Civil Law  – Partition Suit – Maintainability – CPC S.100 – Plaintiffs (daughters and wife of deceased owner) sought partition of self-acquired property of late S. Sarvayya who died intestate in 1982 – Defendants 1 to 3 (sons) sold property in 2004 to Defendants 4 & 5, leaving out daughters – Appellants (purchasers) contended suit not maintainable without cancellation of sale deeds – Held: Under Specific Relief Act S.31, cancellation is discretionary (“may sue”) and not mandatory, particularly when plaintiffs were not parties to sale deeds – Plaintiffs can ignore alienations to the extent of their shares – Suit maintainable [Paras 17-20].

Hindu Succession Act – Coparcenary Rights of Daughters – Section 6(5), Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by 2005 Act – Daughters born before amendment also acquire coparcenary rights by birth – Oral partition plea not acceptable unless supported by registered deed or decree – In absence of registered partition prior to 20-12-2004, plaintiffs (daughters) entitled to equal share with sons – Sale deeds by sons in favour of appellants not binding on daughters to the extent of their shares [Paras 19-20].

Relinquishment of Rights – Requirement of Registration – Specific Relief Act S.31 – Registration Act S.17 – Alleged consent letters/affidavits relied upon by appellants do not constitute valid relinquishment of plaintiffs’ rights – No registered relinquishment deed produced – Mutation entries or pattadar passbooks do not confer or extinguish title – Hence plaintiffs’ rights remain unaffected [Paras 25-29].

Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – CPC S.100 – High Court can interfere with findings of fact of first appellate court only if perverse, contrary to law or without evidence – Both trial and first appellate courts concurrently found plaintiffs entitled to partition – No substantial question of law arises – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 15, 30-32].

*Decision – Second Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees of trial court and first appellate court confirming partition decree upheld – Pending applications closed – Each party to bear own costs [Para 32].

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Conviction under Sections 279, 338, 304-A IPC – Modification of Sentence – Applicant, a state transport driver, convicted for rash and negligent driving causing death and injuries – Trial Court and Appellate Court concurrently held him guilty – High Court found no perversity in findings – However, considering the applicant's age (now 60), sentence under Sections 279, 338, and 304-A IPC reduced from 6 months and 1 year to 3 months each – Sentences ordered to run concurrently – Set-off granted under Section 428 CrPC [Paras 1, 11, 15].

Criminal Procedure – Revisional Powers – Limited Scope – Sections 397 and 401 CrPC – Held: Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory in nature – Cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is manifest illegality, jurisdictional error, or gross miscarriage of justice – Concurrent findings of conviction by Trial and Appellate Court upheld – Reliance placed on State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 2 SCC 452 and Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 8 SCC 204 [Paras 6–8].

Criminal Procedure – Sanction for Prosecution – Section 197 CrPC – Applicability – Plea that applicant was a government servant acting in official duty and sanction was required under Section 197 CrPC rejected – Held: Driving a government vehicle in a rash and negligent manner is not an act in discharge of official duty – Therefore, sanction not required – Plea also held to be raised for the first time at revision stage and not tenable [Paras 2.1, 13].

Motor Vehicles Act – Overlap with IPC Offences – Sentencing – No separate sentence awarded for offences under Sections 177 and 184 MV Act as they are covered by conviction under Section 279 IPC – Fine imposed for Section 134 MV Act sustained [Para 1].

Appellate Practice – Concurrent Findings – Interference by Revisional Court – High Court declined to interfere with findings of fact recorded by two courts below based on eyewitnesses and medical evidence – Observed that revisional interference unwarranted unless there is glaring legal error or miscarriage of justice [Paras 6–7, 12].

Sentence Reduction – Age and Passage of Time – Court exercised discretion to reduce sentence considering the passage of nearly 20 years since the offence and the advanced age of the applicant (above 60) – Sentence reduced while maintaining conviction [Paras 14–16].

Decision:

Revision application dismissed – Conviction confirmed – Sentences under Sections 279, 338, and 304-A IPC reduced to 3 months – Other sentences maintained – All sentences to run concurrently – Applicant to surrender within 4 weeks – Set-off for time already undergone under Section 428 CrPC [Para 16].

