In Specific Performance Suit, Separate Relief For Possession Not Required When Transfer Of Possession Is Implicit In Agreement To Sell : Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/in-specific-performance-suit-separate-relief-for-possession-not-required-when-transfer-of-possession-is-implicit-in-agreement-to-sell-supreme-court-277499

The Court reasoned that when the 'transfer of possession' is implicit in contracts for the sale of immovable property under Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, even if possession is not explicitly sought, a suit for specific performance inherently involves elements that affect the property's location, making it a "suit for land." A suit for land is a suit in which the relief claimed relates to the title or delivery of possession of land or immovable property.

The Supreme Court observed that when possession of the immovable property is transferred implicitly upon execution of the sale deed, a separate suit seeking possession of the immovable property is not required under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“SRA”).

ROHIT KOCHHAR
V.
VIPUL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS 2024

@CurrentLegalGK

Junior Judicial Translator 2024
Question paper and Model Answer Key

@CurrentLegalGK

#Tip@CurrentLegalGK

Why Majority of Online self study students cannot clear the exams.

1. From My personal experience especially in this channel and groups, students try to focus more on material (see the post reactions on Pure legal questions, crux vs PDFs, the latter wins even though the former is more important many a times)

2. Non structurisation of material.

3. Always low satisfaction from material even after asking from many experienced people.


Solution—
Avoid all the above points.

Bonus point—
The potential to clear exam in self study is higher,mind it, use this opportunity.

@CurrentLegalGK

The Babri Demolition and the Judiciary: Ineptitude or Incompetence?
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/babri-masjid-demolition-places-of-worship-act-gyanvapi-kar-seva-277607

🌟⚖️ #Question@CurrentLegalGK

Can Parliament make laws on a matter which is sub judice in a court of law.

@CurrentLegalGK

🌟 THE PLACES OF WORSHIP (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) ACT, 1991

@CurrentLegalGK

⚖️ Case: P.V. George v. State of Kerala, (2007) SC

"The law declared by a court will have retrospective effect, if not otherwise stated to be so specifically".

🌟 Doctrine of Prospective overruling —
https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/3537

Reservation Issue—

1. Economic criteria
2. Sub classification
3. Reforms
https://www.youtube.com/live/lS4QeNKirqM?feature=shared

🌟 Can you migrate from reserved category to unreserved in case ur in merit but in preliminary stage of examination and not final.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/11/23/mp-hc-extends-migration-benefits-to-meritorious-reserved-judicial-services-recruitment-scc-times/amp/

@CurrentLegalGK

🌟

#Question@CurrentLegalGK

Discrimination on the basis of language and Age is Permissible under article 15 of the Constitution of India, 1950. Comment.

@CurrentLegalGK

Through the Looking Glass of Intersectionality Making Sense of Indian Discrimination Jurisprudence under Article 15

“on grounds only of"

@CurrentLegalGK

🧠🌟 Interesting Facts—

If a law discriminates Men/women on the grounds of sex as well as place of birth then whether it is constituional as per sub clause (1) of Article 15 is the Question.

Article 15 Reads as follows-
The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.

Answer- comment

@CurrentLegalGK

💪🤼🌅

#Challenge_@CurrentLegalGK | Comprehensive MCQ BookLet

30 Days Wakeup Challenge.

One who struggles in waking up early, can do it.

🌟 Steps—
1. Share a Quote by anyone in the @LegalQuizzes by 7 AM


2. After 5 Days (from 15th dec) change the time to 6 AM

🎁 3. After 30 Days We will reward the one who shares 21/30 times.

🗓️ Let's Start the Year in Pace... in Advance....

The early you wake up the more effective time you have

Do you accept the challenge❓

हिम्मत वाले ही एक्सेप्ट करें !

I am In 😏

@CurrentLegalGK

One unknown (dot) and Anmol both are winners of today.

1/30 Done ✅

@CurrentLegalGK

S. 300 IPC | Lacking Intention To Commit Murder Irrelevant If Bodily Injury Is Caused With Lethal Weapon, Likely To Cause Death : Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/s-300-ipc-lacking-intention-to-commit-murder-irrelevant-if-bodily-injury-is-caused-with-lethal-weapon-likely-to-cause-death-supreme-court-277794

Virsa Singh vs. State of Pepsu (1958) 
Court held that to bring the case under clause 3 of Section 300 IPC, the prosecution must establish objectively:

“1. That a bodily injury is present;
2. That the nature of injury must be proved;
3. It must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury;
4. That the injury inflicted is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of the nature.”


“It does not matter that there was no intention to cause death. It does not matter that there was no intention even to cause an injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature (not that there is any real distinction between the two). It does not even matter that there is no knowledge that an act of that kind will be likely to cause death. Once the intention to cause the bodily injury actually found to be present is proved, the rest of the enquiry is purely objective and the only question is whether, as a matter of purely objective inference, the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.”, the Court said in Virsa Singh's case

[Emphasis Supplied]
@CurrentLegalGK

Bhai Log / Brothers I hope you remember the challenge.

29 Days Left.

@CurrentLegalGK