Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for K. Arumuga Velaiah VS P. R. Ramasamy...
2022 7 Supreme 1031 : A suit based on a future right, such as a mere arrangement to divide properties in the future (e.g., an arbitration award that is a memorandum of understanding or family arrangement to be acted upon later), is not maintainable if it does not create an immediate right or interest in immovable property. In the present case, the Arbitration Award was held to be a mere arrangement for future division of property by metes and bounds, not an actual deed of partition, and therefore did not create a present right. As such, it did not require registration under Section 17(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908, and was admissible in evidence. However, since the partition was already found to have taken place in 1964 and had been acted upon, a fresh suit for partition and separate possession was barred by the principle of res judicata. Thus, a suit based solely on a future right, without an immediate interest in property, is not maintainable.Checking relevance for Gopalakrishna Pillai VS Meenakshi Ayal...
1966 0 Supreme(SC) 123 : Yes, a suit is maintainable with respect to future mesne profits, but only if the suit is one for the recovery of possession of immovable property and for rent or mesne profits. Under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court has discretionary power to pass a decree directing an enquiry into future mesne profits, even if not specifically prayed for in the plaint. The court may grant this relief as a general relief, though it is not mandatory. The suit must fall within the scope of Order 20, Rule 12, which applies when the plaint claims recovery of possession and mesne profits. The plaintiff does not need to have a cause of action for future mesne profits at the time of suit institution, as such a claim arises only after the decree. The court’s power to award future mesne profits is discretionary and not dependent on a specific prayer in the plaint, provided the suit is maintainable under Order 20, Rule 12.Checking relevance for State Of Maharashtra VS Mishrilal Tarachand Lodha...
Checking relevance for Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kerala VS Gemini Cashew Sales Corporation Quilon...
Checking relevance for India Electric Works VS James Mantosh...
1970 0 Supreme(SC) 377 : Yes, a suit is maintainable for future mesne profits even without a suit for recovery of possession. This is supported by the judgment in Makhan Lal Modak v. Girish Chandra Jana, (1962) 66 Cal WN 692, which held that a claim for mesne profits may well be entertainable in the absence of a suit for recovery of possession. The court further noted that the plaintiffs'''' claim for future mesne profits was not misconceived, and the defect in the earlier suit was one of jurisdiction—specifically, that the court was not competent to pass a decree for recovery of future damages or mesne profits in a pure money suit—rather than a defect in the claim itself. This jurisdictional defect meant the claim could not be adjudicated on the merits, but it did not render the claim itself non-maintainable.Checking relevance for Beasa Devi VS Shiv Dayal...
2021 0 Supreme(HP) 202 : Yes, a suit for enhancement of maintenance is maintainable even if the original maintenance was fixed under a compromise decree. The court held that when a compromise agreement is approved by the court and incorporated into a decree under Section 25(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it becomes a court order that falls within the ambit of Section 25(2), which allows for enhancement based on changed circumstances. The principle of res judicata or estoppel does not bar such a suit, as the right to future maintenance is not extinguished by prior agreement and the maintenance decree is not final. This is supported by precedents including Kubja Devi vs. Ishwar Dass (AIR 2017 HP 21), Harilal Sarkar vs. Subhra Sarkar (2016 SCC OnLine Tri 356), and Ram Shanker Rastogi vs. Smt. Vinay Rastogi (AIR 1991 Allahabad 255), which affirm that a party can seek enhancement of maintenance under Section 25(2) even after a compromise-based decree, provided there is a material change in circumstances.Checking relevance for Rana Bhavik Jagdishchandra vs Rana Darshana Arvindkumar...
Checking relevance for Savitaben Ambalal Desai Trust through its Treustees VS Madhusudan Thakordas Tijoriwala Now Decd and Deleted...
Checking relevance for Cybercity Builders and Developers Private Limited Cyber City, Green Hills Road VS Inspector General of Registration...
2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2209 : A suit is not maintainable with respect to a future right that is contingent on an event not yet occurred. The court held that a leave and license agreement creating a future lease contingent upon construction of a building—where the property did not exist at the time of agreement—did not transfer any immediate right to enjoy the property, and thus could not be treated as a lease deed. Since the agreement did not create any immediate right, it could not be used to claim any property right, and therefore, no suit based on such a future, contingent right is maintainable until the event (construction) materializes and the right becomes enforceable. This finding is grounded in the principle that only documents transferring or creating a present right to enjoy immovable property can be impounded or used to enforce a claim, and a mere agreement for a future lease, not yet triggered, does not confer a legally enforceable right.
