Civil Law – Partition Suit – Oral Partition – Preliminary Decree – Plaintiff and deceased brother entitled to equal half share in property – Defendants claimed oral partition and exclusive right over building – No date, witnesses, mutation, or documentation produced to prove oral partition – Mere construction of house on one side of property not sufficient proof – Held: No valid oral partition established – Plaintiff entitled to half share in land excluding building [Paras 2–9, 17].

Property Law – Ownership of Building on Joint Land – Defendants claimed exclusive ownership of building constructed on northern half of property – Plaintiff claimed joint investment of ₹7 lakhs supported by bank withdrawals – Court found no material linking withdrawals to actual construction cost – Permit and tax documents stood in names of defendants – Held: Building constructed solely by defendants, not partible – Allotment of building to defendants without valuation adjustment upheld [Paras 10–15, 17].

Appellate Review – Scope of Interference – Trial court overlooked key documentary evidence such as bank statements, permit and assessment records – High Court found trial court erred in factual findings – Judgment partially modified – Held: Appeal partly allowed; preliminary decree modified to exclude building from partition and allot it to defendants [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Preliminary decree modified – One-half share each of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 declared in land excluding building – Building held not partible and to be allotted to defendants in final decree – Trial court directed to proceed with final decree proceedings without waiting for application, in terms of Supreme Court ruling.

Tenancy Law – Period of Tenancy – Dispute over duration – Plaintiff claimed tenancy continued beyond 31.03.2017 – Defendants asserted surrender on that date – Court held that implied surrender was established under Section 111(f) of Transfer of Property Act – Finding based on tender of surrender letter, affixation of notice, and shifting of office to new premises – Tenancy held to subsist from 16.03.2015 to 31.03.2017 [Paras 10-13].

Rent Determination – Dispute over Monthly Rent – Plaintiff relied on PWD-assessed rent of Rs. 1,58,890 – Defendants relied on earlier letter (Ex. B1) offering premises at Rs. 1,00,000 and claimed government never sanctioned higher rate – Court accepted Ex. B1 and held agreed rent was Rs. 1,00,000 per month, especially since revised PWD recommendation matched this figure – Held: Rent payable fixed at Rs. 1,00,000 per month [Paras 14-16].

Arrears of Rent – Calculation of Dues – Court calculated total rent for 24.5 months at Rs. 1,00,000 per month = Rs. 24,50,000 – After deducting Rs. 4,00,000 paid, balance arrears stood at Rs. 20,50,000 – Plaintiff entitled to this amount with interest – Trial court’s calculation upheld [Paras 17-18].

Appeal – Scope of Interference with Trial Court’s Findings – Trial court had rightly appreciated evidence and applied law to determine both period of tenancy and quantum of rent – No perversity or legal error found – Appeal dismissed with costs [Paras 19-20].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial court’s decree awarding Rs. 20,50,000 as arrears of rent affirmed – No interference warranted.

Railway Accident Claim – Compensation – Untoward Incident – Circumstantial Evidence – Deceased, a 17-year-old boy, died after falling from a local train due to crowd rush while on his way to visit Lalbaugcha Raja – Incident not reported to railway officials but immediate statements given to police at hospital and documented in inquest panchnama and postmortem report – Held: Circumstantial evidence consistent and credible – Failure to report to Station Master not fatal to claim – Rejection of claim by Tribunal set aside [Paras 4–10, 13, 15]

Beneficial Legislation – Railways Act – Interpretation – Circumstantial Evidence – Court held that being a welfare legislation, Railways Act allows reliance on circumstantial evidence to determine whether untoward incident occurred – Principle similar to criminal law accepted – First available statements at hospital given probative value – No evidence of fraud or fabrication found [Paras 11–12, 14]

Bonafide Passenger – Proof of Ticket – Witness Testimony – Friend accompanying deceased testified they had all purchased train tickets – No challenge to this in cross-examination – Court relied on testimony and applied ratio from Union of India vs. Rina Devi – Held: Physical ticket not required when journey and purpose proven through credible evidence [Para 16]

