannot be entertained to resolve dispute between the decree holder and a person claiming title through the decree holder - an alleged purchaser. The applicant has liberty to file a separate suit to establish his claim. Karnataka High Court.
  • 16-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
A suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction seeking removal of an encroachment on a public road, when filed by a user of that road, is maintainable even without a prayer for declaration of title or public right, especially when the fact of encroachment is established by the evidence. Karnataka High Court.
A suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction seeking removal of an encroachment on a public road, when filed by a user of that road, is maintainable even without a prayer for declaration of title or public right, especially when the fact of encroachment is established by the evidence. Karnataka High Court.
  • 16-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
When the court finds that sufficient oral and documentary evidence already exists for the adjudication of the issues, Court Commissioner cannot be appointed only to resolve any ambiguity or aid in the appreciation of existing material. Karnataka High Court.
When the court finds that sufficient oral and documentary evidence already exists for the adjudication of the issues, Court Commissioner cannot be appointed only to resolve any ambiguity or aid in the appreciation of existing material. Karnataka High Court.
  • 16-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
An agreement to sell property, when execution of the sale deed is postponed due to the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, is not void. A suit for specific performance can be decreed once the Fragmentation Act is repealed. Karnataka High Court.
An agreement to sell property, when execution of the sale deed is postponed due to the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, is not void. A suit for specific performance can be decreed once the Fragmentation Act is repealed. Karnataka High Court.
  • 16-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Although a writ petition challenging an ex parte injunction order passed by the trial court is maintainable, the High Court should refrain from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction when an application seeking discharge of the ad-interim ex parte injunction is already pending before the trial court. Karnataka High Court.
Although a writ petition challenging an ex parte injunction order passed by the trial court is maintainable, the High Court should refrain from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction when an application seeking discharge of the ad-interim ex parte injunction is already pending before the trial court. Karnataka High Court.
  • 15-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Mohammedan Law. In the absence of a legal guardian i.e. father or grandfather, the mother, as the de facto guardian, can act on behalf of her minor son and accept an oral gift. She has no authority to transfer any right or interest in the minor’s immovable property. Karnataka High Court.
Mohammedan Law. In the absence of a legal guardian i.e. father or grandfather, the mother, as the de facto guardian, can act on behalf of her minor son and accept an oral gift. She has no authority to transfer any right or interest in the minor’s immovable property. Karnataka High Court.
  • 15-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement

Become A Member Get Instant Update

Daksha Legal Seminars

Daksha Legal Seminar on Model Tenancy Act

  • 03-October-2021 22:43

Panchanama - Evidentiary Value: Justice John Michael Cunha, Former Judge Karnataka High Court

  • 15-July-2021 03:42

Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code

  • 15-July-2021 03:40

Judgment on Basic Structure doctrine- Kenya High Court

  • 15-July-2021 03:37

Trial of Suits for Declaration of Title, Injunction and Possession. S.R.Somashekar, Principal District Judge (Rtd)

  • 30-May-2021 17:55

Trial of Partition Suits :Procedural Law (Part-I) Shri. S.R. Somashekara, Principal District Judge (Rtd) 28 May 2021

  • 30-May-2021 04:27

Discussion on Junior Advocates and guidance by Seniors.

  • 09-December-2020 06:19

Bail & Anticipatory Bail - M.S. Shyamsunder, Advocate, Bangalore

  • 09-December-2020 06:20

Woman as Coparcener. Legal Implications - Justice N Kumar

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Anup Shah

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Instruments Not Duly Stamped - Justice A N Venugopalagowda

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Withdrawal and Adjustment of Suits - Justice A N Venugopalagowda

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Judicial Review jurisdiction Prayers and Reliefs Mr Mohan V Katarki Senior Advocate Supreme Court

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Rejection of Plaint Justice A N Venugopalagowda 16 Sept 2020

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Driving License and Defence to Insurer - Mr S P Shankar Senior Advocate

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Termination of Contract & Drafting Termination Clause & Termination Notice - Ajay Nandalike. Adv.

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Daksha Legal Seminar Justice Ashok B Hinchigeri. "Civil Procedure Code. Order 26 Rule 9"

  • 25-November-2020 06:12

Daksha Legal Online seminar on disability laws with Jayna Kothari, Senior Advocate, Bangalore.

  • 25-November-2020 06:12

Article 370 - Bridge or Barricade? Seminar conducted by Daksha Legal - Mr. J Sai Deepak, Advocate

  • 25-November-2020 06:12

Daksha Legal discussion on Latest Judgement of Karnataka High Court on Hindu Law.

  • 25-November-2020 06:11
'Supreme Court curtailing the inherent powers of the High Courts. Neither Legal nor Justified'. - B.V.Acharya, former Advocate General for Karnataka.
'Supreme Court curtailing the inherent powers of the High Courts. Neither Legal nor Justified'. - B.V.Acharya, former Advocate General for Karnataka.
  • 07-November-2024
  • Daksha Legal
Article
Tender. When the intending party responds to the tender notice, it is not permissible for such party to put forth its own conditions and seek variance in the conditions of tender. Karnataka High Court.
Tender. When the intending party responds to the tender notice, it is not permissible for such party to put forth its own conditions and seek variance in the conditions of tender. Karnataka High Court.
  • 08-October-2024
  • Daksha Legal
Article
Suit for specific performance. Purchaser of suit property from the defendant/vendor is a necessary party to the suit and can be impleaded. Karnataka High Court.
Suit for specific performance. Purchaser of suit property from the defendant/vendor is a necessary party to the suit and can be impleaded. Karnataka High Court.
  • 03-October-2024
  • Daksha Legal
Article
Suit for specific performance. Plaintiff can seek amendment of pleading to declare that collusive decree between his vendor and third party is not binding on him. Court must prevent multiplicity of the proceedings. Karnataka High Court.
Suit for specific performance. Plaintiff can seek amendment of pleading to declare that collusive decree between his vendor and third party is not binding on him. Court must prevent multiplicity of the proceedings. Karnataka High Court.
  • 01-October-2024
  • Daksha Legal
Article
Tender. Courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender because it feels that some other terms would have been fair, wiser or logical. Karnataka High Court.
Tender. Courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender because it feels that some other terms would have been fair, wiser or logical. Karnataka High Court.
  • 30-September-2024
  • Daksha Legal
Article
Negotiable Instruments Act. Cheque issued towards refund of advance sale consideration upon the failure to execute the sale deed, attracts the provisions of the Act. Karnataka High Court.
Negotiable Instruments Act. Cheque issued towards refund of advance sale consideration upon the failure to execute the sale deed, attracts the provisions of the Act. Karnataka High Court.
  • 28-September-2024
  • Daksha Legal
Article