Civil Law – Possession – Proof of Title – Registered Documents Prevail – Plaintiff proved ownership of suit property through perpetual lease deed dated 11.05.1971 and conveyance deed converting property into freehold – Municipal records, occupancy certificate, tax documents and statutory notices stood exclusively in plaintiff’s name – Defendants failed to produce any title document evidencing ownership or co-ownership – Held: Registered title documents constitute unimpeachable evidence of ownership and cannot be displaced by oral assertions [Paras 20–21].

Joint Hindu Family – Joint Family Property – Burden of Proof – Mere existence of family relationship or joint business does not create presumption of joint family property – Defendants failed to establish existence of joint family nucleus sufficient to acquire suit property – Partnership deed relied upon by defendants showed plaintiff had independent source of income even prior to partnership – Held: In absence of proof of joint family nucleus, property cannot be treated as joint family property [Paras 22–23].

Oral Family Settlement – Proof and Implementation – Failure to Establish – Defendants pleaded oral family settlements of 1970 and 1979 granting them rights over first and second floors – No contemporaneous document, memorandum, mutation, or consistent conduct produced to prove existence or implementation of settlement – No suit or proceedings filed for enforcement for over three decades – Held: Bald plea of oral family settlement without cogent evidence cannot defeat registered title [Paras 24–25].

Construction of Property – Alleged Contribution by Defendants – Insufficient Evidence – Apart from isolated cement purchase receipt, no construction bills, labour records, bank statements or sanctioned plans in defendants’ name produced – Municipal and utility records stood solely in plaintiff’s name – Held: Mere supervision, occupation or participation in construction does not confer ownership in absence of proof of financial contribution [Paras 26–27].

Benami Transactions – Section 4 – Bar on Defence – Defendants’ plea that plaintiff held property in fiduciary capacity for benefit of family rejected – No specific pleadings or evidence establishing fiduciary relationship or trust – Exception to Section 4 of Benami Act cannot be invoked through vague assertions – Defence based on benami ownership barred by statute [Paras 29–31].

Licence – Permissive Possession – No Adverse Possession – Defendants admitted permissive occupation of suit property – Licence revoked by legal notice dated 26.10.2006 – Suit for possession filed within limitation – Held: Permissive possession cannot mature into adverse possession without clear hostile assertion against true owner [Paras 32–33].

Mesne Profits – Assessment – Discretion of Court – Learned Single Judge awarded mesne profits at ₹30,000 per month considering relationship of parties and absence of rebuttal on rate – Appellate Court found no perversity or legal infirmity in exercise of discretion – Claim for enhancement rejected [Paras 15.2, 17.17, 19].

Appellate Interference – Findings of Fact – Limited Scope – Findings of ownership, rejection of family settlement and benami defence based on proper appreciation of evidence – No perversity or misapplication of law demonstrated – Appellate Court declined to re-appreciate evidence merely because another view possible [Paras 19–21, 35].

Decision – RFA (OS) Nos. 5/2017 and 10/2017 dismissed – RFA (OS) No. 6/2017 seeking enhancement of mesne profits also dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 28.11.2016 affirmed – Plaintiff entitled to possession and mesne profits as decreed [Conclusion].

Hindu Succession Act – Section 22 – Preferential Right of Pre-emption – Co-heirs – Testamentary Succession – Property originally owned by Tula Ram and bequeathed to his wife Purni Devi by a valid Will – Upon death of Purni Devi, property devolved by succession on her Class-I heirs including plaintiff and vendors – Vendors sold their share to defendant without notice to plaintiff – Held: Vendors inherited property by succession and not by survivorship – Plaintiff being a co-heir had a statutory preferential right under Section 22 – Courts below rightly decreed suit for pre-emption [Paras 11–12, 25–26].

Survivorship vs Succession – Female Owner – Inapplicability of Survivorship – Once property vested absolutely in a female owner under a Will, succession opens only after her death – Concept of survivorship has no application thereafter – Vendors could not claim inheritance by survivorship to defeat Section 22 – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras 11, 25].