Appeal Allowed – Tribunal's order set aside – Appellants held entitled to Rs. 4 lakhs compensation with 6% interest from date of incident – Upper cap of Rs. 8 lakhs imposed as per norms – Payment to be made within 8 weeks upon furnishing of bank details [Para 17]

Prevention of Money Laundering – Search and Seizure – Applicability of Section 17 PMLA – Complaint Against Co-Accused – Search Valid – ED conducted search under Section 17 PMLA at respondent’s premises on 09.02.2016 recovering ₹26.30 lakhs, laptop and other devices – Respondent not named in original 2011 prosecution complaint but allegedly facilitated main accused Hassan Ali Khan in obtaining forged passport and opening foreign account – Tribunal wrongly held search invalid for want of complaint against respondent – Held: Section 17 only requires prior institution of complaint or report under Section 157 CrPC, not necessarily against the same person whose premises is searched – Search based on “reason to believe” and linked to ongoing proceedings against co-accused held valid [Paras 19, 29, 34–38, 41].

Criminal Law – Money Laundering – Applicability of Retention and Attachment Provisions – Sections 5 vs. 17 PMLA – Retention was under Section 17(4) PMLA, not under Section 5 – Distinction clarified: Section 5 applies when ED believes person possesses proceeds of crime and may conceal it, requiring prior complaint/report under Section 173 CrPC – Section 17 applies to broader categories including possession of related records and allows search based on report under Section 157 CrPC – Tribunal erred in applying incorrect legal standard [Paras 24–30, 37].

Due Process – Tribunal’s Reasoning Based on Unraised Grounds – Procedural Impropriety – Remand Ordered – Tribunal allowed appeal on ground that no complaint was filed against respondent, though such contention was not raised before it – Respondent’s actual plea was that seizure had no nexus with any proceeds of crime and that ED failed to rebut his explanation of legitimate income – Held: Tribunal misdirected itself by deciding on an unargued issue – Matter remanded for fresh adjudication with liberty to respondent to raise all contentions [Paras 19, 23, 33, 43–45].

Supplementary Complaint – Effect of Respondent’s Death – No Impact on Validity of Search – Respondent died during pendency of appeal; his legal heir impleaded – Though ED failed to mention this fact in supplementary complaint filed later, Court held it has no bearing on legality of search conducted prior to his death or on retention proceedings under challenge [Paras 16, 20, 42].

Decision: Impugned order of Appellate Tribunal dated 21.05.2019 set aside – Appeal remanded for fresh decision by Tribunal in accordance with law – Parties granted opportunity to raise all relevant contentions – Appeal disposed accordingly [Paras 45–46].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Alteration in Amount – Cheque dishonoured with endorsement “alterations require drawer’s authentication” – Complaint filed alleging legally enforceable debt of ₹14 lakhs – Accused contended that cheque was forged and amount was altered by complainant – Held: Dishonour on account of unauthenticated material alteration can attract Section 138 if alteration is attributable to drawer with intent to prevent honour of cheque – Whether alteration was made by drawer or payee is a pure question of fact to be determined at trial [Paras 9–13, 15].

Material Alteration – Section 87 NI Act – Effect – Alteration in cheque amount constitutes material alteration – Instrument becomes void only against a party who did not consent to alteration – If alteration made by drawer himself or with his consent, drawer cannot take advantage of Section 87 – Determination of consent or authorship of alteration requires evidence [Paras 12–14].

Criminal Proceedings – Quashing at Threshold – Disputed Questions of Fact – Accused sought quashing on plea of forgery and manipulation by complainant – Held: Such defence cannot be examined in proceedings for quashing – Issues relating to genuineness of cheque, extent of liability and responsibility for alteration must be adjudicated during trial [Paras 13–15].

Statutory Notice – Section 138(b) NI Act – Non-response by Drawer – Accused did not reply to statutory demand notice despite being informed of reason for dishonour – Held: Failure to respond strengthens necessity of trial to determine factual controversy regarding alteration [Para 16].

