Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Partition Suit – Plaint alleged joint Hindu family possession over agricultural land; father of plaintiff allegedly sold suit property through registered sale deeds in 1998–1999 during plaintiff's minority without his knowledge — Defendants/petitioners filed application to reject plaint contending no pre-existing right, suit barred by limitation and improper court fee — Trial court dismissed application holding all points to be mixed questions of law and fact — Held: Trial court rightly dismissed the application; no perversity or illegality warranting interference under Article 227 [Paras 11, 22, 24–25].

Hindu Law – Ancestral and Self-Acquired Property – Nature of Property After Partition – Whether share received by father Janga Reddy on partition of grandfather's property was self-acquired or remained coparcenary property in his hands vis-à-vis his sons — Whether plaintiff, being born after or before the partition, acquired a right by birth — Held: These are disputed mixed questions of law and fact; whether property was sold by Janga Reddy as Karta of HUF or as absolute owner and the sanctity of the sale deeds can only be determined after appreciation of evidence at trial [Paras 14.1, 14.2, 15.1–15.5, 19, 22].

Limitation – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – Plea that suit for cancellation of sale deeds executed in 1998–1999 is barred by limitation — Held: Unless the bar of limitation is patently and unequivocally clear from the plaint, it cannot form a ground under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; point of limitation is a mixed question to be decided after full trial [Paras 11, 17.2].

Court Fees – Deficiency – Plaint valued under Section 34(2) of the AP Court Fees Act — Held: Plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of deficiency in valuation of court fees [Para 17.1].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Scope – Held: Power of the High Court under Article 227 is to be sparingly exercised only where errors are apparent on the face of record or where the inferior court has exercised jurisdiction in a perverse manner; no such case made out [Para 23].

Decision: CRP No. 3407 of 2023 dismissed without costs — Interim orders and miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Section 483 - Bail - NDPS Act - Custodial necessity - Petitioner arrayed as an accomplice based on information from co-accused Jawan Singh - No recovery of contraband effected from the petitioner - Co-accused and other similarly placed persons already granted bail by a Coordinate Bench - Investigation complete and charge sheet filed - Held, looking at the period of custody and the fact that further proceedings will take time, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant bail. [Paras 1-9].

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Sections 8 and 21 - Prosecution Procedure - Evidentiary requirements - Recovery of 27.77gm of Heroin from co-accused - Petitioner implicated in the distribution chain based on hearsay from co-accused - Lack of legal evidence - Held, naming a person and forwarding them for trial requires legal evidence; it is not the concern of the police to ignore whether sufficient evidence is available or not. The prosecution's failure to advise against recommending a charge sheet despite deficiency of evidence noted. [Paras 10-11].

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Section 273 - Trial Court Duty - Compensation for groundless prosecution - Corresponding to Section 250 CrPC - Non-application of mind at grass-root level - Held, Trial Courts are required to look into the deficiency of evidence at the stage of framing of charge; if deficiency exists, it warrants the invocation of Section 273 BNSS to award compensation to innocent persons for unnecessary custody and prosecution. [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Application allowed – Petitioner released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties – Copy of the order directed to be sent to ACS Home and DGP Rajasthan for taking action against non-application of mind in investigations.

Tenancy – Declaration – Burden of Proof – Primary Onus on Plaintiff – In a suit for declaration of tenancy, the burden of proving tenancy lies squarely upon the person claiming to be a tenant — Respondent/plaintiff produced no rent receipts and no tenancy agreement and admitted having taken no action for 30 years regarding alleged non-issuance of rent receipts — Held: Failure to discharge this primary burden is fatal to the plaintiff's case [Paras 12–13, 22].

Tenancy – Long Possession – Permissive Possession – Long standing possession or permissive long possession does not by itself establish that a person is a tenant — Appellate Court erred in treating continuity of possession during gaps between nokar-namas as casting doubt on the respondent's status as a gardener — Such consideration was extraneous and irrelevant to the core question of proof of tenancy [Paras 14, 17–20].

Nokar-namas – Salary Receipts – Unilateral Documents – Evidentiary Value – 116 salary/payment receipts produced by the petitioner showed payments made to the respondent at Rs.50/- per month, later increased to Rs.100/-, indicating salary and not rent — Receipts signed by the respondent/plaintiff cannot be rent receipts, as rent receipts must be signed by the landlord — Even assuming nokar-namas were unilateral and not signed by the petitioner, they indicate the respondent accepting his status as a gardener, disentitling him from claiming tenancy [Paras 15–16].

Appellate Court – Perverse Reasoning – Illegal Onus – The Appellate Court's reasoning that once the petitioner/defendant's case based on nokar-namas and payment receipts was found doubtful, the plaintiff's positive contention of tenancy must be accepted, is perverse — This amounts to placing an illegal burden on the defendant to disprove tenancy rather than requiring the plaintiff to prove it — Such reasoning, if sustained, would cause miscarriage of justice [Paras 22–23].

Decision: Petition allowed — Impugned judgment and decree dated 07.10.2013 quashed and set aside — Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2012 dismissed — Judgment and decree dated 02.01.2012 of the Trial Court dismissing the suit confirmed.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1)(ia) - Cruelty - Standard of Proof - Dissolution of marriage sought on grounds of harassment, suspicion of character, and extra-marital affairs - Appellant-wife failed to provide specific instances, dates, or examine material witnesses such as her parents or paternal uncle to corroborate the claims - Held, cruelty must be specifically pleaded and proved with cogent evidence; vague allegations without proof do not constitute cruelty. [Paras 17-21, 40-42].

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1)(ia) - Matrimonial Law - Alleged suicide attempts and physical abuse - Appellant claimed to have attempted suicide twice due to ill-treatment - No medical evidence, hospital records, or testimony from parents who reportedly facilitated treatment were produced - Held, mere trivial irritations or normal wear and tear of matrimonial life, or vague allegations without proof, cannot constitute cruelty. [Paras 28-30, 41].

Family Courts Act, Section 7(a) - New ground in appeal - Void Marriage - Minority at the time of marriage - Appellant argued during the appeal that the marriage was void due to her being a minor at the time of solemnization - Petition before the Family Court was filed only for dissolution on the ground of cruelty - Held, a ground for declaring a marriage as a nullity cannot be raised for the first time in appeal without specific pleadings and a petition for the same before the trial court. [Para 34].

Decision: Family Court Appeal dismissed – Order dated 30.01.2018 in O.P. No. 1542 of 2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad is confirmed – No order as to costs.

Income Tax – Section 263 – Revisionary Jurisdiction – Twin Conditions – No Enquiry vs. Inadequate Enquiry – Before the Commissioner can invoke revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263, twin conditions must be satisfied: (i) the assessment order must be erroneous, and (ii) as a consequence, prejudice must be caused to the interest of revenue — Where the AO had raised specific queries regarding utilisation of Rs. 6 crores out of the accumulated funds under Section 11(2) and the assessee had furnished full details vide letters dated 30.01.2019 and 03.12.2019 along with Form 10, board resolutions and breakup of utilisation, the AO had applied his mind and taken a plausible view — Such a case is not one of 'no enquiry' but at best one of 'inadequate enquiry', which does not confer jurisdiction on the CIT to invoke Section 263 — Held: Revisionary proceedings not sustainable [Paras 7–10, 17].

Income Tax – Section 263 – Role of Commissioner – Must Himself Conduct Enquiry Before Declaring Order Erroneous – Where the AO has conducted an enquiry on an issue, the Commissioner, before holding the assessment order to be erroneous, must himself conduct necessary enquiries or verification to demonstrate that the AO's finding is erroneous or unsustainable in law — The Commissioner cannot merely remand the matter to the AO to find out whether the order is erroneous — In the present case, the CIT (Exemptions) conducted no independent enquiry and invoked revisional jurisdiction on mere conjectures, suspicions and surmises — Held: Order under Section 263 not sustainable [Paras 9–10].

Income Tax – Section 11(2) and 11(3) – Accumulated Income – Year of Taxability – Accumulated amount of Rs. 14.51 crores in AY 2016-17 was to be utilised by 31.03.2021 — Any non-utilisation under Section 11(3)(c) would attract taxation in AY 2022-23, being the year immediately following expiry of the accumulation period — CIT's concern was about utilisation of Rs. 6 crores out of this accumulated amount in AY 2017-18, which could only attract clause (a) or (d) of Section 11(3) if misapplied — Since no such finding of misapplication was returned by the CIT after conducting independent enquiry, the revisionary order was unsustainable — Held: Taxability, if any, was to be examined in AY 2022-23 and not in the relevant AY 2017-18 [Paras 11–12].

Income Tax – Section 263 – Explanation 2 – Show-Cause Notice Must Specify Invocation – Where the show-cause notice issued under Section 263 does not mention that Explanation 2 is being invoked, the subsequent invocation of Explanation 2 in the revision order without confronting the assessee is not appropriate and is unsustainable in law — Held: Invocation of Explanation 2 in the revision order without prior notice to assessee is bad in law [Para 13].