Pre-emption – Notice of Intended Sale – Burden of Proof – Plea that plaintiff had notice of intended sale and refused to purchase – Burden lies on vendee/defendant to prove notice and refusal – Mere oral assertion of vendor without documentary or independent corroboration insufficient – Absence of notice preserves statutory right of co-heir [Paras 12, 22, 27].

Waiver of Statutory Right – Requirement of Clear and Unequivocal Conduct – Waiver of a statutory preferential right cannot be inferred lightly – Must be intentional, conscious and unequivocal – Continued joint ownership and absence of proof of notice negates plea of waiver – No abandonment of right established [Paras 13, 28].

Urban Property – Section 22 HSA – Independent of Customary Pre-emption – Statutory right under Section 22 operates irrespective of customary or relationship-based pre-emption – Decision in Atam Parkash v. State of Haryana does not dilute statutory preferential right of co-heirs – Correctly distinguished by Courts below [Paras 15, 26].

Regular Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Findings regarding validity of Will, nature of succession, co-heirship, absence of notice and non-waiver based on proper appreciation of evidence – No perversity or substantial question of law made out – Interference in second appeal declined [Paras 23, 29–30].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court decreeing suit for possession by way of pre-emption under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act affirmed – No substantial question of law arises.

Anticipatory Bail – National Security Offences – Alleged Syndicate for Aiding Illegal Immigrants – Seriousness of Allegations – Rejection Upheld – Appeal filed against order rejecting anticipatory bail in offences under IPC, Foreigners Act and Passport Act – Allegations of being kingpin of syndicate providing illegal assistance, financial support and settlement to Rohingya and Bangladeshi nationals through Hawala and Society accounts – Material collected through surveillance, FSL reports and supplementary case diaries indicating financial transactions and incriminating conversations – Court held seriousness of allegations affecting security, integrity and harmony of nation – Custodial interrogation held likely and necessary – Anticipatory bail declined [Paras 3, 8–10, 15, 23].

Investigation – Multiple Charge Sheets Against Co-Accused – No Charge Sheet Against Appellant – Effect – Seven charge sheets filed against co-accused persons who were granted regular bail – Appellant not charge-sheeted till date – Court held mere non-filing of charge sheet against appellant not a ground for anticipatory bail where investigation is ongoing and material suggests involvement – Possibility of further evidence collection noted [Paras 4, 7, 23].

Proclamation and Non-Bailable Warrants – Setting Aside on Technical Grounds – Consequences – Non-bailable warrants and proclamation under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. issued against appellant – Proclamation order set aside earlier under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on technical grounds with liberty to pass fresh order – Court held setting aside of coercive steps on technical grounds does not entitle accused to anticipatory bail nor efface allegations of abscondence [Paras 5, 10, 24].

Custodial Interrogation – Importance in Conspiracy and National Security Cases – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P. – Court reiterated that custodial interrogation is qualitatively different and essential in cases involving deep-rooted conspiracies, financial transactions and influential accused – Grant of anticipatory bail may impede effective investigation [Paras 15, 22, 25].

Delay in Arrest – Applicability of Supreme Court Precedents Distinguished – Reliance on Asha Dubey and Gursewak Singh cases by appellant – Court distinguished those cases holding that delay in arrest alone not decisive where allegations relate to national security and coercive steps were taken but accused avoided investigation – Benefit of delay principle not extended [Paras 18, 19, 24].

Investigating Agency – Lapses Noted – Strong Observations by Court – Court expressed serious displeasure over failure of Investigating Officer to take timely and effective steps, including not seeking search warrant of appellant’s office premises and not acting promptly after remand order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Directions issued to communicate order to senior State authorities for appropriate action [Paras 11–13].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed at admission stage – Order rejecting anticipatory bail affirmed – Appellant directed to appear before Investigating Officer and cooperate with investigation – Liberty granted to seek regular bail if arrested – Investigating Agency left free to decide custodial interrogation as per law [Paras 26].

Tenancy Law - Cultivating Tenants Protection – Fixation of Arrears – Jurisdiction of Revenue Court – Tenant filed petition only seeking permission to deposit rent – Despite memo not pressing the petition, Revenue Court unilaterally determined arrears of Rs.93,418/- based on market value of paddy and revenue reports – Held, fixation of fair rent can be done only by the competent authority under the Puducherry Cultivating Tenants Payment of Fair Rent Act, 1970 – Revenue Court lacked jurisdiction – Order dated 08.09.1999 held a nullity [Paras 21–27].

Counsel’s Concession – Binding Nature – Alleged consent by tenant’s counsel to determination of arrears contrary to statute and contract – Held, counsel has no authority to surrender substantive rights or make concessions on questions of law – Such concession neither binds the client nor cures lack of jurisdiction – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedent [Paras 26–27].

Eviction for Non-Payment of Rent – Section 3(4)(b), Puducherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act – Mandatory Opportunity – Before ordering eviction, Revenue Court bound to grant reasonable time to tenant to deposit arrears – Tenant filed multiple applications expressing readiness to pay arrears – Applications kept pending for 20–28 years and dismissed mechanically along with eviction petition – Statutory mandate violated – Eviction order vitiated [Paras 28–30].

Abandonment of Cultivation – Pleadings and Proof – No plea by landlord alleging abandonment – Revenue Court suo motu relied on Tahsildar’s report and wrongly treated it as admission by tenant – Evidence without pleadings impermissible – Finding of abandonment held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 31–32, 38].

Beneficial Legislation – Interpretation – Puducherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act is a welfare statute intended to protect cultivating tenants from unjust eviction – Courts must adopt liberal and tenant-oriented interpretation – Revenue Court failed to keep in view objects of the Act and scheme for fixation of fair rent – Eviction order set aside [Paras 24, 29, 34–35].

Legal Representatives of Cultivating Tenant – Status – Landlord himself impleaded legal heirs of deceased cultivating tenant – Revenue records showed cultivation by deceased tenant and his son – Objection that legal representatives are not cultivating tenants rejected – Petitioners entitled to protection under the Act [Paras 33, 37].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – Order dated 29.11.2023 in PCTPA.No.1 of 2001 set aside – Petitioners directed to deposit entire arrears of rent payable strictly in terms of the contract within eight weeks – On such deposit, possession to be restored within one week – Liberty reserved to respondents to initiate fresh eviction proceedings in accordance with law – No costs – Connected CMP closed.

Criminal Law - Rape of Minor – Conviction – Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Sufficiency of Evidence – Appellant convicted under Section 376(2)(f)(i) IPC, Section 6 POCSO Act and Section 451 IPC – Victim aged about 9 years at time of incident – Victim categorically stated in cross-examination that appellant made full penetration – Held: Conviction can be sustained on sole testimony of prosecutrix if it inspires confidence – No rule of law requiring corroboration in every case [Paras 3.1–3.4, 4.2].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Injuries – Not Fatal to Prosecution – Doctor found no recent clinical signs of sexual intercourse and no injuries on victim – Held: Absence of medical corroboration does not discredit reliable ocular testimony of victim – Medical evidence is corroborative and not substantive – Where testimony of prosecutrix is trustworthy, conviction can be based thereon [Paras 2.5–2.7, 4.2].

Child Witness – Credibility – Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC consistent with FIR and deposition before Court – Victim stood firm during cross-examination – No material contradictions or infirmities found – Evidence inspires confidence [Paras 3, 4.2].

Rape Jurisprudence – Corroboration – Rule of Prudence Not of Law – Reiterated that corroboration of prosecutrix’s testimony is not a sine qua non – Minor discrepancies or absence of physical injuries do not negate prosecution case – Reliance placed on recent Supreme Court decisions affirming settled principles [Paras 3.2–3.3, 4.2].

Defence Plea – Prior Enmity – Not Substantiated – Suggestion of prior quarrel between families insufficient to discard victim’s evidence – No evidence of false implication established – Mere existence of past dispute does not demolish prosecution case [Paras 2.4, 4.2].

POCSO Act – Strict Liability – Protection of Child Victims – Victim being a minor, statutory presumption operates in favour of prosecution – Sexual assault on child proved beyond reasonable doubt through victim’s testimony – Conviction under Section 6 POCSO Act justified [Paras 3.4, 4.2].

Sentence – No Interference – Sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment under IPC and POCSO Act directed to run concurrently – Trial court judgment found to be legal and proper – No ground made out for appellate interference [Paras 1, 4.3].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence dated 30.11.2018 passed by Special Judge, Nuapada affirmed – Appellant to undergo sentence as awarded – No interference warranted [Para 4.3].

Civil Law – Appointment of Local Commissioner – Order 26 Rule 9 CPC – Refusal to Appoint Commissioner – Revisability – Petition filed under Article 227 challenging order of Civil Judge (Junior Division) dismissing application for appointment of Local Commissioner – Held: Order refusing appointment of Local Commissioner neither decides any issue nor adjudicates rights of parties and therefore is not revisable – Appointment of Local Commissioner is purely discretionary and no vested right accrues to any party [Paras 1–3].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 of Constitution – Limited Scope – High Court reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction is not meant to circumvent settled law on maintainability of revisions – Reliance placed on binding Division Bench judgment holding such orders as non-revisable – No illegality or perversity found in impugned order [Paras 2–3].

Withdrawal of Revision Petition – Liberty to Lead Evidence – Petitioner sought permission to withdraw revision in view of settled legal position and availability of opportunity to lead evidence at appropriate stage – Revision dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to petitioner to adduce relevant evidence during trial [Paras 4–5].

Decision: Civil Revision dismissed as withdrawn – Liberty granted to petitioner to lead relevant evidence before Trial Court.

Civil Suit – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Application seeking rejection of plaint on ground that suit for administration of estate is barred in law as plaintiff had propounded a Will and probate proceedings were pending – Held: Plaint cannot be rejected where it discloses a cause of action and is not barred by law – Order VII Rule 11 invoked erroneously [Paras 57–58, 70–71, 76].

Administration of Estate – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Distinction from Probate Proceedings – Plaintiff propounded Will of 1994 and filed probate petition as executor – Defendant contended civil court lacked jurisdiction till probate decided – Held: Probate court has exclusive jurisdiction only to decide genuineness and execution of Will – Administration of estate and protective reliefs fall within civil court’s jurisdiction – Remedies are distinct and can proceed concurrently [Paras 59–62, 73, 77].

Pending Probate – Maintainability of Administration Suit – Mere pendency of testamentary proceedings does not bar institution or continuation of suit for administration of estate – Grant of probate may follow suit but must precede final decree – Section 213 of Succession Act not a bar to institution of civil action [Paras 63–64].

Executor – Section 211 Succession Act – Legal Representative – Executor becomes legal representative of deceased upon death – Vesting of estate enables prosecution of civil proceedings without waiting for probate – Rights subject to outcome of probate proceedings [Paras 63, 45].

Two Competing Wills – Civil Court’s Limited Role – Plaintiff acknowledged later Will of 2012 propounded by defendant – Held: Civil court need not and cannot decide which Will is genuine – Testamentary court alone to adjudicate validity – Civil court confined to administration and protection of estate [Paras 62, 73–74].

Alternative Pleas – Will and Intestacy – Permissibility – Plaintiff sought administration as per Will and alternatively on intestacy – Objection that pleas were mutually destructive rejected – Held: Alternative pleas permissible where factual foundation not inconsistent – Alternate relief would arise only if both Wills held invalid [Paras 65–67].

Contradictory vs Alternative Pleas – Test Applied – Pleas not self-destructive as they operate on different eventualities – Reliance on Praful Manohar Rele and Sarva Shramik Sangh affirmed – No bar to claiming alternate reliefs on same factual matrix [Paras 65–67].

Rejection of Plaint in Parts – Impermissible – Defendant sought rejection of prayers (a) to (c) alone – Held: Plaint must be read as whole – Partial rejection not permissible under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 70].

Concurrent Proceedings – Civil and Testamentary Courts – Suit for administration and probate proceedings may proceed simultaneously – Final decree in administration suit to await outcome of probate proceedings [Paras 77].

