Amendment of Joint Written Statement – Article 227 Supervisory Jurisdiction –  Amendment of Joint Written Statement Filed by Multiple Defendants – Held – the Court upholds the revisional court's decision to remand the matter for fresh consideration of the amendment application. Emphasizes the need for consent from all joint filers or their explicit agreement to the proposed changes, reinforcing the principle that a jointly filed written statement cannot be unilaterally amended by one party. Cites precedence and principles from prior rulings, stressing the importance of consent and unity in joint filings to avoid prejudicing the rights of other defendants. [Paras 1-34]

Legal Principle of Joint Written Statement – Court's Supervisory Role under Article 227 – Held – establishes that when a written statement is jointly filed, any amendment sought by one of the signatories must have the consent of the others. This approach ensures that all parties maintain a unified stance unless explicitly agreed otherwise, thus protecting the integrity of joint defenses in legal proceedings. [Paras 30-32]

Decision and Directions – High Court's Supervision Under Article 227 – Held – confirms the revisional court’s order remanding the case for detailed examination of the amendment application with the involvement of all joint defendants. The trial court is directed to ensure that the defendant not part of the amendment application is served and given an opportunity to consent, thus facilitating a fair and thorough reconsideration in light of the court’s supervisory jurisdiction. [Paras 33-34]

Validity of Will and Partition of Property – Civil Appeal against trial court decree in partition suit – Appeal Suit No. 2993 of 2004 – Appellants (defendants in the trial court) contested the trial court's decision granting partition of properties claiming validity of a will favoring them – Will purportedly made by S.R. Thillai Kaliyappan, distributing properties primarily to his son to the exclusion of other heirs – High Court found multiple suspicious circumstances around the will's execution and authenticity, including absence of original will, unconvincing testimony by witnesses, and the will's non-registration – No satisfactory explanation provided by propounders to dispel these suspicions – Held: Will not proved valid; properties to be partitioned equally among all legal heirs as per trial court's decree – Appeal dismissed with costs. [Paras 1-106]

Distribution of Properties – Upon evaluation of evidence and legal submissions, court affirms trial court's decision for equal partition – Properties acquired and held by S.R. Thillai Kaliyappan to be equally divided among his legal heirs including the plaintiff and defendants numbered 1 to 4 – Held: Each party entitled to an equal share in the disputed properties. [Para 105]

Decision – High Court dismisses the appeal, affirming the trial court's judgment and decree for partition of properties – Appeal found to have no merit, with all parties to bear their own costs – Interim orders vacated, and miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed. [Para 106]

Maintenance and Marriage Expenses – Civil Appeal – Maintenance and marriage expenses claim by the daughter from the estate of Palavali Viswanath – High Court upholds trial court’s award of past and future maintenance, as well as marriage expenses, recognizing the 2nd plaintiff as the legitimate daughter of the deceased based on DNA evidence – Past maintenance of Rs. 2,000 per month from March 2001 to March 2004 and future maintenance of Rs. 2,000 per month for one year, along with Rs. 2,00,000 for marriage expenses, awarded. [Paras 2-31]

Paternity and Maintenance Claims – The trial court confirmed the paternity of the 2nd respondent as the daughter of deceased Viswanath via DNA testing, and entitled her to past and future maintenance, and marriage expenses [Paras 19, 29-30].

Partition of Property – Share Allocation – Daughter’s entitlement to partition of family property – High Court modifies trial court's decision, granting the 2nd plaintiff a share in the notionally partitioned share of her father, Palavali Viswanath, instead of equal share in all joint family properties – Establishes the extent of property share for a legitimate daughter born out of a void or voidable marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act. [Paras 32-45]

Appeal Outcome – Appeal partly allowed; modifications made to the trial court’s judgment concerning the extent of share in partition entitlement to the 2nd respondent, rest of the judgment confirmed [Paras 45-46].

Background of Property Dispute – Respondent filed O.S.No.55 of 2018 for a permanent injunction to restrain petitioner from interfering with her possession of agricultural land, setting specific boundaries in the plaint, which were later sought to be amended due to claimed typographical errors - Petitioner opposed, asserting boundaries were fabricated and could not be amended post trial commencement. [Para 1-4]

Trial Court's Decision – Allowed amendment application filed by the respondent under I.A.No.816 of 2023 despite petitioner's objection that such amendments post-trial commencement are barred by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. unless due diligence could not have identified the need for amendment prior. [Para 5]

Legal Argument and Court's Assessment – Petitioner argued amendment barred post-trial, not meeting due diligence requirement - Respondent cited inadvertent error, not detectable by due diligence, aligning partly with petitioner's boundaries - Court found the amendment justified as it corrected a typographical error and both parties agreed on Southern boundary, while Northern boundary differed slightly between parties. [Paras 6-12]

High Court's Ruling – Affirmed trial court's decision, stating the amendment met criteria under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., and no prejudice to petitioner was evident - Civil revision petition dismissed, no order as to costs. [Paras 12-13]

Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail – Manipulation of Evidence – Criminal Misc. Case No. 9138 of 2023 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam – Petitioner's appeal for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the 7th respondent, who was accused of multiple crimes including rape and forgery – High Court cancels bail citing manipulation of evidence and non-compliance with bail conditions – Reliance on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the difference between the grounds for granting and cancelling bail – Held that the anticipatory bail was improperly obtained through the use of a forged document, warranting cancellation. Directed the immediate arrest of the 7th respondent and cancellation of all related bail bonds. [Para 1-12]

Judicial Discretion in Bail Matters – Referenced Supreme Court and High Court precedents delineating conditions under which bail can be cancelled – Emphasized on the severance of liberty only under stringent conditions where the accused misuses bail – Noted previous misuse of judicial process by the accused, including multiple instances of forgery and false documentation presented in court. [Para 10-11]

Decision – Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail – High Court sets aside lower court's order refusing to cancel bail, cancels the anticipatory bail of the 7th respondent based on evidence of fraud and subsequent criminal activity while on bail – Instructs lower court to take the accused into custody and reaffirms the right of the accused to seek regular bail, which should be considered on its own merits without influence from current findings. [Para 12]

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 20 – Specific performance of contract – Discretion of court – Court held that a contract entered into by a guardian on behalf of a minor is only enforceable if it is within the guardian's competence and for the benefit of the minor. The First Appellate Court correctly refused specific performance as the contract did not benefit the minor, who later repudiated it upon reaching majority [Paras 1-16].