Criminal Law -  Complaint To Register FIR – Dismissal under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Order Set Aside – Petitioner filed complaint alleging assault over election dispute but no FIR was registered – Trial Court dismissed petition due to petitioner’s non-cooperation and absence during hearing – Held: Complaint disclosed prima facie case warranting enquiry – One more opportunity granted to petitioner – Trial Court’s order set aside and fresh enquiry ordered [Paras 2–4].

Police Inquiry – Direction to Register FIR – Court Exercises Supervisory Power – High Court directed petitioner to appear before police within two weeks – On finding any material constituting offence, police directed to register FIR and proceed in accordance with law – Ensures procedural fairness while not pre-judging the complaint [Para 4].

Decision – Revision Allowed – Order dated 09.12.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate-I, Tindivanam, in Crl.M.P.No.2439 of 2024 set aside – Petitioner granted opportunity to cooperate in fresh enquiry – Criminal Revision Petition disposed [Paras 4–5].

Medical Law – Organ Transplantation – Delay in Authorization – Petitioners challenged delay in obtaining necessary approvals for kidney transplant – High Court emphasized need for prescribed timelines under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014 – Absence of such timelines caused significant delays – Court directed establishment of clear timelines for processing applications, document verification, and scheduling of interviews – Petition allowed. [Paras 1-50]

Organ Transplantation – Right to Health – Timely decision-making critical for life-saving transplants – Court emphasized that delays in authorization processes can jeopardize patients' lives – Importance of maintaining integrity and effectiveness of transplantation protocols underscored – Right to health integral to right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution – Court called for expeditious and systematic decision-making. [Paras 38-42]

Judicial Review – Administrative Efficiency – High Court criticized administrative delays in organ transplant approval process – Directed Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to prescribe specific timelines for all steps in approval process – Recommended timely communication and documentation to prevent prolonged delays – Emphasized judicial oversight to ensure adherence to legal and ethical standards in organ transplantation. [Paras 43-50]

Decision:

Held: Writ petition allowed – Respondents directed to adhere to prescribed timelines for organ transplant approvals – Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to ensure proper communication and adherence to timelines – Petition disposed of. [Paras 48-50]

Specific Performance – Sale During Pendency of Suit – Violation of Injunction Order – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant, a purchaser pendente lite, challenged the Trial Court’s decree directing the execution of the sale deed in favor of the respondents/plaintiffs, despite an injunction order restraining the sale – The Court held that the sale executed by the appellant during the pendency of the suit violated the interim injunction and was illegal – The appellant’s appeal was dismissed on grounds of maintainability under Section 96(3) of the CPC, which bars appeals from consent decrees [Paras 16-36].

Consent Decree – Bar on Appeal – Section 96(3) CPC – The Court found that the impugned judgment of the Trial Court was a consent order, with both parties agreeing to the terms, including the payment of balance consideration by the plaintiffs – The appellant’s argument that it was not a consent order was rejected, as the order explicitly recorded the parties' consent [Paras 17-21].

Purchaser Pendente Lite – Effect of Transaction in Violation of Injunction – The Court held that the sale deeds executed by the appellant in violation of the injunction were illegal and void – Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Vidur Impex and other cases, the Court reiterated that transactions violating injunction orders cannot be upheld [Paras 24-35].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. The appellant was barred from challenging the consent decree under Section 96(3) of the CPC.

Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – POCSO Act – Determination of Victim’s Age – The appellant was convicted under Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act for sexual assault on a minor girl – The appellant argued that the age of the prosecutrix had not been correctly determined and that the scholar register alone was insufficient to prove the age – Court upheld the trial court’s reliance on the scholar register (Exhibit-P/6), showing the prosecutrix's date of birth as 09/10/2007, making her under 12 years of age at the time of the incident – Held: The prosecutrix was below 18 years and falls within the scope of a "child" under the POCSO Act – Conviction upheld Paras10−13.

Outraging Modesty of a Minor – Section 7/8 POCSO Act – The appellant contended that the sexual intent was not proven – Court held that the act of pressing the prosecutrix's chest and threatening her was sufficient to indicate sexual intent – Under Section 30(1) of the POCSO Act, the presumption of culpable mental state was applicable, and the appellant failed to prove the absence of such intent – Conviction under Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act was upheld based on the prosecutrix’s testimony and corroborative evidence Paras19−22.

