Recent land rulings, 2025–2026ज़मीन से जुड़े हाल के अदालती फ़ैसले

2 December 2025 · Government of Rajasthan, Finance Department (Tax Division) · Notification No. F.2(60)FD/Tax/2007pt.-120

Rajasthan issues e-Registration Rules, 2025: online filing and remote e-KYC

Rajasthan e-Registration Rules, 2025

Rajasthan’s Finance Department issued the Rajasthan e-Registration Rules, 2025 (notification dated 2 December 2025) under Section 69 of the Registration Act. They let a party start registration online on the e-Panjiyan portal and verify identity by Aadhaar e-KYC or video KYC instead of appearing in person; deficient documents are held for correction within 30 days. The rules take effect on publication in the Official Gazette; we could not confirm that date or the rollout.

For a buyer. Remote registration makes the buyer's own identity and title checks more important, not less. Confirm with the concerned sub-registrar office whether e-registration is working for your type of document before relying on it.

In the register: Suraj Lamp & Industries · Satya Pal Anand

Source: Rajasthan Finance Department — one source; read it before relying on the summary.

1 September 2025 · Supreme Court of India · 2025 INSC 1059; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 862

SC: agreement to sell, GPA or a doubtful will cannot make you the owner

Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. LRs v. Suresh Chand & Anr.

Reversing two lower courts, the Supreme Court dismissed a possession suit built on an agreement to sell, a GPA, an affidavit, a receipt and a registered will from the owner. It held that none of these conveys title; only a registered sale deed does. The will failed because the unexplained exclusion of the other children made it suspicious, so the property passed to all legal heirs.

For a buyer. Land offered 'on GPA' or through an agreement plus a will still belongs in law to the original owner and, after death, to all heirs. Insist on a registered sale deed from every person who holds title, and have a lawyer check the chain.

In the register: Suraj Lamp & Industries · Shakeel Ahmed · Ghanshyam · Kavita Kanwar · H. Venkatachala Iyengar

Sources: LiveLaw · Verdictum

26 May 2025 · Government of India, Department of Land Resources (Ministry of Rural Development)

Draft Registration Bill 2025 would make sale agreements and POAs compulsorily registrable

Draft Registration Bill, 2025

The Department of Land Resources released a draft Registration Bill to replace the 1908 Act and invited public comments until 25 June 2025. It proposes compulsory registration of agreements to sell, powers of attorney for transfer, sale certificates, deposit-of-title-deed mortgages and court decrees affecting property, along with online presentation and consent-based Aadhaar authentication.

For a buyer. This is a draft, not law. Until Parliament enacts a new statute, the 1908 Act and the Suraj Lamp line of rulings apply, so an unregistered agreement or GPA still gives no ownership.

In the register: Suraj Lamp & Industries · Shakeel Ahmed · Ghanshyam · K.B. Saha and Sons

Sources: Government of India notice · Business Standard

May 2025 · Supreme Court of India · 2025 INSC 646

A registered sale deed is not proof of title if the seller's root is defective

Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Ors. v. M/s Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

In a Telangana dispute over land that had vested in the State under land reform law, the Supreme Court held that registration only gives public notice that a document was executed; it does not make the transaction valid, and its presumptions can be rebutted. Registered deeds traced to an unregistered 1982 agreement of sale could not establish title, and the claimants were left to civil or statutory remedies.

For a buyer. Trace title back to its root: every link should be a valid registered conveyance, a lawful succession or a grant. Also check whether the land was ever vested in the State, allotted with conditions, or caught in land reform proceedings.

Sources give different days for this ruling, so only the month is shown.

In the register: Suraj Lamp & Industries · Prem Singh · Narandas Karsondas · K.B. Saha and Sons

Sources: Verdictum · SC Observer · Bar & Bench

7 April 2025 · Supreme Court of India · 2025 INSC 462

Sub-Registrar cannot refuse registration by probing the seller's title: SC

K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar & Ors.

Striking down Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules as beyond the Registration Act, the Supreme Court held that a registering officer has no power to decide whether the executant owns the property. Once procedure is followed and fees are paid, the document must be registered. If the seller lacks title, the deed passes only whatever rights the seller actually had.

For a buyer. Registration at the sub-registrar's office is not a title check. Verify ownership, the chain of deeds and the revenue records yourself, because a registered deed from someone without title gives you nothing more than that person had.

In the register: Satya Pal Anand · Prem Singh · Suraj Lamp & Industries

Sources: Verdictum · Supreme Court of India

27 February 2025 · Supreme Court of India · 2025 INSC 273

Calling a GPA 'irrevocable' does not keep it alive after the owner dies, SC rules

M.S. Ananthamurthy & Anr. v. J. Manjula etc.

The Supreme Court held that a power of attorney ends on the principal's death unless it is genuinely coupled with an interest under Section 202 of the Contract Act; merely labelling it irrevocable changes nothing. A sale made by the attorney after the owner's death, resting on an unregistered agreement to sell, was ineffective, and the rival parties' registered sale deeds prevailed. The appeals were dismissed.

For a buyer. If a seller signs as someone's attorney, confirm the principal is alive on the day of registration and read exactly what the power authorises. Deals resting on an old 'irrevocable GPA' plus an agreement to sell carry serious title risk.

In the register: Suraj Lamp & Industries · Shakeel Ahmed · Ghanshyam · Narandas Karsondas

Sources: Verdictum · Supreme Court of India

20 August 2026 · Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur) · 2026:RJ-JD:40614

Rajasthan HC: khatedari claims go to revenue court first; Section 8 inheritance isn't HUF

Devaram v. Khetaram & Ors.

The Rajasthan High Court upheld rejection of a grandson's suit claiming a coparcenary share in agricultural land and cancellation of registered sale deeds. Property his father inherited under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act was held in individual capacity unless a joint family estate is pleaded and shown, and khatedari rights must first be declared by the revenue court before civil relief.

For a buyer. Children of a seller who inherited land from his father do not automatically have a birthright to block a sale, but claimants may still approach the revenue court. Check the succession history and any pending revenue suits.

In the register: Suraj Bhan · Uttam · Vineeta Sharma

Sources: Verdictum · Verdictum

December 2025 · Supreme Court of India · 2025 INSC 1485

Tahsildar can't reject mutation just because it rests on a will; title stays open

Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal & Anr.

Under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, the Supreme Court held that a mutation application cannot be refused merely because it is based on a will. Mutation serves fiscal ends and should be recorded subject to the outcome of any civil suit, while serious disputes about a will's genuineness belong in civil court. The revenue authorities' mutation order was restored.

For a buyer. A will-based mutation in the land records is not a finding that the will is valid. Before buying from a legatee, check whether other heirs contested the will and whether any civil case is pending.

Sources give different days for this ruling, so only the month is shown.

In the register: Jitendra Singh · Sawarni · Suraj Bhan · Kavita Kanwar · H. Venkatachala Iyengar

Sources: Verdictum · LawWeb

7 November 2025 · Supreme Court of India · 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2370

SC strikes down Bihar rule that made mutation proof a precondition for registry

Samiullah v. State of Bihar & Ors.

The Supreme Court quashed Rules 19(xvii) and 19(xviii) of the Bihar Registration Rules, added in 2019, which required jamabandi or holding-allotment proof before a sale or gift deed could be registered, as beyond the rule-making power in Section 69. It stressed that the Act registers documents, not title, and asked the Law Commission to study reform, including blockchain-linked land records.

For a buyer. Mutation and registration are separate steps and neither alone proves ownership. Check both the registered chain of title and the current jamabandi, and resolve any mismatch before paying.

In the register: Sawarni · Suraj Bhan · Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar · Satya Pal Anand

Source: SCC Online — one source; read it before relying on the summary.

15 October 2025 · Supreme Court of India · 2025 INSC 1238; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1011

Mutation entries are only fiscal; heirs' title suit cannot be rejected at the outset

Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh & Ors.

In a Punjab inheritance dispute over a will said to date from 1976, the Supreme Court set aside the rejection of the heirs' suit as time-barred. It repeated that mutation entries serve fiscal purposes and confer no ownership, that a suit for possession based on title has 12 years from when possession turns adverse (Article 65), and that a plaint survives if any relief is within time.

For a buyer. A seller whose name entered the jamabandi through a disputed will or mutation may still face heirs' claims years later. Ask how the seller's name got into the record and whether any heir has objected or sued.

In the register: Sawarni · Suraj Bhan · Jitendra Singh · Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar

Sources: Verdictum · LawBeat

29 July 2025 · Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur) · 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 257; 2025:RJ-JD:33456

Rajasthan HC: civil court can cancel a voidable sale deed of agricultural land

Sohan Singh v. Rajkidevi & Ors.

Dismissing a revision against refusal to reject a plaint, the Rajasthan High Court held that where the plaint makes out a voidable sale deed, such as a sale of ancestral joint property without legal necessity, only a civil court can cancel it despite Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Where the deed is alleged to be void, the revenue court's exclusive jurisdiction applies.

For a buyer. Family members can challenge a sale of ancestral farmland in the civil court even after registration. Ask whether the land is ancestral, whether all co-sharers joined the sale, and whether any suit or objection is pending.

In the register: Suraj Bhan · Prem Singh · Vineeta Sharma

Sources: LiveLaw · Indian Kanoon · Verdictum

27 May 2025 · Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan HC quashes SDO's same-day partition decree, urges training for revenue courts

Umakant Sharma v. Om Prakash Sharma

The Rajasthan High Court set aside a partition and injunction decree that an SDO passed on the day the written statement was filed, without framing issues or recording evidence, along with both appellate orders. Calling it a textbook lapse, it sent the case back for trial within 18 months and recommended an Administrative Judicial Academy to train officers who sit as revenue courts.

For a buyer. A revenue-court partition or declaration that a seller relies on may be open to challenge if it was passed without a proper hearing. Get certified copies of the order and any appeals, and check whether a further challenge is pending.

In the register: Suraj Bhan · Shub Karan Bubna

Source: SCC Online — one source; read it before relying on the summary.

10 September 2026 · Supreme Court of India · 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 923; 2026 INSC 983

Long possession is not adverse possession unless hostility is pleaded and proved: SC

Bhag Singh (D) thr. Mahant Kashmir Singh v. Basant Kaur (D) thr. LRs & Ors.

In a 1981 suit over agricultural land in Punjab, a religious dera claimed dedication and adverse possession based on decades of occupation and revenue entries. The Supreme Court rejected both: possession that began with permission does not turn hostile by lapse of time, the date it became hostile must be pleaded, and revenue entries show possession only. The plaintiffs' decree was upheld.

For a buyer. A seller or occupier who relies on 'we have been here for decades' has not shown ownership. Ask for the documentary root of title, and treat anyone else in occupation as a risk to resolve before purchase.

In the register: Karnataka Board of Wakf · P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy · Ravinder Kaur Grewal · Sawarni

Sources: LiveLaw · Verdictum

26 June 2026 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 209

P&H HC: State can't claim adverse possession over farmland it used without acquisition

Ranbir Singh & Ors. v. Haryana State through Collector, Fatehabad

The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected Haryana's plea that it had acquired part of private farmland by adverse possession after using it for a water distributary since about 1960 without acquisition. A welfare State cannot act as a squatter, and no limitation runs in its favour for such occupation. The court treated it as a deemed acquisition and ordered market-value compensation with statutory benefits.

For a buyer. If a government canal, road or channel crosses land you hold or are buying, the owner may have a compensation claim, but that strip is not usable. Check revenue maps and ask whether any acquisition or compensation proceedings exist.

In the register: State of Haryana · Vidya Devi · Sukh Dutt Ratra · Tukaram Kana Joshi

Source: LiveLaw — one source; read it before relying on the summary.

12 September 2025 · Supreme Court of India · 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 900

Deed signed without the owner is void; possession suit gets 12 years, not 3: SC

Shanti Devi (since deceased) thr. LRs v. Jagan Devi & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that a sale instrument executed without the true owner's participation is void from the start and need not be cancelled. A suit for possession based on title is therefore governed by the 12-year period in Article 65 of the Limitation Act, not the three-year period in Article 59, which applies to voidable transactions. The suit was held to be within time.

For a buyer. A registered deed from someone who was not the owner can be ignored by the real owner, who may sue for possession years later. That is why a buyer must confirm the seller is the lawful owner, not just a name on a deed.

In the register: Prem Singh · Nair Service Society

Source: LiveLaw — one source; read it before relying on the summary.

8 August 2025 · Supreme Court of India · 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 790

Adverse possession can't be raised for the first time in appeal, says Supreme Court

Kishundeo Rout & Ors. v. Govind Rao & Ors.

In a suit to cancel a registered sale deed, the first appellate court decreed for the plaintiffs on adverse possession although they had never pleaded it. The High Court reversed that, and the Supreme Court agreed: adverse possession must be specifically pleaded, put in issue and proved at trial, and cannot be sprung on a defendant for the first time on appeal.

For a buyer. Claims of ownership by long occupation are judged strictly and on the pleadings. If an occupier of land you are buying asserts such a claim, get legal advice on how it has been raised in any case.

In the register: Karnataka Board of Wakf · P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy

Source: LiveLaw — one source; read it before relying on the summary.

25 August 2026 · Supreme Court of India (J.B. Pardiwala, K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.) · 2026 INSC 924; 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 868

SC: government cannot use summary eviction where a genuine title dispute exists

M/s Circar Paper Mills Ltd. v. District Collector, Nellore Distt. & Ors.

Andhra Pradesh treated land sold at a company-liquidation auction as 'assigned' government land and sought to remove the buyer summarily. The Supreme Court restored the auction sale, noting private possession traced to 1920, registered deeds and mutations. A bona fide ownership dispute must go to a civil court, not be settled by summary eviction. It applied Thummala Krishna Rao (1982).

For a buyer. A long, documented chain of title and possession is the best defence if a revenue office later calls the land government or assigned land. The ruling limits summary eviction; it does not stop the State from suing in a civil court.

In the register: Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sources: LiveLaw · Supreme Court Cases

19 August 2026 · Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur), Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. · 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 346; 2026:RJ-JD:39419

Rajasthan HC: no demolition for master-plan road widening without hearing and title check

Ram Prasad v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (with connected petitions)

Owners in Sri Ganganagar received Urban Improvement Trust demolition notices for an unfinished master-plan road that treated them as encroachers. The High Court required a committee of senior officials, formed within 15 days, to hear each owner and examine title claims, with compensation at prevailing rates where title is valid but the land is still needed. It relied on Article 300A and Gulab Kothari.

For a buyer. A master-plan road can take in land you hold, but the authority must hear you and examine your title before demolishing. Keep title papers in order and answer any notice within time.

In the register: Kolkata Municipal Corporation · Government of Andhra Pradesh · Gulab Kothari

Sources: LiveLaw · Indian Kanoon

6 January 2026 · Supreme Court of India (B.V. Nagarathna, R. Mahadevan, JJ.) · 2026 INSC 21; 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 20

SC: State cannot claim surplus land on paper without notice to the person in possession

Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976, Gujarat declared part of a holding surplus in 1989 without serving the Section 10(5) notice on the people actually occupying it. The Supreme Court held that such notice to the actual possessor is mandatory and that vesting by operation of law without actual possession is not enough. The proceedings therefore abated under the 1999 Repeal Act.

For a buyer. An old ceiling or acquisition entry does not by itself prove the State took the land; whether physical possession was actually taken can decide who holds it today. Check the full proceedings file, not just a 'vested' entry, and take legal advice.

In the register: Kolkata Municipal Corporation · Indore Development Authority

Sources: Verdictum · LiveLaw

21 April 2025 · Supreme Court of India (Dipankar Datta, Manmohan, JJ.) · 2025 INSC 521; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 448

SC: land taken without acquisition must be valued on the Section 11 notification date

Sumitraben Singabhai Gamit v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Part of the appellant's land in Gujarat had been used for a canal with no acquisition and no compensation, which the State later admitted. When acquisition was finally begun under the 2013 Act, the Supreme Court held that market value must be fixed as on the date of the Section 11 notification, not 1 January 2014. The statute says 'shall', so courts cannot choose another date.

For a buyer. If a canal, road or other public work already sits on part of your land without acquisition, the State can still be required to acquire and pay for it, valued at the 2013 Act notification date. Keep records of when the land was occupied and take legal advice on the claim.

In the register: Tukaram Kana Joshi · Vidya Devi · Sukh Dutt Ratra · Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz

Sources: Supreme Court Cases · LiveLaw

27 May 2026 · Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur), Division Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma ACJ, Sangeeta Sharma, J. · 2026:RJ-JP:21438-DB

Rajasthan HC: old JDA acquisition in Jaipur lapsed; conversion still needs Section 90-A

Jhutharam & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; J.D.A. & Ors. v. Jhutharam & Ors.

JDA had acquired land in Jaipur tehsil (notification 1991, award 1995) but never took possession or paid compensation. A Division Bench held that the acquisition, and connected urban-ceiling proceedings, lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, dismissed JDA's appeal and ordered money the owners had deposited under a 2002 settlement returned with interest. The land stays agricultural; conversion must follow Section 90-A.

For a buyer. Land once notified for JDA acquisition may be free of it if possession was never taken and compensation never paid, but that needs a court or official finding. Even then, non-agricultural use needs a separate 90-A conversion.

In the register: Indore Development Authority · Pune Municipal Corporation · Bhanwar Singh

Source: Indian Kanoon — one source; read it before relying on the summary.

9 February 2026 · Supreme Court of India (M.M. Sundresh, Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.) · 2026 INSC 138; 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 130

SC: old acquisitions awarded after 2013 Act follow it; late appeals can be condoned

The Deputy Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer v. M/s S.V. Global Mill Ltd. (with connected appeals)

High Courts had dismissed appeals against compensation awards as time-barred. The Supreme Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to appeals under Section 74 of the 2013 Act, so delay can be condoned. Where an acquisition begun under the 1894 Act had no award before the 2013 Act commenced, compensation is decided under the 2013 Act and appeals lie under Section 74.

For a buyer. If land under an old acquisition reached its award only after the 2013 Act took effect, the 2013 Act's compensation rules should apply. Confirm the award date from the official record.

In the register: Indore Development Authority

Sources: Verdictum · Indian Kanoon

23 April 2025 · Supreme Court of India (Sanjay Karol, Manmohan, JJ.) · 2025 INSC 550; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 473

SC: long delay in appeal is no reason to deny landowners fair compensation

Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Landowners in Bahadurgarh, Haryana, whose land was acquired under the 1894 Act, had given papers for an appeal that was not filed in time; a connected appeal was over 4,900 days late. Citing Articles 300A and 31A, the Supreme Court condoned the delay and sent the matters back to the High Court on the merits, but barred interest for the condoned period.

For a buyer. A compensation claim is not necessarily lost to delay when the owner was not at fault, but interest for the delayed period can be forfeited. Pursue enhancement claims promptly.

In the register: K.T. Plantation · Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz

Sources: Verdictum · Supreme Court of India

27 March 2025 · Supreme Court of India (Sanjiv Khanna CJI, Sanjay Kumar, J.) · 2025 INSC 408; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 364

SC: no automatic 'development deduction' when valuing land under the 2013 Act

Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation v. Vincent Daniel & Ors.

For a highway widening near Jabalpur, compensation was fixed from Stamp Act guideline rates, and the acquiring body sought a deduction because the land was undeveloped. The Supreme Court held that the deduction method belongs to the 1894 Act, not the 2013 Act. Under the 2013 Act, guideline (circle) rates are prima facie market value and can be adjusted only for recorded reasons.

For a buyer. Under the 2013 Act the circle rate is the starting point for valuing acquired farmland, and authorities cannot cut it by a routine percentage. Owners can still show that the true market value is higher.

In the register: Chimanlal Hargovinddas · Lal Chand

Sources: Supreme Court Cases · LiveLaw

4 February 2025 · Supreme Court of India (Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.) · 2025 INSC 146; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 161

SC: 1997-2015 highway land acquisitions must carry solatium and interest

Union of India v. Tarsem Singh

The Union and the NHAI asked the Court to declare that its 2019 Tarsem Singh ruling, which extended solatium and interest to land acquired under the National Highways Act, applied only prospectively. The Court refused: denying these benefits to owners whose land was taken between 1997 and 2015 would continue unconstitutional discrimination, and paying them does not amount to reopening decided cases.

For a buyer. Families whose land went to a national highway in that period may have a claim to solatium and interest. Check the award and what was actually paid, and take legal advice on the procedure.

In the register: Nagpur Improvement Trust

Sources: Supreme Court of India · LiveLaw

22 September 2026 · Supreme Court of India · 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 974

Widow's pre-1956 limited interest became absolute under s.14(1) without partition: SC

Ganapati (Dead) by LRs v. Prabhakar & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that a widow whose husband died in 1949, and who took a limited interest under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act 1937, became absolute owner under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act without first seeking partition. The stepson's appeal was dismissed and the High Court's ruling in her favour upheld.

For a buyer. Old family land that passed through a widow before 1956 may have become her absolute property, which changes who could later sell or inherit it. Trace succession back through such events when checking title.

In the register: Arunachala Gounder · Uttam

Source: LiveLaw — one source; read it before relying on the summary.

14 July 2026 · Supreme Court of India · 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 675

Co-heirs' first right to buy a share under Section 22 HSA covers farmland: SC

Mahinder & Ors. v. Puran Singh

The Supreme Court held that the preferential right of Class I heirs under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, to buy a co-heir's share before it goes to an outsider, applies equally to agricultural land. It is an incident of succession, unlike the Punjab pre-emption law struck down in Atam Prakash. Following Babu Ram (2019), the appeal was dismissed.

For a buyer. Buying one heir's share of inherited farmland can be challenged by the other Class I heirs, who may claim a first right to buy it. Where land is jointly inherited, get written consent or waivers from the co-heirs.

In the register: Babu Ram

Source: LiveLaw — one source; read it before relying on the summary.

22 July 2025 · Rajasthan High Court · 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 258; 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 3772

Rajasthan HC backs tribal daughter's claim to father's land, urges amending HSA s.2(2)

Manni Devi v. Rama Devi & Ors.

A daughter from a Scheduled Tribe family challenged her father's gift of land, but the Board of Revenue held the Hindu Succession Act inapplicable to tribals and blocked her declaration suit. The Rajasthan High Court set that aside, holding tribal daughters should not be denied the equal share non-tribal daughters get, directed the SDO to decide on merits, and urged the Union to amend Section 2(2).

For a buyer. In Rajasthan, daughters from tribal families may successfully press claims to family agricultural land. Before buying, account for every heir, including daughters, and check for pending revenue suits.

In the register: Vineeta Sharma · Arunachala Gounder

Sources: LiveLaw · SCC Online

22 July 2025 · Supreme Court of India · 2025 INSC 879; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 734

Registered will carries a presumption of genuineness, SC says in family land dispute

Metpalli Lasum Bai (since dead) & Ors. v. Metapalli Muthaih (D) by LRs

The Supreme Court restored a trial court decree for a widow who claimed agricultural land under a 1974 registered will and an oral family settlement. It held that a registered will is presumed genuine and the challenger must prove otherwise; the son's admission of his father's signature helped. The oral settlement matched the will and was backed by her long possession.

For a buyer. A registered will helps but can still be challenged; the Supreme Court rejected a registered will with suspicious circumstances in Ramesh Chand (2025). Before buying from a legatee, check any probate or court history and whether other heirs object.

In the register: Kale · Kavita Kanwar · H. Venkatachala Iyengar

Sources: Verdictum · LiveLaw

17 July 2025 · Supreme Court of India · 2025 INSC 865

SC: tribal women share ancestral property equally unless an excluding custom is proved

Ram Charan & Ors. v. Sukhram & Ors.

In a Chhattisgarh case, the Supreme Court held that although Section 2(2) keeps Scheduled Tribes outside the Hindu Succession Act, courts cannot presume a custom excluding daughters. Whoever asserts such a custom must prove it; otherwise justice, equity and good conscience apply, and denying women an equal share lacks any rational basis under Article 14. The High Court's contrary ruling was set aside.

For a buyer. When buying land from a Scheduled Tribe family, do not assume only male heirs hold rights. Identify every heir, including daughters and their heirs, and remember that transfers of ST khatedari land in Rajasthan face separate legal limits.

In the register: Vineeta Sharma · Arunachala Gounder

Sources: SC Observer · Vision IAS

2 January 2025 · Supreme Court of India · 2025 INSC 20

Gift to son cancelled after he failed to maintain his mother: SC on Senior Citizens Act

Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors.

The Supreme Court restored cancellation of a gift deed a mother executed in her son's favour. The deed and a contemporaneous undertaking recorded his duty to maintain her, which he did not honour. Reading Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act as beneficial legislation, the Court held that tribunals can cancel such transfers when the condition is breached.

For a buyer. Property a seller received from parents by gift may be open to cancellation if the gift carried maintenance conditions that were breached. Read the gift deed and any related undertaking before buying.

Source: Verdictum — one source; read it before relying on the summary.

31 July 2026 · Supreme Court of India · 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 758

Two decades' delay and broken readiness defeat specific performance: SC

V.N.A.S Chandran v. S Venila & Ors.

Restoring a trial court's refusal to enforce a 2004 agreement to sell property in the Nilgiris, the Supreme Court held that readiness and willingness must exist continuously from agreement to decree. Dishonoured cheques and funds arranged only at the appeal stage fell short, and more than twenty years' delay and the vendor's age weighed against relief. Refund of the advance with interest was ordered.

For a buyer. An agreement to sell is not a safe way to hold land for years. Keep funds ready and documented from the start, and complete the registered sale within the agreed time.

In the register: K.S. Vidyanadam · Saradamani Kandappan · Kamal Kumar

Sources: LiveLaw · LiveLaw

9 April 2026 · Supreme Court of India · 2026 INSC 339

SC upholds specific performance of a 1988 farmland sale; seller's later transfers fail

Russi Fisheries P. Ltd. & Anr. v. Bhavna Seth & Ors.

A company agreed in 1988 to sell agricultural land, took part payment, extended the completion date in writing, then failed to appear at the Sub-Registrar's office on the final date. The Supreme Court upheld the decree for specific performance, accepting receipts for payments made to its representative and proof of the buyer's attendance, and held the seller's later transfers hit by lis pendens.

For a buyer. Keep receipts, written extensions and proof of attending the registration office on the agreed date; courts rely on them. Land under a pending specific performance suit is risky to buy, because later transfers can be defeated.

In the register: Kamal Kumar · K.S. Vidyanadam

Source: LiveLaw — one source; read it before relying on the summary.

19 November 2025 · Supreme Court of India · 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1122

Assignment of a specific performance decree need not be registered, SC holds

Rajeswari & Ors. v. Shanmugam & Anr.

The Supreme Court held that a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell does not itself create any right, title or interest in immovable property, so a deed assigning that decree to someone else does not need registration. The executing court's objection to the unregistered assignment was wrong, and the High Court's reversal of it was affirmed.

For a buyer. A specific performance decree is only a right to obtain a sale deed, not ownership. If you are offered land through an assignment of such a decree, title passes only when the sale deed is executed and registered.

In the register: Narandas Karsondas · Suraj Lamp & Industries

Source: LiveLaw — one source; read it before relying on the summary.

10 November 2025 · Supreme Court of India · 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1084

Later buyers with notice lose to the earlier agreement holder in farmland dispute: SC

K.S. Manjunath & Ors. v. Moorasavirappa @ Muttanna Chennappa Batil

Sellers of agricultural land unilaterally terminated a 2000 agreement to sell and in 2007 sold to others. The Supreme Court held the first buyers' suit maintainable without a separate declaration against the termination, accepted their proven readiness, and denied the later purchasers bona fide purchaser protection because they knew of the earlier agreement. They were directed to convey the land on receiving the balance.

For a buyer. Before buying, check for any earlier agreement to sell, suit or lis pendens on the land, and ask the seller to disclose them in writing. A later registered deed can be undone if you had notice of a prior agreement.

In the register: K.S. Vidyanadam · Kamal Kumar · Ghanshyam

Source: LiveLaw — one source; read it before relying on the summary.

2 May 2025 · Supreme Court of India · 2025 INSC 617

Earnest money can be forfeited only if the contract clearly says so: Supreme Court

K.R. Suresh v. R. Poornima & Ors.

A buyer who missed the deadline for paying the balance sought specific performance or, failing that, a refund. The Supreme Court held that forfeiting an advance as earnest money is justified only when the contract clearly and explicitly provides for it. Here it did, the advance was earnest money rather than part-payment, and the forfeiture was upheld with no refund.

For a buyer. Read the forfeiture clause before paying an advance: whether it is called earnest money or part payment, and what happens on default, decides whether you can get it back. Keep proof that you were ready to pay on time.

In the register: K.S. Vidyanadam · Saradamani Kandappan · Kamal Kumar

Source: Verdictum — one source; read it before relying on the summary.

4 April 2025 · Supreme Court of India · 2025 INSC 450

No specific performance without challenging the seller's cancellation of the deal: SC

Sangita Sinha v. Bhawana Bhardwaj & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that where a seller has cancelled an agreement to sell, a suit for specific performance without a prayer declaring the cancellation bad is not maintainable. Readiness and willingness must continue throughout; the buyer's encashment of the returned drafts showed otherwise, and she had suppressed the cancellation letter. The decree and resulting sale deed were set aside, with refund ordered.

For a buyer. If a seller cancels your agreement, reply in writing and take legal advice promptly; accepting returned money can weaken a later claim. Plead and prove that you stayed ready to pay throughout.

In the register: K.S. Vidyanadam · Saradamani Kandappan · Kamal Kumar

Source: Verdictum — one source; read it before relying on the summary.

19 August 2026 · Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur), Division Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma ACJ, Sanjeet Purohit, J.

Rajasthan HC puts conditions on letting 35-year charagah occupants keep their homes

Ravi Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

The State told the High Court that a Cabinet decision of 27 December 2021 lets those occupying charagah land for 35 years or more stay in possession. In an interim order the court added conditions: pattas only for those with no other house in the gram panchayat, no transfer (or the land reverts as pasture), and release of at least twice the occupied area from the occupant's farmland.

For a buyer. A house regularised on charagah by this route cannot be transferred, so buying one is unsafe. The order was interim and returnable on 22 September 2026; check its final form.

In the register: Jagpal Singh · Jagdish Prasad Meena

Source: Indian Kanoon — one source; read it before relying on the summary.

13 August 2026 · Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur), Division Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma ACJ, Chandra Shekhar Sharma, J.

Rajasthan HC gives Ramgarh dam catchment encroachers 15 days to vacate

Suo Motu v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Ramgarh dam, D.B. CWP 11153/2011)

In its long-running case on reviving Ramgarh dam, the High Court noted fresh cultivation of government land and riverbeds, and filled drains, across Andhi, Jamwa Ramgarh, Amer, Shahpura and Viratnagar tehsils. It told the Collector to publish the encroachers' list in newspapers and gave 15 days to vacate. After that, removal at their cost, with police help and trespass cases, is allowed. Next hearing: 15 September 2026.

For a buyer. Farmland, farmhouses or resorts on Banganga and Ramgarh catchment land in these tehsils face removal. Check the published encroacher list and the revenue record before any purchase in the area.

In the register: Abdul Rahman · Jagdish Prasad Meena · Jagpal Singh

Sources: Indian Kanoon · Rajasthan Patrika

2 July 2026 · Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur), Division Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma ACJ, Maneesh Sharma, J.

Rajasthan HC orders removal of walls blocking nalas that feed Nevta, Ramgarh and Kukas

Govindram v. State of Rajasthan

Boundary walls and filled-in nalas around Khatwada village in Sanganer tehsil were blocking monsoon flow towards Nevta dam. In an interim order, the High Court directed immediate removal of obstructions on nalas and catchment across the Ramgarh and Kukas catchments. It ordered newspaper and tehsildar notices to landowners, barred civil and revenue courts from hearing related suits, and sought compliance by 5 August 2026.

For a buyer. Walls or fencing across a nala or catchment can be ordered removed. Before buying in Sanganer or near Jaipur's dams, check for recorded drainage lines and leave passage for water.

In the register: Abdul Rahman · Jagdish Prasad Meena

Sources: LiveLaw · Indian Kanoon

21 November 2025 · Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur), Division Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Anuroop Singhi, JJ. · 2025:RJ-JD:50435-DB

Rajasthan HC upholds gochar allotment for panchayat and offices within rule limits

Shankar Singh Gohil v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

A public interest petition challenged a 2021 allotment of land recorded as gochar (pasture) for a panchayat building and government offices. The High Court dismissed it: the areas allotted stayed within the limits in the applicable rules, and the prescribed procedure for changing the use of pasture land was followed, including consultation with the panchayat and provision of substitute pasture land.

For a buyer. Gochar changes use only through a formal public-purpose process with replacement pasture, never by private sale or long occupation. A gochar entry in the jamabandi is a strong warning sign for any private deal.

In the register: Jagpal Singh · Jagdish Prasad Meena

Source: Indian Kanoon — one source; read it before relying on the summary.

16 September 2025 · Supreme Court of India (B.R. Gavai CJI, P.K. Mishra, J.) · 2025 INSC 1122; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 917

SC: land reserved for village common use vests in panchayat; unused 'bachat' land does not

State of Haryana v. Jai Singh & Ors.

Rehearing Haryana's appeal after allowing a review of its own 2022 judgment, the Supreme Court held that land actually earmarked for common village purposes during consolidation vests in the Gram Panchayat without compensation. Surplus 'bachat' land never put to a common purpose stays with the proprietors who contributed it, since taking it without compensation would breach the second proviso to Article 31-A.

For a buyer. This arises under Haryana's village common lands law, but the line it draws holds generally: land genuinely set apart for common use stays public. In Rajasthan, check whether land is recorded as charagah or other common land before relying on any private claim to it.

In the register: Jagpal Singh · Waman Rao

Sources: SC Observer · LiveLaw

June 2025 · Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur), Sunil Beniwal, J. · 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 212; 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 2775

Rajasthan HC: houses in Ummed Sagar dam catchment cannot be regularised; demolition upheld

Hari Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Occupants of government land in the catchment of Jodhpur's Ummed Sagar dam challenged a bulldozer drive against houses they had lived in for 15 to 20 years. The High Court dismissed the petitions. Without title documents they were encroachers, possession on water-body land cannot be regularised, and electricity connections or Aadhaar, ration and voter cards show residence, not ownership.

For a buyer. Utility connections and identity documents at an address are not title. Before buying near a dam, nala or pond, check whether the land is recorded as catchment or water body, because such possession is not regularised.

Sources give different days for this ruling, so only the month is shown.

In the register: Jagpal Singh · Hinch Lal Tiwari · Jagdish Prasad Meena · Abdul Rahman

Sources: LiveLaw · SCC Online

29 July 2026 · Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur), Anand Sharma, J. · 2026:RJ-JP:28807

Rajasthan HC: a decree cannot be used to move SC khatedari land to non-SC holders

Pooran Singh v. State & Ors.

A 1971 decree had declared the petitioners khatedars of land whose recorded khatedar was a Scheduled Caste member. On a reference, the Board of Revenue treated the decree as a transfer barred by Section 42. The High Court dismissed the 1992 writ, holding that consent or waiver cannot defeat the statutory bar and that finality does not protect a void decree.

For a buyer. Be wary of SC/ST land whose title rests on an old consent or declaratory decree in favour of a non-SC/ST person, because such decrees can be set aside decades later.

In the register: State of Rajasthan · Rajasthan Housing Board · Anandi Lal

Source: Indian Kanoon — one source; read it before relying on the summary.

3 February 2025 · Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur), Avneesh Jhingan, J. · 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 61; 2025:RJ-JP:4491

Rajasthan HC: no adverse possession over SC land bought in breach of Section 42

Anandi Lal & Anr. v. Shri Dalip Prajapat & Ors.

Buyers who had held land for decades after purchasing it from a Scheduled Caste khatedar asked to be recorded as khatedars by adverse possession. The High Court dismissed the writ. The Section 42(b) bar on transfers to non-SC persons is absolute, so the sale was void, and an earlier failed attempt to eject them proved possession only, not a right to khatedari.

For a buyer. Long possession does not cure an outsider's purchase of SC/ST khatedari land. Check the seller's recorded category before any deal and take legal advice.

In the register: Anandi Lal · State of Rajasthan · Rajasthan Housing Board

Sources: LiveLaw · Indian Kanoon

1 September 2026 · Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur), Sameer Jain, J. · 2026:RJ-JD:42825

Rajasthan HC: prior conversions don't permit building in Sajjangarh eco-sensitive zone

Ayub Maulana @ Ayub Mohammed v. Urban Development Authority (with connected petitions)

Owners near Udaipur's Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary challenged sealing and demolition orders for extensions built within one kilometre of the sanctuary. The High Court dismissed the batch. Municipal building permission, including deemed permission, must be read with the special environmental regime, and earlier land conversions or approvals for existing structures do not authorise expansion without environmental clearance.

For a buyer. Near sanctuaries and eco-sensitive zones, a land conversion or an old building approval does not settle what you may build. Check eco-sensitive zone limits separately.

In the register: Gulab Kothari · M.I. Builders

Source: Indian Kanoon — one source; read it before relying on the summary.

17 July 2026 · Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur), Anand Sharma, J. · 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 284; 2026:RJ-JP:26591

Rajasthan HC: 90-A conversion of master-plan green belt is void; good faith no defence

Vikas Modi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

A buyer of land in Alwar's Diwan Ji Ka Bagh area held a municipal patta issued after a Section 90-A conversion, but the land lay in the Master Plan-2031 green belt. The High Court upheld cancellation of the patta. Master plans bind all authorities, conversions contrary to them are void, and neither registration, good faith nor estoppel can validate them. It ordered departmental inquiries against the officers involved.

For a buyer. A 90-A order or patta is not safe if the master plan shows the land as green belt or another restricted use. Check the master and zonal plan land use yourself before paying.

In the register: Gulab Kothari · Gulab Kothari · Bhanwar Singh

Sources: LiveLaw · Indian Kanoon

2 March 2026 · Rajasthan High Court, Division Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma ACJ, Baljinder Singh Sandhu, J.

Rajasthan HC: RIICO land actions under new Section 100A subject to PIL outcome

Shreyansh Mehta & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

A PIL challenges the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Amendment) Act 2025. Its new Section 100A deems land at RIICO's disposal vested in RIICO, gives it wide powers over disposal and change of use, and retrospectively validates its past acts despite court orders or procedural defects. Issuing notice, the High Court directed that all action taken under the amendment will abide by the final decision.

For a buyer. Titles or land-use changes that depend on RIICO's retrospectively validated actions are under challenge. Treat them with caution until the case is decided.

In the register: RIICO · RIICO · Gulab Kothari

Source: LiveLaw — one source; read it before relying on the summary.

17 September 2026 · Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur), Division Bench: Munnuri Laxman, Chandra Shekhar Sharma, JJ. · 2026:RJ-JD:44927-DB

Rajasthan HC: status quo on Jaisalmer oran land in solar project till State decides

Mukand Singh Bhati & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Villagers in Jaisalmer district sought exclusion of land recorded as oran from a solar project, relying on the Supreme Court's December 2024 ruling that orans be treated as forest. The High Court disposed of the PIL with directions. The Revenue Department must decide on the State Oran Committee's recommendations within four months, status quo continues meanwhile, and the developer may approach that authority.

For a buyer. Land recorded as oran may be treated as forest even if allotted or leased for a project. Check revenue records for oran entries and any Oran Committee recommendation before dealing in such land.

In the register: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (orans and sacred groves of Rajasthan)

Source: Indian Kanoon — one source; read it before relying on the summary.

7 September 2026 · Supreme Court of India (bench headed by Surya Kant CJI)

SC refuses Aravalli panel's extension; report due 30 November 2026

In Re: Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges and Ancillary Issues (SMW (C) 10/2025)

The expert committee examining the Aravalli definition asked for time until February 2027. The Supreme Court refused, set 30 November 2026 as a final deadline, said it would reconstitute the committee if needed, and listed the matter for 2 December 2026. Earlier, on 21 January 2026, the Court had said it would also form an expert panel on mining in the Aravallis.

For a buyer. Expect no final answer on which Aravalli land is protected before December 2026. Treat hill and foothill parcels in Aravalli districts with caution until then.

In the register: In Re: Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges

Sources: LiveLaw · All India Radio News

22 July 2026 · National Green Tribunal, Central Zone Bench (Bhopal) · O.A. 143/2025 (CZ)

NGT closes Sambhar solar tree-felling case, defers to High Court's conditions

Rajendra Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Applicants alleged felling of neem, babul, rohida and khejri trees for a solar plant near Sambhar Lake; the project side said the land was not forest and no Wetland Rules were breached. The Tribunal did not rule on the wetland boundary. Noting the High Court's 28 April 2026 order permitting the project on conditions, it disposed of the application and said further steps must follow that order.

For a buyer. Around Sambhar, the High Court's conditions now govern this project, and the wetland boundary question is still open. Check the latest demarcation before any transaction near the lake.

In the register: Dinesh Kumawat · Sambhar Salt

Source: Indian Kanoon — one source; read it before relying on the summary.

15 July 2026 · Rajasthan High Court, Division Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma ACJ, Sanjeet Purohit, J. · 2026:RJ-JP:31534-DB

Rajasthan HC closes Sambhar wetland PIL; solar project may proceed on conditions

Prakriti Sarthi Foundation v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

A PIL sought to stop a solar plant near Sambhar Lake and bar non-wetland activity in its periphery under the Wetland Rules 2017. The High Court disposed of it as settled by its orders of 28 April and 14 May 2026. The project may proceed if panels stand at least 1.5 m high, three trees are planted for each one removed, and water inflow for birds stays open.

For a buyer. Near Sambhar Lake, projects are being allowed case by case, on conditions. Do not assume land near the lake is either freely usable or wholly barred; check its wetland and buffer status first.

In the register: Dinesh Kumawat · Sambhar Salt

Sources: Indian Kanoon · Indian Kanoon

29 December 2025 · Supreme Court of India (Surya Kant CJI, J.K. Maheshwari, A.G. Masih, JJ.)

SC puts its November 2025 Aravalli definition on hold; expert panel to re-examine

In Re: Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges and Ancillary Issues (SMW (C) 10/2025)

Weeks after accepting a definition of Aravalli hills based on 100 metres of local relief, the Supreme Court, in a suo motu case, placed its 20 November 2025 judgment in abeyance. It ordered a high-powered expert committee to re-examine the definition, including whether mining could occur in the gaps between hills and the ecological effects of regulated mining. Mining was to stay halted meanwhile.

For a buyer. Whether land in Aravalli districts counts as protected hill or range is unsettled. Do not rely on any definition-based assurance until the Court rules.

In the register: In Re: Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges

Sources: Down To Earth · Mongabay India

19 December 2025 · Supreme Court of India (P.S. Narasimha, Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.) · 2025 INSC 1472

SC finalises bustard priority areas: 14,013 sq km in Rajasthan, limits on solar and wind

M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court accepted revised Great Indian Bustard priority areas of 14,013 sq km in Rajasthan and 740 sq km in Gujarat. Inside them it barred new wind turbines, solar parks above 2 MW and expansion of existing plants. It ordered 80 km of 33 kV lines in Rajasthan undergrounded at once, other mitigation within two years, and new power evacuation through a dedicated corridor up to 5 km wide.

For a buyer. Check whether a parcel falls in a bustard priority area before leasing or selling it for solar, wind or transmission use, because these limits govern what can be built there.

In the register: M.K. Ranjitsinh

Sources: Down To Earth · Supreme Court of India

3 August 2026 · Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur) · 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 33

Rajasthan HC sets aside benami attachment of 79 properties built on a retracted statement

M/s Alishan Complex Pvt. Ltd. v. The Initiating Officer, DCIT, Benami Prohibition Unit, Jaipur

A Rajasthan High Court division bench set aside orders treating 79 Jodhpur properties of a company as benami. The finding rested only on a statement recorded during an income tax search that was retracted within days and never tested by cross-examination. Income tax findings accepting the source of funds carry evidentiary value, the court said, and it sent the matter back for fresh inquiry.

For a buyer. Benami proceedings can tie up property for years. Before buying, check for any provisional attachment or notice under the benami law, particularly where the seller is a company or firm facing tax proceedings.

In the register: Union of India

Sources: Pinkcity Post · LiveLaw Biz

8 May 2026 · Supreme Court of India · 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 478

SC: real owner can't claim benami farmland via benamidar's will; land confiscated

Manjula & Ors. v. D.A. Srinivas

A plaintiff said he funded a purchase of agricultural land in another man's name because land reform law barred him from buying it, and relied on that man's registered will. The Supreme Court held the claim barred by benami law, refused to let the will get around the bar, upheld rejection of the suit at the threshold, and ordered confiscation with an Administrator to be appointed.

For a buyer. Buying farmland in someone else's name to get around eligibility rules can end with neither person keeping it. Buy only in the name of the person who pays and is legally eligible to hold agricultural land.

In the register: Union of India

Sources: LiveLaw · LiveLaw

4 November 2025 · Supreme Court of India · 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1107

Benami cases closed under Ganpati Dealcom stay closed despite the 2024 recall: SC

Union of India & Ors. v. Virendra Amrutbhai Patel

The Supreme Court dismissed the Union's review petitions seeking to reopen benami cases disposed of on the strength of the 2022 Ganpati Dealcom ruling, which was recalled in October 2024. It held that a later reversal of a precedent is not a ground for review under Order XLVII, following K.L. Rathi Steels, and said the 2024 order permitting such reviews was wrong.

For a buyer. How far the 2016 benami amendment reaches back is still unsettled while Ganpati Dealcom is reheard. Avoid buying property under any benami attachment or notice, and ask the seller to disclose such proceedings.

In the register: Union of India

Source: LiveLaw — one source; read it before relying on the summary.

20 May 2025 · Supreme Court of India · 2025 INSC 739

Whether family property is benami is for trial, not for rejecting the plaint: SC

Smt. Shaifali Gupta v. Smt. Vidya Devi Gupta & Ors.

In a family partition suit, later purchasers sought rejection of the plaint, arguing that the benami law barred claims over properties held in some members' names. The Supreme Court held that whether a property is benami, or falls within the exception for joint family property, turns on evidence and cannot be decided on bare averments under Order VII Rule 11. The petitions were dismissed.

For a buyer. Land held in one family member's name may still be claimed by others as joint family property. Check the family structure and get all possible claimants to join or consent to the sale.

In the register: Union of India

Source: Supreme Court of India — one source; read it before relying on the summary.