The Bombay High Court has directed Maharashtra RERA (MahaRERA) to reinstate the option of physical hearings within four weeks. 

The Court found that MahaRERA was conducting only virtual hearings, even after the COVID-19 pandemic, which it said restricted access to justice.

A bench led by Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale held that litigants must be allowed to choose between physical and virtual hearings.

The Court emphasised that access to justice must be meaningful and not just procedural. The order came in a plea by Mayur Desai, highlighting systemic delays and a lack of transparency at MahaRERA.

The Supreme Court held that excluding tribal women or their heirs from inheritance is discriminatory and violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

Though the Hindu Succession Act doesn’t apply to Scheduled Tribes, the Court ruled that in the absence of any proven custom barring female succession, equality must prevail.

The Court emphasised that customs, like laws, must evolve and cannot justify gender-based discrimination. 

The Court reversed lower court rulings that denied legal heirs of a tribal woman, Dhaiya, their property share, stating courts must apply justice, equity, and good conscience when no codified law or restrictive custom is shown to exist. (Ram Charan v Sukhram)

The Delhi High Court firmly held that courts cannot determine mesne profits based on guesswork or assumptions without proper evidence. 

Justice Subramonium Prasad held that courts must rely on concrete proof, such as prevailing rental rates of similar properties in the locality, to determine such claims.

The Court dismissed a plea for mesne profits concerning a flat and servant quarters after the claimants failed to provide supporting market data.

However, the Court upheld the order for possession, reiterating that while landlords are entitled to mesne profits, the amounts must be backed by valid evidence.

The Bombay High Court has held that a woman in possession of a residential flat, even as a gratuitous licensee, cannot be dispossessed merely on the grounds of redevelopment.

The Division Bench was hearing two commercial arbitration appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging interim reliefs granted under Section 9  to developer Elite Housing LLP.

The case involved Leena Haldar, wife of flat owner Ritesh Haldar, who had been living in the flat since marriage. The Court modified a Single Judge’s order and directed that she be restored to the redeveloped flat and paid transit rent.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the trial court's 2000 decree recognising Saif Ali Khan, his mother Sharmila Tagore, and sisters Soha and Saba as the sole heirs to Nawab Hamidullah Khan’s personal estate estimated at ₹15,000 crore and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.

Justice Sanjay Dwivedi held that the trial court had wrongly relied on a 1996 Allahabad HC judgment, which the Supreme Court later overruled.

The case, involving Muslim Personal Law succession and the Bhopal Merger Agreement, must now be reheard within a year. The order directs trial court consideration of new evidence and current legal principles. (Begum Suraiya Rashid & Others v. Begum Mehr Taj Nawab Sajida Sultan & Others)

The Kerala High Court clarified that under Evidence Act Sections  68 and  69, proving a will requires examining an attesting witness (Section 68) if available; but if witnesses are not available, Section 69 permits proof via handwriting verification.

The court stressed that merely registering does not release the proponent from establishing their intentions and clearing their name.

The Court noted that sufficient evidence was brought to prove that attesting witnesses were deceased.

Thus, according to the court, it was enough to invoke the alternative mode under Section 69 and held that the first defendant succeeded in proving the execution and registration of the Will and dismissed the appeal.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that the Waqf Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain a 2024 suit challenging a land parcel, already adjudicated as non-Waqf property by a civil court in 1978. 

The court cited Section 7(5) of the Waqf Act, 1995, stating that once a civil court has decided an issue before the Act’s commencement, the Tribunal cannot reopen it. 

The case arose when the Mutavalli of the Darvesh Takia Masjid filed a declaration suit over land that had been conclusively declared non-Waqf in 1978.

The High Court held that allowing the suit would violate res judicata and issued a writ of prohibition against the Tribunal. 

The Madras High Court ruled that under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, only the person who transferred property with a specific condition for maintenance, like a senior citizen parent, can seek its cancellation if the maintenance condition is not met. 

The Court quashed a Sub-Collector’s order cancelling a property settlement based on an application by the mother, who was not the transferor.

The court held that “love and affection” is not a legally enforceable condition for cancellation unless explicitly mentioned in writing.

As the father (settlor) imposed no such condition, the deed’s cancellation was deemed unlawful.

The Bombay High Court clarified that any listed or unlisted shares of the late Ratan Tata not explicitly dealt with in his original will are to be divided equally between the Ratan Tata Endowment Foundation and the Ratan Tata Endowment Trust. 

Justice Manish Pitale interpreted the will (dated February 23, 2022) and its four codicils, noting the fourth codicil (dated December 22, 2023) revised the residuary clause to include all such shares .

The executors had requested clarification because previous clauses had given some shares to associates and relatives.

The Court held that only the residuary clause is changed, and the other clauses in the original will remain unchanged and valid.

The Supreme Court held that an agreement to sell does not amount to a conveyance and does not transfer ownership rights in immovable property unless followed by a registered sale deed or decree of specific performance.

The bench emphasized that mere possession under such an agreement doesn't give title or ownership.

The case involved a dispute over ownership where one party claimed rights based on a sale agreement without executing a registered sale deed. 

The Court reiterated that title can only pass through a registered deed and upheld that ownership rights require a lawful conveyance, not just agreements.

The Rajasthan High Court held that it is not mandatory for a tenant to submit affidavits along with their reply under Section 15(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.

The Court clarified that the use of the word “may” in the provision indicates discretion, not compulsion.

The case involved a tenant’s failure to submit supporting affidavits with their reply, leading to an adverse order by the Rent Tribunal. 

The High Court overturned that decision, emphasizing that affidavits are not a statutory requirement under the said provision and that procedural flexibility must be observed in such matters. (Shankar Lal v Jugal Kishore & Ors.)

The Bombay High Court ruled that a real estate promoter cannot carry out additional construction beyond the originally sanctioned plan without obtaining prior consent from flat purchasers.

The Court emphasized that such unilateral changes by the builder violate Section 7(1)(ii) of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA), 1963.

The ruling came in response to complaints from homebuyers alleging unauthorized additional construction.

The Court stated that consent from a majority of existing allottees is essential and that any such unauthorized construction is illegal. 

The Supreme Court has held that an unregistered sale agreement does not confer valid title on the purchaser and cannot protect against dispossession.

The bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran ruled that, under the Registration Act, 1908, and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, only a registered deed of conveyance can transfer ownership of immovable property.

The Court set aside a Telangana High Court order that had restrained dispossession based on an unregistered 1982 sale agreement, holding such documents inadmissible for establishing title or ownership rights.

Any possession under an unregistered agreement lacks legal backing.

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that an oral gift of agrarian land is void if it lacks approval under Section 31 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. 

Justice Kazmi held that this statutory requirement overrides general provisions under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the Registration Act, 1908.

Even if possession is handed orally, the absence of this statutory approval means the transfer has no legal standing/invalid.

The Court further directed that any mutation entry (change of ownership record) based on such an unapproved oral gift must be reversed.