• 

  Karnataka Land Grant Rules Grantee of land must be afforded an opportunity to pay the assessed value of the standing trees within the time prescribed by the granting authority. Any cancellation of the grant without adhering to this procedure is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Karnataka High Court.

  • 23-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  The trial courts may, during the trial and in the interest of effective administration of justice, indicate the nature of evidence it expects from both parties. Such guidance cannot be construed as the Court siding with either party. Courts are vested with the authority to insist upon better and more satisfactory proof where necessary. Karnataka High Court.

  • 23-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Mohammedan Law. A property for which only an agreement of sale was executed by the owner during his lifetime remains vested in him at the time of his death and therefore constitutes 'matruka property' subject to division among his legal heirs since the agreement of sale does not transfer any title or interest in immovable property. Supreme Court.

  • 23-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Upon transfer of a leased property, the transferee automatically steps into the shoes of the lessor by operation of law, and the tenant is estopped from questioning the transferee’s title. An ejectment suit filed by the transferee is maintainable once the lease has determined either by efflux of time or by a valid quit notice. Karnataka High Court.

  • 18-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A convict who breaches conditions of parole by failing to surrender on the stipulated date is guilty of the offence under Section 58 of the Karnataka Prisons (Amendment) Act, 2022, particularly where the convict fails to produce credible evidence to support any plea of involuntary non-compliance. Karnataka High Court issues guidelines to the Superintendents of Central and District Prisons across the State.

  • 20-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A party bearing the burden of proof cannot, as a general rule—and particularly after the closure of evidence—compel or summon the opposite party to testify as his own witness. Such a course is legally disfavoured and regarded as an abuse of process or a dilatory tactic. The appropriate remedy when the opposing party refrains from entering the witness box is to seek an adverse inference against him. Karnataka High Court.

  • 18-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Constitution of India. A foreigner or foreign company cannot claim protection under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Article 19, noble in its spirit and luminous in its promise, remains a charter of rights conferred upon citizens only. Karnataka High Court.

  • 28-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Evidence Act. A registered, 30 year old adoption deed carries a presumption of due execution which, when coupled with proof of the customary 'giving and taking' ceremony, is sufficient to establish the adoption, provided the challenging party fails to rebut the presumption. Karnataka High Court.

  • 17-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Arrest of an accused under Section 19 is legally valid and not arbitrary if the Enforcement Directorate demonstrates sufficient material and a reason to believe that the accused is involved in money laundering, provided that at least one scheduled/predicate offense is alive. Karnataka High Court.

  • 17-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Town Planning. The validity of a building plan sanction is governed by the law in force on the date of its approval, not the date of application. Mere submission of an application does not confer any vested right or legitimate expectation for consideration under the earlier regulations, particularly when a later statutory amendment introduces restrictions in the public interest. Karnataka High Court.

  • 17-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  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
• 

  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