Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 376 IPC – Section 482 CrPC – Consensual Relationship – Revisional application filed for quashing of GR Case No. 923 of 2017 arising out of Electronic Complex PS Case No. 127 of 2017 – Petitioner charged under Section 376 IPC on the basis of a complaint filed by a woman known to him through social media – Complainant voluntarily visited the petitioner at a hotel on two occasions – Refused medical examination – Stated in her Section 164 statement that she could not remember the incident – Hotel authorities had communicated facts improbabilising the allegations – Held: None of the ingredients required to constitute the offence alleged were prima facie brought on record; proceedings amount to abuse of process of court and are liable to be quashed [Paras 6–11].

Evidentiary Infirmities – Delayed Complaint – Refusal of Medical Examination – Contradictory Section 164 Statement – Complainant lodged the FIR approximately two months after the alleged incident – Refused to undergo medical examination – Stated in her Section 164 statement that she could not remember the incident at the hotel – Complainant's own account showed voluntary accompaniment to the hotel room without any assertion of loss of consciousness – Realization of alleged rape only upon reaching home found to be prima facie an afterthought unsupported by the written complaint [Paras 7–8].

Charge Sheet – Mechanical Submission – Cognizance – Investigating agency submitted charge sheet without considering the delay in complaint, refusal of medical examination, contradictory Section 164 statement, and the hotel's letter dated 22/11/2017 improbabilising the allegations – Learned Magistrate took cognizance vide order dated 23/8/2018 without considering these glaring infirmities – Held: Mechanical submission of charge sheet and uncritical cognizance thereof unsustainable on facts [Para 3].

Decision: Revision allowed – Proceedings in GR Case No. 923 of 2017 arising out of Electronic Complex PS Case No. 127 of 2017, along with order of cognizance dated 23/8/2018, quashed – All connected applications disposed of – Interim order, if any, vacated [Paras 11–14].

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Pensionary Consequences – Rule 47 of the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Scheme, 1995 – Charges of misuse of cover notes, irregular underwriting, and questionable claims handling during service at Divisional Office No. 17, New Delhi – Memorandum of charges issued in 2009, inquiry report dated 12.08.2019, penalty order dated 22.03.2021 imposing permanent withholding of full pension under Rules 42 and 44 of the Pension Scheme – Held: Proceedings fall properly under Rule 47 of the Pension Scheme; the infelicity of citing Rules 42 and 44 in the final order does not vitiate jurisdiction – Petitioner fails on challenges to competence of Disciplinary Authority, non-est status of CDA Rules, continuation after retirement, and perversity of findings – However, order set aside on the limited ground of non-compliance with mandatory Board consultation under the first proviso to Rule 47 – Matter remitted for fresh decision [Paras 29-32, 42-49, 73-77].

Competence of Disciplinary Authority – Redesignation of Cadres – Petitioner designated "Deputy Manager" after redesignation of Scale III officers with effect from 21.12.2005 – Challenge that memorandum should have been issued by General Manager and not Deputy General Manager rejected – Held: The expressions "Deputy Manager" in relation to the Petitioner referred to the redesignated Scale III cadre and not the old Scale IV cadre; the Deputy General Manager was the competent disciplinary authority – Reliance on B.V. Gopinath inapplicable as the foundational fact of incompetence not established [Paras 18-22].

CDA Rules – Non-est Challenge – Gazette Publication – Petitioner's contention that CDA Rules are non-est for want of gazette publication and laying before Parliament rejected – Held: K.T. Uthappa was a criminal proceeding and its observations cannot be read as laying down a general proposition invalidating all disciplinary proceedings under the CDA Rules; K. Rajendra Kumar (Madras High Court Division Bench), upheld by the Supreme Court, has categorically so clarified [Paras 23-25].

Continuation of Proceedings Post-Retirement – Rule 47, Second Proviso – Petitioner superannuated on 31.08.2013 while proceedings were pending – Held: Second proviso to Rule 47 of the Pension Scheme expressly provides that departmental proceedings instituted during service shall, after retirement, be deemed to continue under that provision and be concluded in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service – Dev Prakash Tewari inapplicable where enabling provision exists [Paras 26-28].

Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings – Allegations 2004-2006; charge-sheet 2009; inquiry report 2019; final order 2021 – Held: Prem Nath Bali does not lay down that delay by itself vitiates proceedings; the question is whether delay caused prejudice impairing fairness – Petitioner himself contributed substantially to delay by non-appearance, partial cross-examination of only one witness, non-submission of defence brief, and closure of proceedings for non-participation; delay therefore cannot be attributed solely to employer [Paras 33-36].