Decision – Notice of Motion seeking rejection of plaint dismissed – Suit held maintainable – Four weeks’ stay granted on operation of order [Paras 78–80].

Criminal Law - Quashing - Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Not Negotiable Endorsement – Applicability – Petitioner sought quashing of complaint under Section 138 NI Act on ground that cheque bore "Not Negotiable" marking – Held: Endorsement “Not Negotiable” merely restricts transferee from acquiring better title under Section 130 NI Act – It does not nullify drawer’s liability or exclude application of Section 138 – Drawer remains liable if cheque issued in discharge of debt and dishonoured due to insufficient funds – Complaint maintainable – No ground to quash proceedings at preliminary stage [Paras 6–7]

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers – Scope – Petitioner challenged concurrent orders of trial and revisional court rejecting application to drop proceedings under NI Act – Held: Courts below rightly held that legality of cheque and existence of enforceable debt are triable issues requiring evidence – No jurisdictional error or abuse of process shown – Petition under Section 482 CrPC dismissed [Paras 6–7]

Interpretation of NI Act – “Not Negotiable” Endorsement – Legal Effect – Cited case Durga Shah Mohal Lal Bankers v. Governor General in Council, AIR 1952 All 590 explained – Endorsement does not destroy negotiability or legality of cheque – Trial to proceed to determine liability [Para 6]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Courts below rightly held that issue of whether cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt and applicability of Section 138 are matters of trial – “Not Negotiable” endorsement does not render Section 138 inapplicable – No interference warranted under Section 482 CrPC.

Criminal Law – Sexual Offences Against Child – Conviction Based on Sole Testimony of Victim – Sufficiency of Evidence – Appellant convicted for wrongful restraint, outraging modesty and rape of a minor girl – Victim gave a clear, cogent and consistent account of sexual assault involving digital penetration and sexual acts – Cross-examination failed to discredit her testimony – Held: Conviction can be safely based on sole testimony of prosecutrix when it inspires confidence [Paras 14–17, 22].

Evidence – Minor Contradictions and Omissions – Effect – Defence highlighted omissions in statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and discrepancies regarding disclosure of incident – Held: Minor omissions which do not affect the core of prosecution case are inconsequential and do not undermine credibility of victim’s testimony [Paras 16, 23–24].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Injuries – Not Fatal – Medical examination conducted after lapse of time showed no genital injuries – Doctor opined that injuries could heal within 7–10 days – Held: Absence of medical corroboration does not discredit otherwise trustworthy testimony of victim – Medical evidence not sine qua non for conviction in sexual offence cases [Paras 20–22].

Delay in Lodging FIR – Sexual Offences – Explained – FIR lodged after victim disclosed incident to friend and family – Delay satisfactorily explained due to fear, trauma and social stigma – Held: Delay in sexual offence cases cannot be equated with other crimes and does not vitiate prosecution case [Paras 22].

Non-Examination of Certain Witnesses – Adverse Inference – When Not Warranted – Defence argued non-examination of daughter of appellant and other relatives – Held: When evidence on record is overwhelming and unimpeachable, non-examination of some witnesses is not fatal and does not warrant adverse inference [Paras 36].

Rape – Section 375(b) IPC – Digital Penetration – Act of inserting finger into private part of minor squarely falls within Section 375(b) IPC – Consent irrelevant as victim was a minor – Offence of rape clearly made out [Paras 41–42].

Goa Children’s Act – Grave Sexual Assault – Acts proved constituted “grave sexual assault” under Sections 2(y)(i) & (ii) punishable under Section 8(2) – Conviction under special statute justified [Paras 43–44].

Sentence – Age of Accused – No Mitigation in Child Sexual Offence – Appellant aged above 80 years sought leniency – Held: Advanced age of accused not a mitigating factor in offences involving sexual assault on a child – Protection of child and societal conscience paramount [Paras 50–52].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentences imposed by Children’s Court affirmed – Appellant directed to surrender forthwith – Prayer for stay rejected.