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – Sections 6, 8, 12 – Minor's property – Guardian's competence to sell – Court found that the mother of the minor, as a natural guardian, was not competent to sell the minor's undivided interest in joint family property without meeting the conditions set out in the Act. The permission granted by the Guardian Court lacked necessary details regarding the market value of the property and was not sufficient to validate the sale [Paras 17-22].

Consideration of Market Value – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 20 – The Appellate Court noted the significant discrepancy between the agreed sale price and the actual market value, concluding that the sale was not in the minor's best interest. It was emphasized that when a minor's interest is involved, the court must ensure the sale benefits the minor [Paras 23-24].

Earnest Money Adjustment – Contract Specific Performance – The agreement of sale became unenforceable as the entire earnest money was adjusted towards the sale consideration of another part of the property, leaving no subsisting contract for the minor’s share [Paras 27-31].

Repudiation of Contract by Minor – Majority Act, 1875 – Section 3 – The minor was deemed to have reached the age of majority at 18 under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, allowing him to repudiate the contract. The Court rejected the contention that the age of majority should be 21 years as per the Indian Majority Act, 1875, due to inconsistency with the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act [Paras 33-36].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court upheld – No decree for specific performance granted as the contract was not in the interest of the minor and had been repudiated upon attaining majority.

Factual and Procedural Background – Victim hit by vehicle; compensation awarded by Tribunal; Insurance company appeals the quantum, disputing calculations related to dependency and other allowances – Respondent No.6 held guilty of negligent driving; compensation awarded for various losses including consortium and affection - [Paras 1-3]

Insurance Appeal – Challenged Tribunal’s calculation; error in accounting remarriage of the deceased's spouse and adoption of a child post father's death - Dispute over income assessment of deceased based on tax returns and business income; argued reduced dependency calculation due to remarriage and existing income sources - [Paras 4-5]

Tribunal's Assessment Reviewed – Detailed review of the Tribunal's methodology in assessing compensation; key issues involve recalculating based on correct income figures, reducing awards for non-compensable claims, and adjusting for remarriage and personal expenses - Relied on judgments for setting standards of compensation for loss of consortium and funeral expenses - [Paras 7-10]

Decision – Modified compensation calculations based on adjusted income figures and legal precedents - Ruling includes revised awards for funeral expenses, loss of consortium, and overall dependency calculations - Application of a standard deduction and adjustment for future prospects in dependency calculation - Interest rate on compensation reduced from 9% to 7.5% per annum; directive for timely payment by insurance with penalties for delays - [Paras 11-16]

Allegations of Sexual Assault under POCSO and IPC – Appellant challenges conviction by Trial Court – Appeal allowed, conviction set aside based on inconsistencies in the victim’s testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence. [Para 1-20]

Testimony of Child Victim – Evaluation – Court highlights importance of consistent and credible testimony – Finds child victim’s testimonies inconsistent and unreliable; no corroborative evidence supporting allegations of sexual assault; variations in victim’s statements undermine prosecution’s case. [Para 9, 14, 18]

Matrimonial Dispute Context – Considered – Incident alleged to have occurred amid familial and matrimonial disputes – Court notes potential for false implication due to animosity between family members; discrepancies in timing and details of alleged incident further weaken prosecution’s case. [Para 17, 19]

Presumption under POCSO Act – Analysis – Discusses application of Section 29 of POCSO Act – Court finds that foundational facts necessary to trigger presumption of guilt were not established beyond reasonable doubt by prosecution. [Para 20]

Decision – Acquittal of Appellant – High Court sets aside conviction and sentence; finds major gaps in prosecution’s presentation and credibility issues with the victim’s account leading to doubts about the truthfulness of the allegations. [Para 20]

Right to Lead Evidence in Rebuttal – Article 227 Challenge Against Order – Permission to Lead Evidence in Rebuttal Denied by Trial Court – High Court Sets Aside Order – Right to Rebuttal Implicitly Reserved by Petitioner – Held, Right to Rebuttal Permissible Under Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC When Onus is on Respondents, High Court Allows Petitioner to Lead Rebuttal Evidence with Specific Conditions. [Paras 27-37]

Legal Heirs Dispute – Property and Will Contestation – Dispute Involving Ancestral Properties and Will Alleged to be Forged – Parties Include Legal Heirs and Wife of Deceased – High Court Analyzes Burden of Proof Regarding Will’s Validity – Respondents Claim Will is Valid, Petitioner Claims Forgery – High Court Finds Merit in Petitioner’s Right to Lead Evidence in Rebuttal Based on Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC. [Paras 1-6, 15-19]

Interpretation of Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC – Evidence in Rebuttal – High Court Discusses Legal Provisions for Leading Evidence in Rebuttal – Accepts Petitioner’s Claim that Rebuttal Evidence Was Implicitly Reserved – Directions Issued to Trial Court to Allow Rebuttal Evidence Under Specific Conditions. [Paras 27-37]

Decision - High Court sets aside trial court’s order, allowing petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal strictly relating to the evidence produced by respondents, without introducing new evidence or filling gaps in her original evidence [Para 37].