Precedential Guidance – Supreme Court Decisions – Reliance placed on M/s Lakshmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat – Dishonour due to acts or omissions intended to prevent honour of cheque covered under Section 138 – Veera Exports v. T. Kalavathy – Question whether alteration made by drawer or payee is factual and cannot be decided at quashing stage [Paras 10–11, 14].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Complaint and summoning order under Section 138 NI Act sustained – Petitioner at liberty to raise all defences before Trial Magistrate during trial.

Criminal Law - Forgery – Wills – Civil Dispute Converted into Criminal Case – Criminal complaint filed alleging will dated 17.3.2015 is forged and used to claim property – Discharge sought on ground that genuineness of both wills (dated 17.3.2015 and 11.1.2017) already sub judice in civil suit filed in 2017 – FIR filed in 2019 as retaliatory measure – Held: Allegations raise disputed questions of title and ownership – No prima facie case under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 or 120-B IPC – Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process [Paras 5, 8, 14, 21–26]

Criminal Revision – Discharge – Jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC – Trial court refused discharge – High Court held that when allegations are entirely civil in nature and issues are pending adjudication in civil court, criminal prosecution must not proceed – Reliance placed on Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of U.P. and Urmila Devi v. Balram – Power to discharge should be exercised to prevent misuse of criminal process [Paras 18, 19, 25]

Misuse of Criminal Law – FIR Against Deceased Person – FIR lodged against one Shamsher Singh who had died months prior to the complaint – Court held this indicated malice and misuse of process – Further strengthens case for discharge [Para 24]

Probate and Will Dispute – No Final Adjudication – Probate petition for will dated 17.3.2015 was dismissed in default and not on merits – Pending civil suit to determine genuineness of rival wills – Until civil court decides validity, treating will as forged is premature [Paras 13, 22]

Decision: Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 6.1.2025 set aside – Revisionists discharged from proceedings – Trial against co-accused Sushil Narula to continue as per law [Paras 26–27]

Criminal Law – Murder – Last Seen Theory – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Govind last seen alive with accused Ashok Kumar and his two accomplices (identified later as Gore @ Ujagar Singh and Ramdas) on 9.4.1983 at 8:30 PM – Dead body recovered on 10.4.1983 at 2 PM – Post-mortem confirmed death by strangulation around 11 PM on 9.4.1983 – Held: Narrow time gap between last seen and death established a strong presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act – Accused failed to offer any explanation – Chain of circumstances complete and consistent with guilt of accused [Paras 62–69].

Evidence – Recovery of Property – Tractor and Trolley – Tractor No. URB-7911 recovered from Tabarak Ali to whom it was sold by Akil Ahmed in presence of accused Ashok Kumar – Trolley recovered from Sonipat – Accused failed to explain how tractor reached Akil Ahmed – Presence of Ashok Kumar at sale established nexus with misappropriation – Recovery of bricks loaded on tractor from house of Ramdas – Though not stolen property, concealment showed intent to erase trail – Held: Recovery further corroborates involvement of accused in post-murder conduct [Paras 58, 59, 61(ix–xii), 61(xiv–xix)].

Identification Evidence – Delay in Test Identification Parade – Defence claimed identification unreliable due to delay and single witness identification – Court held: TIP not substantive evidence but corroborative – Parade conducted with due precautions and delay not fatal in absence of cross-examination of IO or Magistrate – Identification in court by PW-1 and PW-2 supported TIP – Held: Identification of accused Gore and Ramdas legally sustainable [Paras 65–74].

Criminal Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – FIR and Delay – FIR registered on 15.4.1983 though written complaint given on 12.4.1983 – Court found delay justified due to informant’s genuine search for son and subsequent identification of dead body – No suggestion of false implication – Conviction upheld [Paras 61(iv–v), 61(xxi–xxii), 74].

Criminal Law – Section 106 Evidence Act – Accused Failed to Explain Circumstances of Departure from Company of Deceased – Tractor and bricks traced to their knowledge and presence – Non-explanation by accused treated as additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence – Conviction sustained [Paras 68–69].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34, 201, and 404 IPC affirmed – Accused Ashok Kumar and Ramdas directed to surrender – Trial court to initiate coercive steps in case of failure – Compliance to be reported within two months [Paras 75–78].

Family Law – Custody of Minor Children – Split Custody – Welfare of Child Paramount – Preference of Minor Considered – Family Court granted custody of elder daughter to mother and younger son to father – Appellant-mother sought custody of both children to restore sibling bond – Held: Both parents are educated and financially stable; minor son (aged 11) has lived with father and paternal grandmother for 7 years and expressed genuine, independent desire to continue in same environment – No indication of coaching or adverse conditions – Court found no compelling reason to alter settled custody arrangement, especially where change could disrupt child’s emotional equilibrium and academic stability [Paras 1–3, 6–7, 15–17].

Child Custody – Preference of Child – Emotional Bonding and Continuity – Court interacted with both siblings – Son displayed strong attachment to father and grandmother and showed comfort in present routine – Although emotional bond with sister existed, frequent interaction was minimal due to years of separation – Court observed absence of hostility but also absence of shared day-to-day life – Held: Disruption of established bond with current caregiver not warranted solely to reunite siblings [Paras 6–9, 15–16].

Custody Jurisprudence – Allegations Between Parents Not Determinative – Welfare Principle Supersedes Fault-Based Arguments – Appellant cited father’s alleged misconduct, alcohol use, and discriminatory parenting – Family Court found such allegations either unproven or not materially affecting welfare of minor son – Court reiterated settled principle that child custody determination must transcend mutual recriminations between parties and focus only on child’s best interest [Paras 10.4, 13–14, 17].

Visitation Rights – Parental Cooperation Essential – Possibility of Future Modification Not Barred – Court upheld existing arrangement but emphasized that child welfare is dynamic – Directed both parties to maintain cordial interaction and ensure continuity in sibling relationship through visitation – Liberty granted to approach competent court for modification upon substantial change in circumstances [Paras 19–21].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned order dated 18.09.2023 upheld – Custody of minor son to remain with father and minor daughter with mother – Existing visitation rights of mother to continue – No costs [Paras 19–21].

Public Service Commission – Scaling of Marks – Validity of Scaling Formula in Exams with Optional Papers – RPSC adopted scaling method in optional subjects of competitive exam for Forest Services after finding wide subject-wise variation in difficulty index and mean marks – Appellants contended that scaling was not authorized under the 1962 and 2015 Rules and yielded arbitrary and absurd results – Held: Scaling necessary to ensure uniformity and fairness in evaluation when different optional subjects are involved – Expert Committee analyzed statistical data before recommending scaling formula – No arbitrariness or mala fides found in process – Scaling limited only to optional subjects and not applied to compulsory ones [Paras 1–4, 11–13, 31, 36].

Recruitment Rules – Interpretation of “Marks Obtained” – Scaled Marks vs. Raw Marks – Petitioners argued that scaling violated Rule 29 of the 2015 Rules, which prohibits re-evaluation – Court held that “marks obtained” includes scaled marks and scaling is distinct from re-evaluation – Scaling is part of the evaluation process and is not barred by the Rules – Application of scaling found to be within the implied powers of the Commission [Paras 32–34].

Precedent – Consistency of Judicial View – Stare Decisis – Court reaffirmed settled position in Jai Singh, Chandu Parihar, and Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal that scaling in exams involving optional subjects is valid – Rejected appellants’ reliance on Sanjay Singh case, holding it inapplicable since it pertained to exams with only compulsory subjects – Held: No change in facts or law to justify deviation from consistent precedent upholding scaling [Paras 26–28, 37–38].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Equality and Fairness in Competitive Examinations – Without scaling, candidates choosing difficult subjects would be unfairly disadvantaged – Scaling ensures uniformity across subjects of differing difficulty levels – Held: Use of scaling promotes objectivity, fairness, and does not violate Article 14 – No arbitrariness or unequal treatment established [Paras 29–30, 40].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Judgment of learned Single Judge upheld – Scaling formula adopted by RPSC found to be fair, rational, and legally sustainable – No costs imposed – Pending applications disposed [Paras 39–41].