• 

  A plaint cannot be rejected in fragments under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The provision does not empower the Court to strike out certain portions while permitting the rest to continue. Its scheme and language make it clear that rejection can be ordered only when the plaint, viewed in its entirety, is either barred by law or fails to disclose a cause of action. Karnataka High Court.

  • 09-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  An agreement holder cannot claim protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act based on an unregistered sale agreement, as the delivery of possession in such a case would not be valid following the amendment to the Registration Act. Karnataka High Court.

  • 09-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Writ Jurisdiction. When authorities fail to comply with repeated remand directions despite the settled legal position, the Court may grant appropriate relief directly rather than remanding the matter once again. Karnataka High Court.

  • 09-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Motor Vehicles Act. For the purpose of fixing the multiplier, completed years of age has to be taken into consideration and not the running age. Karnataka High Court.

  • 09-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  In a second appeal, the High Court cannot invoke the proviso to Section 100(5) CPC to frame and decide a substantial question of law unless it arises from the pleadings, issues, or evidence considered by the courts below. Any additional question framed at this stage must be backed by strong and cogent reasons, which are required to be expressly recorded. Supreme Court.

  • 09-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The order of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 67(2) is considered final, and the Regional Commissioner has no power to review or act on it under Section 56 of the Act. Karnataka High Court.

  • 08-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Town Planning. Areas designated for civic amenities, such as parks and parking, are sacrosanct and cannot be altered or encroached upon by the developer or landowner, even if an equivalent portion of land is offered in exchange. Karnataka High Court.

  • 08-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  When an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is filed seeking rejection of a plaint, the court must decide it at the threshold before commencing the trial. Since the object of this provision is to weed out untenable suits at the outset, conducting a trial without first deciding the application would serve no purpose if the plaint is ultimately rejected. Karnataka High Court.

  • 08-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Once evidence is recorded, the trial court is required to return findings on all issues, not merely on a preliminary one. Limitation, being generally a mixed question of law and fact, cannot be treated as a preliminary issue to dismiss the suit in its entirety. Karnataka High Court.

  • 08-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  KT & CP Act. When designation of land in the Master Plan as park is lapsed due to non-acquisition within five years, the landowner is entitled for conversion of the land as per the new classification of the land under the Master Plan. Karnataka High Court.

  • 06-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  An arbitration agreement in an unstamped or insufficiently stamped contract is valid and enforceable. Supreme Court.

  • 06-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  When certified copies of land grant orders are issued by the Tahsildar and the Regional Commissioner, the authenticity of the grants cannot be questioned, as it shows that the originals were held in their custody. Karnataka High Court.

  • 06-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal