From Possession to Paper: SC reaffirms adverse-possession title as a “pre‑existing right” (Mukesh v. State of M.P., 2024 INSC 1026) -A View point

 The Supreme Court in Mukesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (decided 20 Dec 2024) held that where a compromise/consent decree merely recognises a litigant’s pre-existing right in the suit property (including a right that may have matured from continuous adverse possession), such a decree does not require compulsory registration under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908, and—on the facts—cannot be treated as a “conveyance” attracting stamp duty for mutation.

This is significant for adverse possession because the Court expressly relies on Ravinder Kaur Grewal to reiterate that continuous, uninterrupted adverse possession can confer right, title and interest and can be used as a sword—supporting the “pre-existing right” analysis.

Print Page

Supreme Court: No Registration Or Stamp Duty Required For Compromise Decree Acquiring Property With Pre-Existing Right

 According to the Court, a compromise decree would not require registration if the below mentioned three conditions mentioned under Section 17(2)(vi) are fulfilled: -

"(i)There must be a compromise decree as per the terms of the compromise without any collusion;

(ii)The compromise decree must pertain to the subject property in the suit; and

(iii)There must be a pre-existing right over the subject property, and the compromise decree should not create a right afresh."

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14808 OF 2024

(Arising out of SLP (C)No. 4293 of 2021)

MUKESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. 

Author: R. MAHADEVAN, J.

Citation: 2024 INSC 1026

Dated: DECEMBER 20, 2024.

Print Page

What offence is made out if after killing his wife husband hangs her to show that she has committed suicide?

The post-mortem report prepared on autopsy conducted by Dr. PC Jain (PW-8) shows that there was ligature mark on the neck of the deceased which was anti-mortem. The opinion of the doctor is clear and definite that such ligature mark of 5 cm width in horizontal position cannot be caused by hanging but could have been caused by strangulation. Medical evidence, therefore, completely falsifies the case of the appellant that on his return from the field to his house he had found his wife hanging and thus she had committed suicide. The conduct of the accused is also not natural. When he found his wife hanging by neck he neither raised any hue and cry nor called any villagers living nearby. He all alone brought down the body hanging from the roof. He thereafter did not report the matter immediately. When villagers collected he took a plea that she had committed suicide. He also did not report the matter on his own but, as is deposed by Dilboodh (PW-2), Kotwar, it is on his insistence and of the Sarpanch that he reported the matter to the Police. These witnesses also stated that the wife had complained in the past to the Panchayat that the appellant was ill-treating her and was not providing her food.

5. After hearing learned counsel appearing and on going through the record we find no ground to take a different view of the evidence. The accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had admitted that he was in the house and on hearing a sound had rushed to find his wife hanging by neck. His defence that his wife committed suicide has been found to be false and the same is not corroborated by medical evidence. The above facts coupled with the circumstances that they were not leading a congenial marital life, the unnatural conduct of the accused subsequent to the incident; the spot map (Ex. 7) showing that the rafter of the roof to be at such height as was unapproachable for committing suicide-cumulatively lead only to one irresistible conclusion that the accused alone was the author of the crime and had taken a false defence that he had seen the deceased to have committed suicide by hanging herself.

Ratio:  The principle that a person who causes a death by an act, mistakenly believing the victim to be already dead, is still guilty of murder was definitively established in Mandhari v. State of Chattisgarh AIR (2002) SC 1961 . In that case, the Supreme Court confirmed the conviction of a husband who strangled his wife and then staged it as a suicide by hanging. The Court held that his false defence and the medical evidence proving strangulation led to the "irresistible conclusion that the accused alone was the author of the crime" .

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Appeal (crl.) 1291 of 1999

Decided On: 16.04.2002

Mandhari Vs. State of Chattisgarh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.P. Sethi and D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.

Author: D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.

Citation: AIR 2002 SC 1961,MANU / SC / 0335 / 2002,( 2002 ) 4 SCC 308

Print Page

Supreme Court: Anticipatory Bail Is Never Granted In NDPS Act Cases

We are not satisfied that any error has been committed by the

High Court in refusing anticipatory bail to the petitioner in NDPS Case. {Para 2}

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9540/2025

DINESH CHANDER Vs  STATE OF HARYANA 

Date : 07-07-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN

Print Page