A Delhi Court has directed the police to register an FIR against former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal and others for allegedly defacing public property by putting up illegal hoardings in Dwarka in 2019.

The order was passed based on a complaint by Shiv Kumar Saxena, who alleged violations under Section 3 of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007.

The Court observed that illegal hoardings pose safety risks and are a public nuisance.

The Delhi Police opposed the plea, arguing that the complaint was old and no hoardings were currently displayed. However, the Court ruled that an investigation was necessary and directed the police to file a compliance report by March 18.

The Madras High Court has ordered a Crime Branch-CID probe into suspicious land deals in Chennai involving JMI Law Associates, an online law firm, landowners and buyers. 

The case concerns a ₹7.25 crore land dispute in Mylapore. Landowners MA Noor Jehan Beevi, KA Shaik Madar, and Abdul Hassan entered an agreement to evict encroachers and sell the land but later sidelined JMI Law Associates.

The firm, allegedly run by a non-lawyer, is accused of misleading advertisements and illegal partnerships.

Justice AD Jagadish Chandira has directed a special team, led by an SP-rank officer, to investigate financial transactions and professional misconduct allegations.

The SC ruled that a wife who received a flat in a divorce settlement does not have to pay stamp duty, as per Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908.

A couple resolved their divorce dispute through mediation. As part of the settlement, the husband gave up his rights to a Mumbai flat, and in return, the wife agreed not to ask for alimony.

The Court referred to Mukesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) and decided that since the property transfer was part of the court proceedings, it qualified for a stamp duty exemption.

Hence, the Sub-Registrar was directed to register the flat solely in the wife’s name.

The Madras High Court dismissed a petition seeking to separate the Ponkaliamman Temple from a group of temples in Namakkal district to ensure exclusive worship rights for a particular caste.

The petitioner claimed that, unlike other temples managed by diverse castes, this temple had always been historically managed exclusively by his caste.

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy ruled that the temple, managed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, must remain open to all.

The court further held that no caste can claim ownership of a temple or its administration based on caste identity, as it is not a constitutionally protected religious practice in India.

The Supreme Court ruled that once a partner brings personal property into a partnership, it ceases to be their individual asset and becomes firm property under Section 14 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.

After the partner’s death or retirement, neither the partner nor their heirs can claim ownership, except for their share in the firm's profit.

The bench upheld an Allahabad High Court order in a dispute over Hotel Alka Raje, Faizabad. 

Citing Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa (1966), it reaffirmed that property contributed to a firm loses its separate identity and belongs to the partnership permanently.

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by tenant Rakesh Sen (petitioner) against his eviction from a rented shop. 

The bench upheld the Rent Appellate Tribunal’s order favouring landlord Smt. Ajab Bano (respondent), affirming her bona fide need for the premises to conduct business. 

The Court ruled that the landlord's necessity must be judged from her perspective, not the tenant's. 

Finding no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's decision, the Court rejected the petitioner’s appeal, holding that tenants cannot challenge a landlord’s right to decide the use of their property.

The Supreme Court ruled that earnest money forfeited by homebuyers upon flat booking cancellation must be reasonable and not excessive, as outlined in Section 74 of the Contract Act, 1872.

The court criticized real-estate developers for unfair, one-sided forfeiture clauses in builder-buyer agreements.

In a case involving Godrej Projects, the court upheld a previous ruling allowing only a 10% forfeiture of the earnest money, deeming the original 20% excessive and arbitrary.

The decision references cases like Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited  and Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Another v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another, emphasizing consumer protection against unfair trade practices.

A special CBI court in Bengaluru has ordered the transfer of all confiscated assets belonging to former Tamil Nadu CM J Jayalalithaa to the Tamil Nadu government.

This follows a January 13 ruling by the Karnataka High Court, dismissing claims by her niece and nephew, Deepa and Deepak, who sought the properties as her legal heirs.

Despite the case being abated after Jayalalithaa’s death, the High Court upheld the confiscation, as the Supreme Court had validated her conviction.

The assets, including her Chennai residence, land, bank deposits, and valuables, will now be handed over to the state government.

The Karnataka High Court ruled that a daughter born before a partition that took place before December 20, 2004, cannot claim a share in her father’s property or challenge his alienation after the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.

The Court dismissed an appeal by Prafulla M. Bhat and others, upholding a gift deed executed by Mahadev in favor of his second wife.

The court emphasized that Section 6(5) of Hindu Succession Act protects pre-2004 partitions, preventing daughters born before them from claiming coparcenary rights in their father’s share under the amended law.

The Supreme Court clarified when a third party can seek leave to appeal against a decree while hearing a case involving a lis pendens transferee.

The Court stated that only an aggrieved person whose legal rights are affected by a decree can appeal, not someone with a remote or indirect interest.

A third party can appeal if the decree prejudicially affects them, but leave is at the court’s discretion.

A lis pendens transferee, though not on record, can seek leave to appeal against a decree affecting their rights, but courts must decide judiciously based on case facts.

The Delhi High Court heard arguments on a petition filed by Lalit Tehlan, a close friend of renowned fashion designer late Rohit Bal for the grant of probate in respect of his Will. 

As per the Will dated October 30, 2023, Tehlan has been named as the primary beneficiary.

The Court noted that Tehlan was neither the executor nor a family member and allowed the plea to be treated under Section 278 (Letters of Administration) instead of Section 272 (Probate) of the Indian Succession Act.

However, Bal’s stepbrothers, Rakesh and Raj have challenged the will's legitimacy. Tehlan has been barred from entering the designer's home. 

The court is scheduled to hear the case on February 4. 

The Kerala High Court decided that village officers are not allowed to issue stop memos for land marked as 'purayidom' (dry land) in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) as per Section 12 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

The court explained that the Act gives village officers authority only over paddy land and wetlands alone. 

The village officer issued the stop memo, citing water-logging and a law-and-order situation. 

Since the property was indisputably classified as 'purayidom' in the BTR, the Court held that the village officer lacked jurisdiction to issue the stop memo. 

The petitions were disposed of with directions to adhere to the statutory framework. 

The Supreme Court has extended its stay on the survey of the Shahi Eidgah Mosque, adjacent to the Krishna Janmabhoomi Temple in Mathura, until April 2025.

The survey was initially ordered by the Allahabad High Court on December 14, 2023, following claims that the mosque was built by Mughal emperor Aurangzeb after demolishing part of Lord Krishna’s birthplace.

Petitioners also challenge a 1968 agreement between the Shahi Eidgah Mosque Committee and Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust.

Notably, the High Court consolidated 18 related suits on May 26, 2023, transferring them from Mathura courts for its direct consideration.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed Saif Ali Khan's plea against the government taking over his family’s ancestral properties under the Enemy Property Act, 1968.

The court asked him to file an appeal with the Ministry of Home Affairs within 30 days. Saif, a descendant of Nawab Hamidullah Khan, is fighting for properties like Bhopal’s Flag Staff House, Noor-Us-Sabah Palace, and over 7,000 acres of land.

Enemy property includes assets left in India by people who moved to Pakistan or China during Partition. These properties are managed by the Custodian of Enemy Property under the law.