Contradictions in Testimonies – Materiality in Criminal Cases – The appellant pointed out contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence, particularly in the testimony of the prosecutrix’s friend, who turned hostile – Court held that minor contradictions or omissions are not grounds to discard the testimony of the prosecutrix, who is considered an injured witness – In cases of sexual assault, the victim’s consistent testimony is of paramount importance and minor discrepancies do not affect the overall credibility Paras16−18.

Sentencing in POCSO Cases – Stringent Punishment Required – The appellant sought leniency in sentencing, arguing that the charges under Section 9/10 POCSO Act should have been applied due to the victim’s age – Court noted that although the charges were framed under Section 7/8, no remand was necessary for re-trial – The three-year sentence imposed under Section 7/8 POCSO Act was appropriate given the circumstances of the case and the appellant's conduct Paras24−26.

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of three years R.I. with a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act affirmed – Appellant to serve the remainder of his sentence  Paras27−28.

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Plaint – Application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Amendment allowed to correct typographical errors and include additional facts – High Court considered amendments necessary for proper adjudication of the controversy – Amendments included correction of receipt date, addition of payment details, and challenge to a Sale Deed executed after the original suit was filed – Court applied a liberal approach in allowing the amendment as trial had not yet commenced – Limitation challenge to the Sale Deed to be determined during trial [Paras 1-5, 38-43].

Limitation and Knowledge – Amendment related to Sale Deed challenge – Plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to challenge a Sale Deed executed in favor of new defendants (added later in the case) – Plaintiff claimed to have been unaware of the Sale Deed at the time of filing the original suit – High Court noted that the issue of limitation would be determined based on evidence after the amendment was allowed – Liberal approach to amendment upheld in view of ongoing pre-trial stage [Paras 4, 41-42].

Decision – Amendment Application Allowed – Held – The application for amendment was allowed considering that the amendments sought were necessary for resolving the real issues in controversy – The amendments did not alter the nature of the suit or prejudice the defendants – The amended plaint was accepted by the Court, with directions for subsequent pleadings to be filed within stipulated timeframes [Paras 44-48].

Interim Maintenance – Enhancement – Appeal against Family Court’s order – Both parties filed appeals, one for setting aside and the other for enhancement of interim maintenance – Family Court granted enhanced maintenance considering husband’s income and wife’s dependency – Appeal by husband dismissed, appeal by wife partially allowed, enhancing maintenance further [Paras 1-88].

Concealment of Income – Family Court’s findings – Husband concealed true income and assets – Attempts to mislead court documented – Appeal against this finding rejected [Paras 28-48].

Functus Officio – Family Court’s jurisdiction – Family Court can decide interim maintenance applications even after withdrawal of main divorce petition – Reliance on judicial precedents supporting this view – Husband’s contention rejected [Paras 18-23].

Maintenance for Adult Child – Application under Section 26 of HMA – Maintenance can be awarded to a child pursuing education even after attaining majority – Family Court’s grant of maintenance till the son attains age of 26 or becomes financially independent upheld [Paras 24-34].

Delay in Adjudication – Dilatory tactics by husband – Family Court noted and addressed undue delay caused by husband’s tactics – Impact on maintenance payments acknowledged [Paras 3, 11].

Decision:

MAT.APP.(F.C) 226/2018 by Husband dismissed with costs.

MAT.APP.(F.C) 120/2019 by Wife allowed to the extent of enhancing interim maintenance to Rs.1,45,000/- per month from 28^th February 2009 to 14^th July 2016, with interest.

Arrears and interest to be paid within eight weeks.

No bearing on pending Cr.P.C. Section 125 proceedings [Paras 62-61].

Interest on Delayed Payment of Gratuity – Rate of Interest –

Petitioner challenged the order directing payment of simple interest on delayed gratuity at 10% per the 1987 notification, arguing for application of the 7.1% rate per the 2022 notification – Court held the 1987 notification specifying 10% interest as valid and applicable – Misreading of Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act by petitioner noted – Court reiterated that the rate specified by the 1987 notification remains in force [Paras 5-9].

Statutory Provisions – Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act –

Employer must pay interest on delayed gratuity as notified by the Central Government – Court clarified that the 2022 notification concerning long-term deposits does not override the specific 1987 notification under the Payment of Gratuity Act – Correct interpretation and application of statutory notifications emphasized [Paras 7-9].

Decision:

All petitions dismissed – Court upheld the order directing payment of simple interest at 10% on delayed gratuity as per the 1987 notification – Petitioner’s claim for 7.1% interest rate rejected [Paras 9-10].