Important Civil Law Judgments – Table for Trial Courts

Posted on March 5, 2026 by Admin

⚖ Important Civil Law Judgments – Table for Trial Courts

No	Case	Citation	Court	Short Principle / Ratio
1	Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh	AIR 1969 SC 78	SC	Laid down tests for exclusion of civil court jurisdiction.
2	Secretary of State v. Mask & Co.	AIR 1940 PC 105	PC	Civil court jurisdiction cannot be easily excluded.
3	Abdul Waheed Khan v. Bhawani	AIR 1966 SC 1718	SC	Civil court competent to decide title disputes.
4	T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal	(1977) 4 SCC 467	SC	Frivolous plaint should be rejected under O7R11.
5	Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra	(2003) 1 SCC 557	SC	Only plaint averments considered for rejection.
6	Popat and Kotecha Property v. SBI Staff Assn.	(2005) 7 SCC 510	SC	Defence cannot be looked into in O7R11.
7	Hardesh Ores Pvt Ltd v. Hede & Co.	(2007) 5 SCC 614	SC	Plaint rejected only if bar apparent from plaint.
8	Church of Christ Charitable Trust v. Ponniamman Educational Trust	(2012) 8 SCC 706	SC	Cause of action must appear from plaint.
9	Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal	(2017) 13 SCC 174	SC	Meaningless litigation should be rejected early.
10	Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh	(1992) 1 SCC 719	SC	Three tests for temporary injunction.
11	Gujarat Bottling Co Ltd v. Coca Cola Co	(1995) 5 SCC 545	SC	Principles governing grant of injunction.
12	Wander Ltd v. Antox India Pvt Ltd	1990 Supp SCC 727	SC	Appellate court rarely interferes with injunction discretion.
13	Best Sellers Retail v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd	(2012) 6 SCC 792	SC	Prima facie case essential for injunction.
14	N.P. Thirugnanam v. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao	(1995) 5 SCC 115	SC	Readiness and willingness mandatory in specific performance.
15	K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan	(1997) 3 SCC 1	SC	Delay can defeat specific performance.
16	Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi	(2011) 12 SCC 18	SC	Courts must consider delay and equity in contracts.
17	Kamal Kumar v. Premlata Joshi	(2019) 3 SCC 704	SC	Specific performance discretionary relief.
18	Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy	(2008) 4 SCC 594	SC	Explains when to file injunction, declaration, or possession suit.
19	Rame Gowda v. Varadappa Naidu	(2004) 1 SCC 769	SC	Possession protected even against true owner if dispossession illegal.
20	Nair Service Society v. K.C. Alexander	AIR 1968 SC 1165	SC	Possessory title recognized in law.
21	Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh	(1997) 7 SCC 137	SC	Mutation entries do not confer title.
22	Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam	(1977) 3 SCC 247	SC	Agreement to sell does not transfer ownership.
23	Khatri Hotels Pvt Ltd v. Union of India	(2011) 9 SCC 126	SC	Limitation must be strictly applied.
24	Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy	(1998) 7 SCC 123	SC	Delay may be condoned if sufficient cause shown.
25	Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal	(2006) 5 SCC 545	SC	Defines substantial question of law in second appeal.
26	S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath	(1994) 1 SCC 1	SC	Fraud vitiates all judicial acts.
27	Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin	(2012) 8 SCC 148	SC	Additional evidence allowed only in exceptional cases.
28	Suraj Lamp & Industries v. State of Haryana	(2012) 1 SCC 656	SC	GPA sales not valid transfer of ownership.
29	Aloka Bose v. Parmatma Devi	(2009) 2 SCC 582	SC	Agreement to sell need not be registered.
30	Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari	(2001) 3 SCC 179	SC	Second appeal must involve substantial question of law.

Gujarat High Court Important Cases

No	Case	Citation	Principle
31	Patel Raghav Natha v. State of Gujarat	AIR 1969 Guj 992	Revenue entries only fiscal in nature.
32	Evergreen Apartment CHS v. Special Secretary Revenue	1991 (1) GLR 113	Civil court decision prevails over revenue entry.
33	Civil court jurisdiction in title disputes	GLR rulings	Civil court final authority for title.
34	Revenue authority cannot decide title	Various GLR	Title disputes triable by civil court.
35	Mutation does not create ownership	GLR rulings	Entry only record for revenue purposes.

