The Delhi High Court considered a family estate dispute after Karisma Kapoor questioned the authenticity of late Sunjay Kapur’s will, which allegedly bequeathed his entire personal estate to Priya Kapur.

The Court was informed that such bequests followed a long-standing family practice and that no suspicious circumstances surrounded the execution of the document.

The Court was submitted that Karisma Kapoor created doubt by withholding complete email exchanges between the attesting witnesses and the executor.

The submissions also refuted allegations regarding benefits conferred on the witnesses and denied claims that the will lacked Sunjay Kapur’s signature. The matter was listed for continued hearing.

[Karisma Kapoor v Priya Kapur & Ors.]

The Supreme Court held that landowners who voluntarily accepted negotiated compensation under Sections 7(2) and 7(4) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 could not later invoke statutory remedies to claim additional benefits, including interest under Section 12.

The Court ruled that once parties entered into a binding settlement covering all dues, the contractual terms superseded statutory entitlements, leaving no scope to reopen claims after accepting payment without protest.

The Court found the Madras High Court erred in permitting reliance on Section 12 despite a concluded agreement. The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal and restored the settled compensation package.

[The Government of Tamil Nadu v P.R. Jaganathan & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court has ruled that landlords cannot contractually waive their statutory rights under the Delhi Rent Control Act through private agreements with tenants.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani observed that any contract barring a legal remedy is void under Sections 23 and 28 of the Indian Contract Act.

Although the tenants had occupied the premises for 85 years, the court rejected their argument that a prior compromise precluded eviction. The court emphasised that the protective provisions of the Rent Control Act are mandatory and cannot be overridden by private deals

It dismissed the petition and imposed ₹ 50,000 in costs.

[Mohd Yahya & Ors v. Farat Ara & Ors.]

The Supreme Court held that a party cannot unilaterally cancel an agreement to sell unless the contract explicitly permits such termination. Interpreting Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963,

The Court clarified that where an agreement is non-determinable, unilateral termination is invalid in law. The aggrieved party, therefore, need not first challenge such cancellation before seeking specific performance.

The Court further held that the burden to justify termination lies on the party cancelling the contract, who must approach the court to establish its validity. The judgment reinforces the principle that contractual obligations cannot be avoided by unilateral actions lacking legal or contractual sanction.

[K. S. Manjunath & Ors v Muttanna Chennappa Batil & Ors.]

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on review petitions filed by ISKCON Mumbai challenging the Court’s May 2025 ruling that recognised ISKCON Bangalore as an independent entity and owner of the Hare Krishna Temple in Bengaluru.

 Justice J.K. Maheshwari allowed the review to be heard in open court and issued notice, while Justice A.G. Masih dismissed the plea, holding there was no error in the earlier judgment.

The 2025 verdict had affirmed ISKCON Bangalore’s independent status under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. Owing to the difference in opinion, the matter will now be placed before the Chief Justice of India.

[ISKCON Mumbai v ISKCON Bangalore & Ors.]

The Supreme Court, in a Bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, highlighted systemic flaws in India’s property registration framework governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Registration Act, 1908, and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

The Court termed property transactions in India “traumatic,” observing that registration does not confer ownership, causing nearly 66% of civil disputes. The Court noted that the current system places an excessive burden on buyers and lacks transparency.

Accordingly, the Bench recommended that the Law Commission of India examine the adoption of a blockchain-based land titling mechanism to improve reliability and prevent ownership disputes.

[Samiullah v State of Bihar]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 , cannot be invoked to resolve familial property disputes or to seek cancellation of property transfers under the guise of maintenance claims.

The Court dismissed a plea filed by a senior citizen under Section 23 of the Act seeking cancellation of a transfer deed executed in favour of his grandchildren on grounds of alleged neglect.

The Court noted that the allegations were vague and unsupported by evidence.

[Chattan Singh v The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Presiding Officer, Maintenance Appellate Tribunal, Mohali, District Mohali & Ors.]

The Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff cannot file a mere suit for injunction when they are not in possession of the disputed property and the title is seriously contested by the defendant.

The bench clarified that in such circumstances, the proper course is to file a declaratory suit seeking ownership rights along with an injunction under the  Specific Relief Act, 1963.

The Court observed that when both possession and ownership are in genuine dispute, a simple injunction suit is inadequate, as it fails to conclusively determine the parties’ legal rights over the property.

[S. Santhana Lakshmi & Ors. Versus D. Rajammal]

The Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal challenging Lulu International Shopping Mall’s collection of parking fees in Kochi. A Division Bench of Justices SA Dharmadhikari and Syam Kumar VM upheld the single-judge ruling that the mall owner could charge visitors if holding a municipal licence.

The single judge had distinguished the basement parking, where fees were lawful, from the adjacent multi-level parking lacking a licence.

Petitioners contended the levy violated the Kerala Municipality Act and building rules. The Court allowed fee collection to continue legally, subject to municipal licensing requirements. 

[Bosco Louis v State of Kerala & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court increased compensation for lands acquired along the Yamuna riverbed 32 years ago, acknowledging significant appreciation in property values and prolonged deprivation suffered by the owners.

The Court recalculated compensation based on current market rates and principles of just and fair remuneration for compulsory acquisition.

The government contended that the lands, located in the “Forward Bund” area, were flood-prone and unsuitable for agriculture or construction.

The Court rejected this limitation and increased the compensation payable for the four affected areas to Rs. 2,07,500 per Bigha, ensuring that landowners received equitable and market-reflective compensation for the acquisition.

[Bed Ram v Union of India & Anr.]

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that properties mortgaged to banks can be attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) only if they are directly connected to the proceeds of crime.

The Court clarified that simply mortgaging a property does not make it subject to attachment unless the transaction itself involves laundered money.

The Court emphasised that funds advanced by banks constitute public money lent in good faith and could not be regarded as tainted assets, thereby safeguarding legitimate financial transactions from the arbitrary application of the PMLA.

[Deputy Director v Asadullah Khan]

The Supreme Court held that 37.5 acres in South Wayanad, cultivated with coffee and cardamom, constituted private plantation land and did not vest as forest under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971.

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria set aside the Kerala High Court’s 2012 judgment upholding the Forest Tribunal, restoring ownership and possession to M. Jameela. 

The Court noted plantations existed before the appointed day, rejected the State’s claims over areas allegedly uncultivated or newly planted, and directed the State and Custodian of Vested Forests to correct boundary records within six weeks. 

[M. Jameela v State of Kerala & Ors.]

The Allahabad High Court has struck down a government circular that prohibited the commercial use of playgrounds in educational institutions.

The Court called the circular arbitrary and held that educational societies have the right to use their property for reasonable commercial purposes, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the primary educational and sporting activities.

The Bench noted that having a playground is essential for an institution’s affiliation or recognition. It also observed that no statutory law prohibits the commercial use of educational property, and none was cited before the court.

[Girja Shankar v State of U.P. and 3 others]

The Supreme Court has reiterated that under Mohammedan law, a childless Muslim widow is entitled to a fixed one-fourth share of her late husband’s property.

A Division bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra upheld a Bombay High Court ruling that denied a widow’s claim to three-fourths of her husband’s estate.

The Court clarified that this rule applies irrespective of the presence of other heirs and stems from Chapter IV, Verse 12 of the Qur’an.

The Court also held that an agreement to sell executed by the deceased’s brother could not override her inheritance rights since no registered sale deed was executed.

[Zoharbee v Chand Khan & Ors]