Non-Participation in Inquiry – Effect on Scope of Judicial Review – Petitioner filed written defence but failed to effectively pursue it; proceedings closed on 29.06.2018 due to non-participation – Held: Where the Petitioner did not contest the inquiry on merits, he cannot invite the writ court to reconstruct a case not pursued at the appropriate stage; interference warranted only where findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or vitiated by breach of natural justice [Paras 51-53, 69-70].

Misconduct – Six Articles of Charge Proved – Cover Note Episodes and Underwriting Irregularities – Articles I–IV: cover-note books issued to Petitioner; cover notes not deposited with office; premiums not accounted; Company exposed to consumer and MACT claims – Petitioner's defence of broker/agent misuse remained a pleaded explanation unsubstantiated by evidence – Articles V and VI: break-in insurance issued without pre-inspection; claim of INR 53,799/- processed despite discrepancies; policy issued in name of person other than registered owner; claim of INR 46,331/- approved – Held: Findings neither baseless nor perverse – CBI closure order in criminal case does not affect disciplinary findings as criminal and departmental proceedings operate on distinct standards of proof [Paras 54-68].

Board Consultation – Mandatory Safeguard – Rule 47, First Proviso – Held: Where disciplinary proceedings instituted during service are continued post-retirement under Rule 47, the first proviso mandating prior consultation with the Board of the Corporation or Company before passing any final order is imperative and cannot be bypassed by resort to Rule 42 alone – No material on record showing such consultation was undertaken prior to penalty order dated 22.03.2021 or addendum dated 13.05.2021 – Reliance placed on Vijay Kumar v. Central Bank of India, 2025 INSC 848 – Post facto approval is not a substitute for prior consultation – Pension is a valuable right and statutory safeguards governing its curtailment must be strictly observed [Paras 42-49].

Decision: W.P.(C) 8050/2013 disposed of — relief of promotion not pressed; subsistence allowance claim treated as worked out in view of payment of INR 90,206/- – W.P.(C) 1676/2023 partly allowed — penalty order dated 22.03.2021 and addendum dated 13.05.2021 set aside on the limited ground of non-compliance with first proviso to Rule 47 – Communication dated 07.06.2021 also set aside as consequential – Matter remitted to competent authority of Respondent Company for fresh decision on pensionary consequence only, after Board consultation and hearing to Petitioner, within eight weeks – Disciplinary findings not disturbed – If fresh decision not taken within eight weeks, Petitioner entitled to full pension from date of superannuation.

Anticipatory Bail – Cyber Fraud – Economic Offence – Large-Scale Conspiracy – Dismissed – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in connection with a cyber crime case involving fake investment schemes, digital arrest scams and other cyber frauds allegedly defrauding over 1,000 victims across India involving proceeds of approximately Rs.315 crores – Petitioner alleged to have operated bank accounts of Hughli Machineries Private Limited using his mobile phone and IP address, siphoned proceeds of crime through 11 current accounts linked to 16 inter-connected companies, converted proceeds into crypto currency and transferred funds to countries including Saudi Arabia and Dubai to evade detection – Petitioner also a director in companies to which proceeds were transferred and a direct beneficiary of fraudulent transactions – Held: The petitioner stands on a materially different footing from other co-accused (members of the Ruia family) who were granted anticipatory bail, as the petitioner was not merely a beneficiary but was allegedly caught red-handed as a prime perpetrator – Economic offences of such magnitude affecting the economic fabric of society warrant due care and caution in exercising the extraordinary remedy of anticipatory bail – Petitioner also has criminal antecedents and is already in custody – Application for anticipatory bail dismissed [Paras 6, 8–13].

Multiple FIRs – Larger Conspiracy – Second FIR Maintainable – Petitioner contended that the present case covered the same period as an earlier case and ought not to have been registered separately – Held: When a larger conspiracy is unearthed at a subsequent stage beyond an earlier single instance of cheating alleged by a single victim, a further FIR can be validly registered to unravel the true expanse of the fraud – The present case covered subsequent periods and a far wider conspiracy involving multiple victims [Para 7].

Bench Composition – Anticipatory Bail Application – Regular Bench – Co-ordinate Bench Having Different Constitution – The judge who had decided the anticipatory bail of the co-accused is now part of a different regular Division Bench – Held: In view of the Supreme Court's decision in Shekhar Prasad Mahto v. Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court, 2025 SCC Online SC 2280, the present regular Bench is the appropriate Bench to entertain this anticipatory bail application [Para 4].

Decision: Application for anticipatory bail dismissed – Prayer for stay of the order also rejected.