General Principles Used in Civil Judgments

No	Principle	Source
36	Burden of proof lies on plaintiff	Evidence Act
37	Relief must be based on pleadings	CPC principle
38	Evidence beyond pleadings not allowed	Civil procedure
39	Fraud invalidates transactions	Equitable doctrine
40	Registered document carries presumption	Evidence Act
41	Possession raises presumption of title	Property law
42	Declaratory suit must include consequential relief	Specific Relief Act
43	Court must frame proper issues	Order 14 CPC
44	Equity cannot defeat statutory law	General legal doctrine
45	Natural justice mandatory	Administrative law
46	Speaking order required	Administrative law
47	Judgment must contain reasons	Order 20 CPC
48	Appellate court respects trial court findings on facts	Civil procedure
49	Substantial question required for second appeal	Section 100 CPC
50	Fraudulent decree can be set aside	Equitable jurisdiction

✅ Most Frequently Used in Trial Court Orders

Situation	Case to Cite
Order 7 Rule 11	T. Arivandandam
Injunction	Dalpat Kumar
Specific performance	N.P. Thirugnanam
Possession dispute	Anathula Sudhakar
Mutation dispute	Balwant Singh
Fraud allegation	Chengalvaraya Naidu

⚖ Ready-to-Use Case Law Paragraphs for Civil Judgments

1️⃣ Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint

Model Paragraph

While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court is required to examine only the averments made in the plaint and the documents relied upon by the plaintiff. The defence raised by the defendant cannot be looked into at this stage. If from a meaningful reading of the plaint it appears that the suit is barred by law or does not disclose a cause of action, the plaint is liable to be rejected. In this regard reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 1 SCC 557 and T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467, wherein it is held that frivolous or vexatious litigation should be nipped in the bud and the court must reject such plaint when the conditions of Order VII Rule 11 are satisfied.

2️⃣ Temporary Injunction – Order 39 Rules 1 & 2

Model Paragraph

The grant of temporary injunction is governed by well-settled principles. The plaintiff must establish (i) existence of a prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience in his favour, and (iii) likelihood of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. Unless all these three requirements are satisfied, the court should not grant interim relief. The Supreme Court in Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1992) 1 SCC 719 has reiterated that a mere triable issue is not sufficient and the court must be satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried and that the comparative hardship justifies grant of injunction.

3️⃣ Appellate Interference in Injunction Orders

Model Paragraph

The appellate court ordinarily does not interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court while granting or refusing temporary injunction unless such discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or perversely. This principle has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Wander Ltd v. Antox India Pvt Ltd 1990 Supp SCC 727, wherein it is held that the appellate court should not reassess the material to reach a different conclusion merely because another view is possible.

4️⃣ Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness

Model Paragraph

In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract from the date of agreement till the date of decree. Such readiness and willingness is a mandatory requirement under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in N.P. Thirugnanam v. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao (1995) 5 SCC 115 has held that the conduct of the plaintiff must demonstrate that he was always ready and willing to perform his obligations under the agreement.

5️⃣ Delay in Specific Performance

Model Paragraph

Relief of specific performance is discretionary and equitable in nature. Unreasonable delay in approaching the court may disentitle the plaintiff from obtaining such relief even when the suit is filed within limitation. In this regard the Supreme Court in K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan (1997) 3 SCC 1 has observed that courts should take into account escalation of property prices and delay in performance while deciding whether specific performance should be granted.

6️⃣ Possession and Nature of Suit

Model Paragraph

The nature of the suit depends upon the status of possession of the plaintiff and existence of title dispute. The Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594 has explained that where the plaintiff is in lawful possession and title is not seriously disputed, a simple suit for injunction is maintainable; however, where title is disputed or the plaintiff is not in possession, the appropriate remedy would be a suit for declaration and possession.

7️⃣ Protection of Possession

Model Paragraph

Possession is protected by law even against the true owner unless dispossession is carried out through due process of law. The Supreme Court in Rame Gowda v. Varadappa Naidu (2004) 1 SCC 769 held that a person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed forcibly and must be evicted only through legal procedure.

8️⃣ Mutation Entries and Title

Model Paragraph

It is well settled that mutation entries in revenue records do not confer or extinguish title over property. They are maintained only for fiscal purposes. The Supreme Court in Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (1997) 7 SCC 137 has clarified that ownership must be established through legally admissible evidence and not merely on the basis of mutation entries.

9️⃣ Agreement to Sell and Transfer of Ownership

Model Paragraph

An agreement to sell does not by itself create any right or interest in immovable property. Transfer of ownership can take place only through a registered sale deed. The Supreme Court in Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam (1977) 3 SCC 247 has reiterated that an agreement to sell merely gives a right to seek specific performance.

🔟 Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings

Model Paragraph

Fraud vitiates all solemn proceedings and any decree obtained by practicing fraud upon the court is a nullity in the eyes of law. The Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1 has held that a litigant who approaches the court must come with clean hands and suppression of material facts amounts to fraud on the court.

1️⃣1️⃣ Easement – Right of Way

Model Paragraph

An easement of necessity arises when a property becomes landlocked and cannot be enjoyed without access through another property. Such right continues only so long as the necessity exists. Courts must carefully examine whether the alleged necessity is genuine. The principles governing easement rights are contained in the Easements Act and have been recognized in several judicial precedents dealing with right of way disputes.

1️⃣2️⃣ Second Appeal – Substantial Question of Law

Model Paragraph

The jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeal under Section 100 CPC is confined only to cases involving substantial questions of law. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below cannot ordinarily be interfered with. The Supreme Court in Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179 has clarified the meaning and scope of “substantial question of law”.

✅ These paragraphs are commonly used in civil judgments for: