Civil Law - Transfer of Property Act – Section 58(c) – Mortgage by Conditional Sale – Distinction from Sale with Condition to Repurchase – Interpretation of registered deed dated 24.09.1979 – Plaintiffs received Rs.13,000/- for household and agricultural expenses – Condition to reconvey property on repayment within 7 years – Restrictions imposed on enjoyment of property by defendant – Debtor–creditor relationship established – Held: Transaction constituted mortgage by conditional sale and not outright sale or independent agreement to repurchase [Paras 9-14, 16, 18].

Specific Relief – Decree for Reconveyance – Readiness and Willingness – Appellant contended that plaintiffs failed to prove readiness and willingness for specific performance – Court held that once transaction is mortgage by conditional sale, right of redemption subsists – Plaintiffs were ready to repay mortgage amount within stipulated time – Decree for reconveyance and possession justified [Paras 4, 6.1, 14, 18].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – Appellate Court’s findings on nature of transaction based on interpretation of document and settled principles – Questions framed at admission held not to constitute substantial questions of law – Limited scope of interference reiterated – Second Appeal dismissed [Paras 18-20].

Interpretation of Documents – Literal Rule – Document to be read as a whole – Intention of parties to be gathered from terms of deed – Clear and unambiguous language to be given natural meaning – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents explaining distinction between mortgage by conditional sale and sale with option to repurchase [Paras 10-16].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court decreeing suit for redemption and directing reconveyance of property on deposit of Rs.14,610/- upheld – Interim relief vacated – Record and Proceedings directed to be sent back.

Transfer of Property Act – Section 58(c) – Mortgage by Conditional Sale – Distinction from Sale with Condition to Repurchase – Deed dated 24.09.1979 executed for Rs.13,000/- with stipulation to reconvey on repayment within 7 years – Restriction on enjoyment of property and indication of borrowing for household and agricultural expenses – Relationship of debtor and creditor established – Held: Transaction was mortgage by conditional sale and not outright sale or independent right to repurchase – Intention to be gathered from document as a whole applying literal rule of interpretation – Decree for reconveyance and possession upheld [Paras 9-15, 18].

Interpretation of Document – Literal Rule – Court must read document as a whole and assign natural meaning where language is clear and unambiguous – Surrounding circumstances secondary when terms are explicit – Supreme Court principles reiterated – True intention discerned from contents of Exh.26 – Document created security for debt and not absolute transfer of title [Paras 10-11].

Civil Procedure Code – Section 100 – Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Substantial Question of Law – Appellant contended that appellate court erred in not examining readiness and willingness and in granting specific performance – High Court held that findings regarding nature of transaction were based on proper appreciation of document and settled legal principles – No substantial question of law survived for consideration – Appeal dismissed [Paras 4, 18-20].

Mortgage vs. Sale – Essential Tests – Single document embodying condition – Consideration amount indicative of borrowing – Restrictions on enjoyment – Right of redemption subsists – Applying tests laid down in Bhoju Mandal and Patel Ravjibhai Bhulabhai – Held: Exh.26 satisfied ingredients of mortgage by conditional sale – Plaintiffs entitled to redeem and obtain reconveyance upon payment of Rs.13,000/- [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of first Appellate Court directing plaintiffs to deposit Rs.14,610/- (mortgage money) and directing defendant to execute reconveyance deed and hand over peaceful possession upheld – Interim relief vacated – Record and Proceedings directed to be sent back to trial Court.

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Search Assessment – Abatement under Section 158BA(2) – Petitioner contended that assessment for A.Y. 2022-23 was pending on date of search under Section 132 and hence stood abated by operation of Section 158BA(2) – Held, abatement under Section 158BA(2) is attracted only in relation to assessment or reassessment pertaining to “any assessment year falling in the block period” and in context of total undisclosed income under Chapter XIV-B – Mere pendency of scrutiny assessment under Section 143 does not ipso facto result in abatement unless statutory conditions are satisfied [Paras 7, 7.10, 8.15].

Block Period – Interpretation of Section 158B – Court analysed definition of “block period” using the expression “means … includes” – Held, definition is exhaustive – Assessment Year 2022-23 falls within six assessment years preceding previous year of search – However, applicability of Chapter XIV-B depends upon assessment of “total undisclosed income” as a result of search – Not automatically attracted to scrutiny of disclosed income [Paras 7.2–7.5, 8.7, 8.10].

