List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi of the Supreme Court decided Smt. Rano Singh & Ors. v. Sh. Gurbax Singh (D) Thr. LRs & Ors. (2026). The Court held that where the defendant disputes the plaintiff’s title by cogent evidence, such as a registered sale deed, a suit merely seeking recovery of possession is not maintainable. The plaintiff must seek cancellation of the sale deed or specific performance, along with possession. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court and the Delhi High Court. 

What was the Background of Smt. Rano Singh & Ors. v. Sh. Gurbax Singh (D) Thr. LRs & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• In 1952, a housing society allotted a plot to the plaintiff under an Agreement to Sell, with a condition that a house be constructed within three years. 
• Unable to construct, the plaintiff wrote to the society on 4 October 1954, requesting it to transfer the plot to his nephew, Defendant No. 1. 
• The society accepted the request. Defendant No. 1 took possession, paid all dues and constructed a house by 1959. 
• In 1960, the society executed a registered Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No. 1. No sale deed was ever executed in favour of the plaintiff. 
• In 1975, the plaintiff’s legal heirs filed a suit for possession, alleging fraudulent transfer. 
• They did not seek cancellation of the 1960 Sale Deed or specific performance of the 1952 Agreement to Sell. 
• The Trial Court and the Delhi High Court dismissed the suit. 
• Aggrieved, the legal heirs approached the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On when a suit for possession simpliciter is sufficient: 

• If the plaintiff’s title is not under threat, a prayer for possession alone is sufficient. 
• However, if the defendant rebuts the plaintiff’s title by cogent evidence, a mere prayer for possession will not suffice. 
• A person whose own title is disputed cannot challenge the true owner’s title through such a suit, as title then becomes a disputed question of fact for adjudication. 

On the proper remedy: 

• Once Defendant No. 1 asserted title on the strength of a registered Sale Deed, the plaintiffs were required to seek a declaration and cancellation of that Sale Deed. 
• In the alternative, they ought to have sued for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell in their favour. 

On the Agreement to Sell: 

• An Agreement to Sell does not confer title in the absence of a registered Sale Deed. 
• By his letter of 1954, the plaintiff had abandoned his rights in the plot. 

On the present suit: 

• The appellants’ title was seriously disputed, as no sale deed had ever been executed in favour of the plaintiff. 
• The suit for possession simpliciter was therefore rightly held to be not maintainable. 

Conclusion: 

• The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the dismissal of the suit.

What is Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963? 

About: 

• Section 34 deals with the discretion of the court to grant a declaration as to status or right. 

Provisions: 

• Any person entitled to any legal character or to any right as to any property may institute a suit against any person denying or interested in denying such character or right. 
• The court may, in its discretion, declare that he is so entitled. 
• Proviso: No court shall make such a declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. 

What is Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963? 

About: 

• Section 31 deals with the cancellation of instruments. 

Provisions: 

• Section 31(1): Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding, may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable. 
• The court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled. 
• Section 31(2): If the instrument has been registered under the Registration Act, 1908, the court shall send a copy of its decree to the registering officer, who shall note the cancellation in his books. 

Agreement to Sell Does Not Confer Title 

• Under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a contract for sale of immovable property does not, by itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. 
• Title passes only through a registered sale deed, where the value of the property is one hundred rupees or more. 
• The remedy of a person holding an agreement to sell is a suit for specific performance, not a claim of ownership. 

Suit for Possession: When is Declaration Necessary? 

• In Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008), the Supreme Court laid down the following principles:  
• Where the plaintiff’s title is not in dispute and he is in possession, a suit for injunction simpliciter is sufficient. 
• Where the plaintiff is out of possession, he must seek possession, with or without injunction. 
• Where the defendant raises a genuine dispute or cloud over the plaintiff’s title, the plaintiff must sue for declaration of title along with consequential relief. 

Source: Gujarat High Court

Why in News? 

Justice Maulik J. Shelat of the Gujarat High Court decided X v. Y (2026). The Court held that a custody application under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (GWA) must be heard by the Family Court within whose jurisdiction the children reside, as that court is required to interact with the child before passing any order. The Court dismissed the wife’s transfer application but permitted her to attend proceedings through video conferencing. 

What was the Background of X v. Y (2026) Case? 

• The wife, who was residing with her parents in Rajkot, was living apart from her children, who were in the custody of the husband. 
• She had instituted proceedings under the GWA before the Family Court, Himmatnagar, seeking appointment as guardian and custody/return of the minor children. 
• The husband had also filed a matrimonial suit against her before the Family Court, Himmatnagar. 
• The wife approached the High Court seeking transfer of the husband’s suit from the Family Court, Himmatnagar to the Family Court, Rajkot. 
• Wife’s contentions:  
  • She is an illiterate woman living far away from her children. 
  • The distance of around 300 km between Himmatnagar and Rajkot caused great hardship and inconvenience in attending the proceedings. 
• Husband’s contentions:  
  • The wife herself had instituted GWA proceedings at Himmatnagar, which she was in any case required to attend. 
  • No purpose would be served by transferring his suit to Rajkot. 
  • He was willing to bear her travelling expenses for attending the proceedings in person. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On jurisdiction in custody proceedings: 

• It was undisputed that, under the GWA, a custody application must be filed before the court where the children reside, i.e., the Family Court, Himmatnagar. 
• The GWA proceedings could not be transferred to the Family Court, Rajkot, which had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute. 

On the welfare of the child: 

• The welfare of the child is always a paramount consideration for any court. 
• Since the court deciding a GWA application must interact with the child before passing any order, it is more desirable that the matter be decided by the court within whose jurisdiction the children reside. 

On the wife’s hardship: 

• The wife was in any case required to attend the GWA proceedings she had herself instituted at Himmatnagar. 
• She may request the Family Court to permit her to attend both proceedings through video conference. 
• Such a request shall be accepted unless her physical presence is required for cross-examination or otherwise. 

Conclusion: 

• The Court dismissed the transfer application and directed the Family Court, Himmatnagar to expedite both proceedings and decide them in accordance with law, preferably within one year from the date of receipt of the order.

What is the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890? 

About: 

• The GWA is a secular law that governs the appointment and declaration of guardians of the person and property of minors in India. 
• It applies to all minors irrespective of religion and operates alongside personal laws such as the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. 

Key Provisions: 

• Section 9 (Court having jurisdiction):  
  • An application for guardianship of the person of a minor must be made to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides. 
  • An application for guardianship of the property of a minor may be made to the District Court where the minor ordinarily resides or where the property is situated. 
• Section 17 (Matters to be considered by the Court):  
  • The court must be guided by what appears to be for the welfare of the minor, considering the minor’s age, sex and religion, the character and capacity of the proposed guardian, and the wishes of a deceased parent. 
  • If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference, the court may consider that preference. 
• Section 25 (Custody of ward):  
  • If a ward leaves or is removed from the custody of the guardian, the court may order the ward’s return if it is for the welfare of the ward. 

Jurisdiction of Family Courts: 

• Under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, a Family Court exercises the jurisdiction of a District Court in suits and proceedings relating to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor.