Best Advocate in Bathinda

by VINEET MITTAL Shri Ganpati Jurists / Bathinda Lawyers/ Bathinda Advocates -

A widowed woman files a maintenance petition before the Family Court at her place of residence.…

Best Advocate In Bathinda

by VINEET MITTAL Shri Ganpati Jurists / Bathinda Lawyers/ Bathinda Advocates -

LEGAL INSIGHT: Territorial Jurisdiction in Cheque Dishonour Cases Can a complaint under Secti…

Best Lawyer in Bathinda

by VINEET MITTAL Shri Ganpati Jurists / Bathinda Lawyers/ Bathinda Advocates -

Legal Update | Supreme Court of India When does failure to verify construction progress amoun…

Best Advocate In Bathinda

by VINEET MITTAL Shri Ganpati Jurists / Bathinda Lawyers/ Bathinda Advocates -

Fake Driving Licence or Bus Overloading: Is the Insurer Liable? In New India Assurance Compan…

Supreme Court on Property Disputes: Agreement to Sell Does Not Confer Ownership In Rano Singh v. Gurbax Singh, 2026 INSC 1137, decided on 16 October 2026, the Supreme Court reiterated important principles concerning property ownership, limitation and civil suits. Key Legal Principles: * An agreement to sell does not, by itself, create ownership rights in immovable property. * Where the defendant raises a substantial cloud over the plaintiff’s title, a suit for possession alone may not be maintainable; appropriate declaratory relief may be necessary. * A claim may fail if the suit is barred by limitation. * A party’s own representations and conduct may attract estoppel and acquiescence. Legal Learning | Shri Ganpati Jurists Understanding property documents, limitation periods and the appropriate relief is essential in civil litigation. Case: Rano Singh v. Gurbax Singh, 2026 INSC 1137 (Supreme Court of India). This post is for general legal awareness and is not legal advice.

by VINEET MITTAL Shri Ganpati Jurists / Bathinda Lawyers/ Bathinda Advocates -

Supreme Court on Property Disputes: Agreement to Sell Does Not Confer Ownership In Rano Singh…

Supreme Court on Family Settlements and Gift Deeds In B. Anasuyamma v. B. Madhusudhan Reddy, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that a binding family settlement and a compromise decree recorded by the High Court cannot be ignored. The Court held that a person who had relinquished rights over disputed properties under a binding compromise could not validly execute a gift deed concerning those properties. Key Legal Principle: A person cannot transfer property by gift deed when they have no subsisting right, title or interest in it. Legal Learning | Shri Ganpati Jurists #SupremeCourt #FamilySettlement #PropertyLaw #GiftDeed #CivilLaw

by VINEET MITTAL Shri Ganpati Jurists / Bathinda Lawyers/ Bathinda Advocates -

Supreme Court on Family Settlements and Gift Deeds In B. Anasuyamma v. B. Madhusudhan Reddy ,…

Best Advocate in Bathinda

by VINEET MITTAL Shri Ganpati Jurists / Bathinda Lawyers/ Bathinda Advocates -

⚖️ Legal Learning | Shri Ganpati Jurists Can a Court Stay a Subsequent Suit Just Because Some…

Load More
That is All