Search under Section 132 – Scope vis-à-vis Assessee – Panchnama revealed that search was conducted in respect of certain corporate entities and not specifically against petitioner in his individual capacity – Impugned assessment was based on CASS scrutiny of return filed by petitioner in individual status – No material placed to show that search yielded incriminating material relating to petitioner’s undisclosed income for relevant assessment year – Held, factual foundation for invoking Section 158BA(2) not established [Paras 8.16–8.24, 8.28].

Writ Jurisdiction – Alternate Remedy – Entertaining Disputed Questions of Fact – Court reiterated principles in Radha Krishan Industries and Chhabil Dass Agarwal – Held, disputed factual issues regarding existence of undisclosed income, linkage of search material and applicability of Chapter XIV-B cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction – Petitioner failed to demonstrate jurisdictional error apparent on face of record – Writ petition not maintainable [Paras 8.29–8.31, 9.2].

Statutory Interpretation – Taxing Statute – Court reiterated settled principles that taxing statutes must be construed strictly – Nothing can be read into statute nor implied – Abatement provision cannot be invoked dehors entire scheme of Chapter XIV-B – Legal fiction under Section 158BA must be applied within its statutory contours [Paras 8.13, 8.25–8.27].

Distinction between Section 153A and Section 158BA – Petitioner relied on Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., (2024) 2 SCC 433 – Held, Section 153A (assessment of total income) operates in distinct field from Section 158BA (assessment of total undisclosed income of block period) – Ratio of Abhisar Buildwell cannot be mechanically applied without examining statutory scheme of Chapter XIV-B and factual matrix [Paras 8.5–8.7].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Court declined to interfere with Assessment Order dated 17.03.2025 passed under Section 143(3) read with Sections 260 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2022-23 – Petitioner relegated to avail statutory remedies – No order as to costs.

Domestic Violence Act – Maintainability of Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Appellate Court directed return of application under Section 12 on ground of territorial jurisdiction – Held, though proceedings under Section 12 are predominantly civil in nature, High Court can invoke second limb of Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice – Order directing return of application is not interlocutory – Petition under Section 482 maintainable [Paras 19–25].

Interlocutory Order – Test – Order substantially affecting rights of parties and directing return of application cannot be termed interlocutory – Bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. not attracted – Reliance placed on Amar Nath v. State of Haryana and Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra [Paras 21–22].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Section 27 DV Act – Temporary Residence – Petition under DV Act maintainable where aggrieved person permanently or temporarily resides or where cause of action arises – “Temporary residence” means a dwelling place where aggrieved person takes shelter with intention to reside for time being and not a casual or fleeing visit merely to file case – Documents such as Aadhaar Card, residence certificate, leave and licence agreement and receipt of court notices at said address support claim of temporary residence – No material to show it was a mere fleeting address [Paras 27–30].

Cause of Action – Economic Abuse – Continuing Wrong – Allegation that husband neglected to maintain wife and child despite sufficient income amounts to “economic abuse” under Section 3 of DV Act – Economic abuse constitutes continuing cause of action – Continuity of shared household not sine qua non for claiming relief – Even if residence documents were subsequent, continuing economic deprivation within jurisdiction confers competence on court [Paras 31–36].

DV Act – Beneficial Legislation – Interpretation – When two views possible, interpretation advancing object of protecting victim of domestic violence to be preferred – Hyper-technical approach to jurisdiction not warranted where prima facie materials show temporary residence and continuing domestic violence [Paras 10, 36].

Appellate Interference – Improper Reappreciation – Trial Magistrate had passed reasoned order upholding jurisdiction – Appellate Court substituted its view without cogent grounds – Findings held perverse and liable to be set aside [Paras 11, 37].

Decision: CRR 3472 of 2022 allowed – Impugned order dated 22.08.2022 passed by Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No.131 of 2022 set aside – Order dated 14.07.2022 of learned 11th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in MISCN Case No.23 of 2020 affirmed – Trial Court directed to proceed in accordance with law.

Writ Jurisdiction – Disputed Questions of Fact – Fixed Deposits – Claim for maturity proceeds of deposits allegedly made in 1995–1996 in erstwhile Nedungadi Bank and Bank of Baroda – Banks contended that no such deposits were reflected in takeover records and accounts – Petitioners relied on original/photostat fixed deposit receipts retrieved from locker – Held, dispute requires adducing of evidence and detailed examination of records – Such issues cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings under Article 226 – Proper remedy is civil suit – Impugned judgment directing disbursement set aside [Paras 11, 12].

Bank Amalgamation – Liability of Transferee Bank – Punjab National Bank took over Nedungadi Bank in 2003 – Stand of Bank that alleged deposits, said to have matured in 1997, were not part of asset-liability schedule at time of takeover – Whether deposits existed and were carried forward is a matter requiring evidence – Cannot be conclusively determined in writ proceedings [Paras 2.1, 3.3, 12].

Delay and Limitation – Claim Raised After More Than Two Decades – Petitioners approached Banks in 2018–2019 for deposits allegedly matured in 1997 – Banks raised plea of delay and limitation – Learned Single Judge rejected plea considering retrieval of receipts from locker in 2018 – Division Bench held that limitation and related factual aspects are matters to be adjudicated by civil court – Petitioners contended applicability of Section 10 of Limitation Act on fiduciary relationship – No opinion expressed – Issue left open [Paras 13, 14].

Scope of Article 226 – Enforcement Not Establishment of Rights – Where foundational facts are seriously disputed and rival claims depend on documentary and oral evidence, writ court ought not to undertake fact-finding exercise – Reliance placed on settled principles that merits of rival claims to property and money are to be decided in properly constituted civil suit – Discretion under Article 226 not to be exercised in such circumstances [Para 11].

Interim Deposit and Withdrawal – Amount deposited by Bank pursuant to interim order and withdrawn by petitioners under protest – Held, such withdrawal subject to final decision of civil court – Rights of parties preserved [Paras 6, 7, 14].

Decision: Writ Appeals allowed – Common judgment dated 20.12.2024 in W.P.(C) Nos.1304 of 2019 and 19940 of 2019 set aside – Parties relegated to competent Civil Court – Liberty granted to petitioners to institute suit within 15 days – Amount withdrawn pursuant to interim orders subject to outcome of civil proceedings.

Stamp Act – Instrument of Partition – Final Decree – Section 2(15) – Final decree in partition suit directed drawing up of decree by making Commissioner’s partition plan and registered conveyance part of decree – Structural engineer reported that physical partition was not feasible – Parties accepted plan and decree without challenge – Held: Final decree answers description of “final order for effecting a partition” under Section 2(15) – Exigible to stamp duty under Article 45 of Schedule 1A [Paras 14, 18-21, 26-28, 30].

Partition Suit – Preliminary and Final Decree – Distinction – Order XX Rule 18 CPC and Order XXVI Rules 13-14 CPC considered – Preliminary decree declares shares – Final decree passed after inquiry and incorporation of Commissioner’s report – Once decree drawn and accepted, suit stands finally disposed of – Decree cannot be recharacterised as non-final to avoid stamp duty [Paras 15-18, 20-21, 25-26].

Physical Impossibility of Partition – Effect – Mere fact that property could not be physically partitioned by metes and bounds does not denude decree of character as final decree – Parties chose not to seek sale under Section 2 of Partition Act, 1893 – Acceptance of plan and decree indicates intention to conclude partition proceedings – Stamp duty liability unaffected [Paras 21-24].

Stamp Duty – Creation of New Rights – Irrelevant Consideration – Stamp duty on instrument of partition is attracted irrespective of whether new rights are created – Final decree is formal record of division of shares – Levy sustainable [Para 29].

Judicial Review – Assessment of Stamp Duty – Article 226 – Interference warranted only if action is arbitrary, without jurisdiction, patently illegal or violative of natural justice – No such infirmity made out – Writ court declined to interfere with Collector’s assessment retaining Rs. 45,000/- under Article 45 [Para 31].

Decision: WPO 506 of 2025 dismissed – Final decree dated 29.11.2023 held to be an “instrument of partition” within meaning of Section 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Levy of stamp duty under Article 45 of Schedule 1A upheld – No costs.

RERA - Maintainability – Special Appeal – Chapter VIII Rule 5, Allahabad High Court Rules – Appeal against order of Single Judge passed under Section 58 of RERA Act – Objection raised that appeal barred by Section 100-A CPC – Held: Where Single Judge decides appeal from original order of Tribunal having trappings of court, no further intra-court appeal lies – Special appeal not maintainable [Paras 14-15, 27, 31].

RERA – Nature of Appellate Tribunal – Trappings of Court – UP Real Estate Appellate Tribunal vested with powers of civil court under Section 53(4) – Proceedings deemed judicial proceedings – Tribunal deemed civil court for limited purposes – Orders executable as decree under Section 57 – Held: Tribunal has all essential trappings of court akin to Company Law Board considered in Kamal Kumar Dutta – Ratio of Supreme Court squarely applicable [Paras 17-20, 25-27].

Section 100-A CPC – Bar on Further Appeal – Supreme Court in Kamal Kumar Dutta held that after amendment of Section 100-A, Letters Patent appeal barred where Single Judge decides appeal from original order of quasi-judicial authority having trappings of court – Appeal under Section 58 RERA is appeal from original order of Appellate Tribunal – Therefore, no further special appeal lies before Division Bench [Paras 14-16, 27, 31].

Distinction Sought from Kamal Kumar Dutta – Reliance on Delhi High Court decision in Promoshirt SM SA – Division Bench distinguished on ground of statutory deeming provision – Held: RERA Act contains deeming provisions similar to Section 10E(4D) of Companies Act, 1956 – Hence distinction in Promoshirt inapplicable – View of Delhi High Court not applicable to present statutory scheme [Paras 28-29].

Tribunals vs Courts – Judicial Character – Reiterating principles in Kihoto Hollohan and Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Bar Association – Tribunal deciding lis under special statute with powers akin to civil court and whose proceedings are judicial in nature may be treated as having trappings of court – Functional similarity decisive factor [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 against order of learned Single Judge passed in appeal under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 held barred by Section 100-A CPC – Appeal dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 31-32].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Multiple Cheques – Single Complaint – Accused prosecuted for dishonour of four cheques issued towards repayment of common liability – Consolidated statutory notice issued under Section 138(b) – Contention that four distinct offences cannot be consolidated in one complaint – Held: Where cheques are issued as part of one series of acts forming same transaction, prosecution through single complaint is maintainable under Section 220 Cr.PC [Paras 8-10, 13-14].

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 218 – Separate Charges – General Rule – For every distinct offence, separate charge and separate trial required – Exceptions carved out under Sections 219 and 220 Cr.PC – Section 219 permits joint trial of not more than three offences of same kind within 12 months – Present case involving four cheques not covered by Section 219 but governed by Section 220 [Paras 4-7, 12].

Section 220 Cr.PC – Same Transaction – Test – Offences may be tried together if arising from one series of acts so connected as to form same transaction – Proximity of time, unity of purpose, continuity of action and common design are relevant factors – Execution and issuance of four cheques towards discharge of single debt and failure to pay despite consolidated notice constitute same transaction [Paras 8-10].

Vani Agro Enterprises v. State of Gujarat – Distinction – In Vani Agro, four separate complaints were filed and question concerned consolidation under Section 219 Cr.PC – Present case involves single complaint – Supreme Court in Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 NI Act (2021) 16 SCC 116 clarified that Section 220 Cr.PC permits joint trial of several cheques forming part of same transaction – Reliance on Vani Agro misplaced [Paras 12-14].

Section 482 Cr.PC – Quashing – Petition challenging maintainability of complaint dismissed – No illegality in Magistrate’s finding that prosecution through single complaint is sustainable [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Criminal M.C. dismissed – Single complaint for dishonour of four cheques issued as part of same transaction held maintainable – Proceedings in S.T. No. 143/2019 to continue.

Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce – Adultery, Cruelty and Desertion – Appeal against dismissal of divorce petition – Allegation that wife developed illicit relationship and fled with alleged paramour – No specific pleading or cogent evidence of voluntary sexual intercourse – Witnesses gave generalized statements based on suspicion – No proof of continuous desertion for statutory period – Held: Findings of Family Court well-reasoned and not perverse – Appeal dismissed [Paras 32-50, 63-67, 79-81, 82-85].

Adultery – Standard of Proof – Section 13(1)(i), Hindu Marriage Act – Though matrimonial proceedings governed by preponderance of probabilities, charge of adultery being grave requires high degree of probability – Bald and generalized allegations without specific instances or corroborative evidence insufficient – No proof of adulterous act or continuing adulterous relationship at time of petition – Allegations based on suspicion and surmises – Divorce rightly refused [Paras 35-42, 44-47].

Cruelty – Mental Cruelty – Section 13(1)(i-a), Hindu Marriage Act – Allegation that wife stopped physical relations and frequently left matrimonial home – No specific act of misconduct proved – Ordinary marital discord and quarrels do not amount to cruelty – No evidence that conduct was so grave and weighty as to render cohabitation unsafe or impossible – Finding of no cruelty upheld [Paras 51-62, 64-67].

Desertion – Essential Ingredients – Factum of Separation and Animus Deserendi – Section 13(1)(i-b), Hindu Marriage Act – Petition filed within two months of alleged departure of wife – Statutory requirement of continuous desertion for not less than two years immediately preceding presentation of petition not satisfied – Desertion ground not maintainable [Paras 68-76, 79-81].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 19, Family Courts Act – High Court can reappreciate evidence both on facts and law – Interference warranted only if findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to law – No perversity found in appreciation of evidence by Family Court – Judgment affirmed [Paras 23-31, 49-50, 83-84].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and Decree dated 15.10.2022 and 03.11.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda in Original Suit No. 75 of 2021 affirmed – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.