• 

  Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to decide on the regularization of land possession, as this power is exclusively held by the Taluka Regularization Committee. Karnataka High Court.

  • 19-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Deputy Commissioner's authority under Section 136 (3) is limited to correcting revenue entries and does not extend to annulling previous land grants, determining the validity of transactions, or ordering the resumption of land. The suo motu power cannot be exercised decades after the original grant, especially when third-party interests have been established. Karnataka High Court.

  • 19-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A nominee of a life insurance policy or bank deposit has no beneficial or ownership rights in the deceased’s assets. The nominee merely receives the funds to discharge the bank’s or insurer’s liability, and the amount forms part of the estate to be distributed under succession law. Karnataka High Court.

  • 19-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A plaint cannot be rejected merely because the plaintiff disputes her signature on the vakalat, as this is not a ground under Order 7 Rule 11. Such a procedural defect should be allowed to be cured and cannot defeat the party’s substantive rights. Karnataka High Court.

  • 19-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  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
• 

  Karnataka Government Servants (Medical Attendance) Rules. A medical reimbursement claim cannot be denied merely because a recognized hospital has changed its name, provided it remains the same legal entity. Authorities are responsible for updating their records, and their inaction cannot be used to deprive an employee of reimbursement. Karnataka High Court.

  • 23-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
• 

  Civil Procedure Code. The discretion to allow a delayed counter claim must not be exercised after the issues in the case have been framed, as this would be detrimental to the principle of speedy justice. A counter claim is also subject to the Limitation Act. Supreme Court.

  • 19-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