Customs Law – Misdeclaration – Penalty under Section 114AA – Sections 111(d), 111(m), 112(a), 114AA, 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 – Importer mis-declared description, country of origin, value and seating capacity (8 to 10 seats) of an imported Cadillac Escalade SUV to avail duty concession under Notification No.12/2012 – DRI investigation revealed fabricated documents including a false ADR Approval letter – Vehicle seized; partner of importer admitted the conversion – Adjudicating authority ordered confiscation, imposed penalty under Sections 112(a) and 114AA, and appropriated duty paid – Appellate authority upheld – CESTAT partly allowed importer's appeal by setting aside the Section 114AA penalty and duty appropriation – High Court reverses CESTAT: Held, CESTAT erred in misreading the show cause notice; the SCN squarely alleged intentional use of false documents; re-export on payment of redemption fine does not absolve penal consequences; Substantial Questions of Law answered in favour of Department [Paras 2-4, 8-9, 24-25].

"Re-export Does Not Absolve Penalty" – Independent Nature of Customs Penalties – The option to redeem confiscated goods and re-export under Section 125 operates independently of the liability to pay penalty under Sections 114AA and 112(a) – Payment of fine in lieu of confiscation and permission for re-export are separate and independent actions from levy of penalty for misdeclaration – The importer, having opted to redeem and re-export, cannot escape the penal consequences for furnishing false documents – Held: One action does not exclude the other; vice-versa is equally impermissible [Paras 19-20, 24].

Section 114AA – Use of False Documents – Broad Scope – Section 114AA penalises any person who knowingly or intentionally makes, signs, uses, or causes to be made any false or incorrect declaration, statement or document – CESTAT erred in holding that penalty under Section 114AA requires the importer to have themselves caused the falsification – When fabricated documents emanate from the custody of the importer and the SCN attributes intentional use of false materials, the burden shifts to the importer to establish innocence – Absence of such discharge justifies penalty [Paras 18, 23-24].

Duty Liability After Redemption – Section 125(2) – Under Sub-Section (2) of Section 125, the owner of goods, upon exercising the option to pay fine and redeem confiscated goods, remains liable to pay customs duty and other charges in addition to the redemption fine – Distinguished from M/s Navayuga Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (2024 INSC 547), where the factual matrix differed [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal allowed – Substantial Questions of Law answered in favour of the Department – CESTAT order setting aside Section 114AA penalty and duty appropriation set aside – No costs [Para 25].

Service Law – Pension – Delayed Release of Retiral Benefits – Interest – Fundamental Right – Petitioner retired on 31.03.2009 after 34 years of service; retiral benefits including GPF, leave encashment, GIS and salary arrears were released with delays ranging from six to nine months; pension papers were not processed in time despite Petitioner having submitted all documents in advance and after retirement – Respondents attributed delay to non-availability of Service Book and procedural challenges – Held: Procedural challenges cannot justify delay in release of pension and retiral benefits; it was the responsibility of the Respondents to initiate the process at least three months before the date of retirement; delay in release of terminal benefits amounts to deprivation of the right to life and liberty under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India – Petitioner entitled to interest on delayed payments beyond 30.06.2009 till actual date of payment [Paras 37–40].

Rate of Interest – Article 65 – GPF Rate – Article 65(1) of Central Service (Pension) Rules, 2021 provides for payment of interest at GPF rate on delayed payment of pension and gratuity attributable to administrative lapses – GPF rate of interest from 2008 to 2023 varied between 8.8% to 7.1% – On an equitable basis, interest awarded at 8% p.a. simple interest [Paras 42–45].

Commuted Pension – Restoration After Fifteen Years – Second relief claimed by Petitioner that fifteen-year period of commuted pension ended on 31.03.2024 entitling him to full restoration of pension – Held: For restoration of full pension, Petitioner is required to file an application and follow prescribed procedure; no directions can be issued in this petition, however if application has been or is filed, the same shall be processed expeditiously and preferably within three months [Paras 46–47].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Respondents directed to compute and pay interest at 8% p.a. simple interest for the delayed period in release of pension beyond 30.06.2009 till date of payment, within eight weeks – Relief of full restoration of pension to be pursued by Petitioner through separate application – Petition disposed of accordingly.

Murder and Robbery – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Affirmed – Sections 302/394/34 IPC – Both appellants convicted by the Trial Court for murder and robbery of the deceased Dooja Devi on 09.05.1997 – Prosecution relied on a chain of circumstances comprising last seen together, recovery of stolen articles and blood-stained clothes at the instance of accused, and medical evidence – Held: When all the circumstances are taken cumulatively, they form a complete and unbroken chain leading only to the guilt of the appellants – Prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence affirmed [Paras 31, 47].

Circumstantial Evidence – Principles Governing – For conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete, each link must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the chain collectively must exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused – Each witness's testimony must be meticulously analysed and reasonable inferences explicitly delineated – Finding of guilt must be reached after proper evaluation of all circumstances to determine whether they are compatible with any other reasonable hypothesis [Para 32].

