Property

Article 31, like Art, 19 (1) (f), is concerned with “property.” Both the Articles are in the same chapter and deal with fundamental rights. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that the word “property” must be given the same meaning…

Document of title to lands

It includes any writing that is or contains evidence of the title, or any part of the title, to real property or to any interest in real property, and any notarial or registrar’s copy thereof and any duplicate instrument, memorial, certificate…

The power of police to seize immovable property

On a careful reading of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code; it is difficult to hold that this section empowers a police officer to seize immovable property like plots of land, residential houses, mountains, rivers streets or similar properties.…

If property belongs to Government for acquisition of easementary right by prescription user of “30 years” is required.

It is settled principle of law that what has not been conferred in the plaint cannot be proved. Only right of easement by way of prescription has been pleaded, alleging that Plaintiff was using the land of Plot No. 164 for 20 years. It is pertinent to mention here that at the end of Section 15 of Indian Easement Act, 1882, which pertains to acquisition by prescription, it is specifically mentioned that if the property, over which a right is claimed, belongs to the Government, the word ’20 years’ shall be read as ’30 years’. As such, in respect of a Government land mere user for 20 years does not confer any easementary right by way of prescription to the Plaintiff, as he has nowhere pleaded that he used the land for 30 years or more.

The pre-requisite of the doctrine on blending being existence of coparcenery or coparcener property as well as the existence of separate property

On the onus of proof the Court further held that where there are suspicious circumstances the onus will be on the propounder the explain them to the satisfaction of the Court before the Will could be accepted as genuine; and where the caveator alleges undue influence, fraud and coercion the onus is on him to prove the same. It was further pointed out that the suspicious circumstances may be as to the genuineness of the signature of the testator, the condition of the testator’s mind, the dispositions made in the Will which may be unnatural or unfair or improbable, when considered in the light of the relevant circumstances. If the caveator does not discharge the burden which rests upon him in establishing the circumstances which show that the Will had been obtained by fraud or undue influence, a probate of the Will must necessarily be granted if it is established that the testator had full testamentary capacity and had in fact executed it validity with a free will and mind.

Disposal of lost property Airport Authority

Airports Authority of India (Lost Property) Regulations, 2003 Disposal of lost property —(1) If any lost property retained by the incharge of the Airport or Civil Enclave for safe custody under regulation 5 is not claimed within three months from…