Decision: Appeal dismissed — No substantial question of law arises — ITAT order setting aside the revisionary order of CIT (Exemptions) confirmed — No costs.

Writ Law - Freezing of Bank Account - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to Livelihood and Dignity - Petitioner sought directions to defreeze HDFC bank account used for salary and household expenses - Account was debit-frozen following communications from cyber crime authorities regarding two transactions of 500 and 600 rupees - Petitioner not named as an accused or suspect in any criminal proceedings - Respondent bank acted on instructions from investigating agency without specifying the quantum of suspected amount - High Court observed that the power of investigating agencies to freeze accounts must be exercised in a reasonable and proportionate manner - Freezing of an entire account for a nominal disputed amount results in undue hardship and adversely affects fundamental rights - Court found the action disproportionate as it restricted access to legitimate earnings and savings - Held - Freezing of the entire account was disproportionate and prejudicial - Respondent No. 3 directed to defreeze the account and permit operations after marking a lien to the extent of 1,100 rupees - [Paras 1-12].

Writ Law - Investigative Powers - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Proportionality - High Court examined the transaction trail reflecting only 1,100 rupees as suspicious while the entire account was blocked - Court emphasized that freezing should be restricted to the disputed amount to meet the ends of justice - Petitioner directed to cooperate with the investigating agency - Order clarified not to be an expression on the merits of the investigation - Held - Petition allowed with specific directions to mark a lien only on the disputed amount pending investigation - [Paras 7-11].

Decision: Petition allowed – Respondent No. 3 directed to defreeze account No. 50100252309114 and mark a lien of 1,100 rupees subject to the outcome of investigation – Petitioner permitted to operate the account fully except for the lien amount.

Writ Law - Encroachment on Public Road - Constitution of India - Article 300-A - Petitioner filed Writ of Mandamus against inaction of respondents regarding unauthorized sheds on a 33-foot layout road reducing effective width to 10-15 feet and obstructing access to petitioner’s plot - Respondent Commissioner suggested providing alternate sites to encroachers - High Court rejected this contention holding that such allotments would embolden encroachers and harm public interest - Court held private rights must yield to public interest and no one has a right to obstruct a public-way - Held - Writ Petition disposed of with directions to issue show cause notices and clear encroachments within five weeks using reasonable force if required - [Paras 1-7].

Writ Law - Natural Justice - Principles of Natural Justice - Procedure for removal of encroachment - Settled possession - High Court observed that while removal of recent encroachment may not require notice - settled possession for a long time necessitates a modicum of reasonable notice like two weeks or 10 days - Held - Respondents directed to issue show cause notices to encroachers to vacate within 10 days or two weeks to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice before using reasonable force for eviction - [Paras 3-6].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Directions issued to Respondent No. 3 to issue show cause notices and clear all encroachments on the subject road within a period of five weeks.

Commercial Courts Act – Section 12-A – Pre-Institution Mediation – Urgent Interim Relief – Test from Plaintiff's Standpoint – Non-compliance with Section 12-A is permissible only when the suit contemplates urgent interim relief — The test is not whether the prayer for urgent interim relief is actually granted or denied on merits, but whether, on an examination of the nature and subject-matter of the suit and the cause of action, the prayer for urgent interim relief could be said to be contemplable when seen from the standpoint of the plaintiff — Urgent interim relief must not be a camouflage or disguise to bypass the mandatory mediation requirement; however, when a real apprehension exists and precipitative action by the defendant is alleged, the test is satisfied — Post-filing conduct of the plaintiff is not a decisive criterion for determining whether the bar under Section 12-A applies — Held: Plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold for non-compliance with Section 12-A when urgent interim relief is genuinely contemplated from the plaintiff's standpoint [Paras 37–53].

Commercial Courts Act – Section 12-A – Rejection of Plaint – Drastic Power – Strictly Construed – The power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a drastic measure that terminates a civil action at the threshold and must be exercised strictly in accordance with the conditions enumerated therein — The word "shall" in Order VII Rule 11 CPC obliges the court to reject the plaint only when the conditions are strictly satisfied — The court must do a meaningful, not formal, reading of the plaint — If the plaint does not disclose a cause of action or the suit is barred by law, rejection follows; otherwise, it does not [Paras 7, 38, 47].

SARFAESI Act – Section 34 – Bar – Scope – Substantive prayers for specific performance of a Framework Agreement and profit-sharing agreement are not matters that the Debt Recovery Tribunal is empowered to determine under the SARFAESI Act — The bar under Section 34 applies to actions taken or to be taken in pursuance of powers conferred under the SARFAESI Act and does not extend to bar a civil suit seeking specific performance of a settlement agreement — Consequential prayer for release of secured assets does not attract the bar under Section 34 — Held: Bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be applied for rejection of the plaint at the threshold [Paras 34–35].

Cause of Action – Defendant Not Signatory to Framework Agreement – Where the plaint contains specific averments that a defendant, though not a signatory to the Framework Agreement, has acted upon and availed benefits under the agreement and has continued precipitative action against the plaintiffs despite the settlement, there is sufficient cause of action pleaded — Defendant no. 2 having initiated SARFAESI proceedings despite the Framework Agreement and defendant no. 3 having entered into a profit-sharing agreement pursuant to the Framework Agreement — Held: Plaint discloses adequate cause of action against all defendants; rejection is not warranted [Paras 30–36].

Decision: Interim Applications for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC dismissed — Plaint to proceed to trial.

Tenancy Law – Unlawful Subletting – Concurrent Findings – Civil Revision – No Interference – Applicant (Defendant No. 2) found in possession of suit premises as unlawful sublettee of the original tenant (Defendant No. 1) — Trial Court and Appellate Court recorded concurrent findings of unlawful subletting — Applicant's various contentions regarding additional evidence, limitation, maintainability, and tenant status were rejected at all stages — Held: No case made out for interference in concurrent findings of the Trial and Appellate Courts on the issue of unlawful subletting — Civil Revision Application dismissed [Paras 14, 38].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Abuse of Process – Multiple Applications – Applicant filed four applications before the Appellate Court for the same purpose of production of additional evidence/material — Appellate Court decided two of these (Exhibits 71 and 72) and dismissed them; two applications (Exhibits 22 and 23) remained undecided — Applicant sought remand on ground of non-decision of Exhibits 22 and 23 — Held: Filing multiple applications for the same purpose is an abuse of process — applicant cannot take benefit of his own wrong — production of additional evidence before the Appellate Court is a special and exceptional opportunity under Order XLI Rule 27, not a matter of right — remand refused — relief under Order XLI Rule 27 not available where applications are filed merely to delay proceedings and create grounds for remand [Paras 15–27].

Limitation – Unlawful Subletting – Continuous Cause of Action – Section 22, Limitation Act – Act of subletting in November 1995; suit filed in 2008 — Applicant contended suit barred under Article 66 of the Limitation Act requiring filing within 12 years of the act of subletting — Held: An act of unauthorised subletting constitutes a continuing breach of contract giving rise to a continuous cause of action under Section 22 of the Limitation Act — period of limitation runs so long as the act of subletting continues — Shree Durga Trading Co. v. Ateeq Anwar Agboatwal followed — judgment in Bakul Nandlal Gandhi v. Mrs. Smita Pradip Bhatia distinguished on facts as rendered in peculiar circumstances of protected sub-tenancy and without noticing Section 22 of the Limitation Act — plea of limitation rejected [Paras 30–35].

Order XLI Rule 25 CPC – Additional Issue – Reference to Trial Court – Not Mandatory in Every Case – Appellate Court framed additional issue of limitation and decided the same on the same day — Applicant alleged violation of Order XLI Rule 25 requiring reference to Trial Court for evidence — Held: Order XLI Rule 25 does not mandate reference to the Trial Court in every case where an additional issue is framed — where the issue is a pure question of law and sufficient evidence is already on record, the Appellate Court may decide it under Order XLI Rule 24 without remand — transfer of tenancy in November 1995 being an admitted fact, the limitation issue was a pure question of law requiring no additional evidence [Paras 28–29].

Conveyance Deed – List of Tenants and Occupants – Mere Inclusion Not Conferring Tenancy – Applicant contended his name in the list appended to the Deed of Conveyance established his status as tenant — Held: Clause 13 of the Deed of Conveyance refers to both "tenants" and "occupants" — mere reflection of name in such list does not elevate an occupant to the status of tenant — issue not res integra, covered by earlier decisions in Ambavi Raghu Patel v. M/s. Isha Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Pradeep Dattatray Gandhi v. M/s. Ish Homes Private Ltd. [Paras 37].

Suit Against Dead Person – Maintainability – Plaint was amended and legal heirs of Defendant No. 1 were brought on record — Held: Suit cannot be said to have continued against a dead person — objection rejected [Para 36].

Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed — No order as to costs — Request for stay of judgment rejected.