Last Seen Together – Evidentiary Value – Appellants were seen by PW-2 at about 12 noon at the rear door of the house in the company of the deceased and by PW-7 leaving the vicinity shortly thereafter with a grey briefcase – Time gap between last seen and discovery of body was so narrow as to exclude the possibility of intervention by a third person – Appellants admitted presence at the spot in statement under Section 313 CrPC – Absence of any suggestion of prior enmity or false implication renders testimony of PW-2 and PW-7 reliable and creditworthy – Conviction cannot be sustained on last seen evidence alone; prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances [Paras 34, 35, 36].

Recovery of Stolen Property – Presumption under Section 114 Illustration (a) Evidence Act – Recovery of stolen jewellery, suitcase, wristwatch, and camera from both appellants within 4-5 days of the incident at their respective instances – Articles duly identified by PW-1 in Test Identification Parade and in court – Possession of stolen articles of the deceased soon after murder raises a presumption of guilt under Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act; such presumption weakens if considerable time has elapsed – Appellants failed to offer any explanation for such possession [Paras 38, 41, 45].

Recovery of Blood-Stained Clothes – Section 27 Evidence Act – Section 106 Evidence Act – Blood-stained clothes of both accused recovered from the house of appellant Surya Narain pursuant to disclosure statement of appellant Anil Kumar – FSL report confirmed presence of human blood – Though blood grouping could not be determined due to degradation over time, such inability does not diminish evidentiary value – Failure to explain the presence of blood on clothes is a fact especially within the knowledge of the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act and constitutes a strong incriminating circumstance [Paras 38, 39].

Investigation – Lapses – Effect – Non-examination of the unknown caller, son of the deceased, and SI Atul Kumar Mishra does not create a dent in the prosecution case as nothing turns on their testimonies – Defective investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal when substantive evidence otherwise proves the guilt of the accused – No independent public witness at recovery does not render police witnesses unreliable; there is a presumption that public officials would depose truthfully [Paras 41, 43].

Silence under Section 313 CrPC – In the face of strong incriminating circumstances, failure of the accused to offer any explanation consistent with their innocence in their statement under Section 313 CrPC further reinforces the prosecution case and constitutes a significant circumstance against them [Para 43].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentence of both appellants under Sections 302/394/34 IPC affirmed – Appellants directed to surrender before the Jail Superintendent within one week.

Sale Deed – Cancellation – Coercion – Limitation – Appeal dismissed at admission stage – Appellant's suit seeking cancellation of registered sale deed dated 25.10.1996 and permanent injunction dismissed by trial court – On appeal, High Court examines whether sale deed was executed under coercion and whether suit was barred by limitation – Held: No credible evidence of coercion established; suit filed on 12.10.2009 grossly time-barred under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, limitation period of 3 years having commenced from 26.10.1996 when facts first became known to plaintiff – Appeal dismissed at admission stage with costs [Paras 32–50].

"Registered Sale Deed Carries Presumption of Valid Execution" – Sections 58 and 60, Registration Act, 1908 – Appellants failed to rebut statutory presumption of valid execution and registration – Sale deed executed at Tehsil Etah, a crowded public place, before scribe and witnesses; sub-registrar made independent enquiry from vendor before registration – Attesting witness DW-2 proved due execution – No FIR registered despite allegations of abduction and gunpoint coercion; no eyewitness examined – Held: Plaintiff failed to rebut presumption of validity; mere oral assertions insufficient to impeach registered document [Paras 38–43].

"Valuation and Stamp Duty — Allegation of Undervaluation Unsustained" – Section 47-A, Indian Stamp Act – Appellants contended that property was worth ₹20 lakhs but sale deed valued it at ₹2.05 lakhs – ADM (Administration), Etah, vide order dated 17.05.2002, upheld valuation as per prevailing circle rate (land @ ₹700/sq.m.; construction @ ₹2,000/sq.m.) and found stamp duty properly paid – Held: Allegation of undervaluation and insufficient stamping not proved [Para 43].

"Oral Evidence Inadmissible to Contradict Terms of Written Instrument" – Section 92, Indian Evidence Act – Sale deed specifically recorded that possession of disputed property was handed to defendants at time of execution – Appellants' oral assertion of continued possession contradicts express recital of registered instrument – Held: Such contradiction is barred by Section 92; oral evidence cannot be led to contradict terms of a dispositive document [Para 46].

"Limitation for Cancellation of Instrument Runs from Date of First Knowledge" – Article 59, Limitation Act, 1963 – Plaintiff's wife moved application before sub-registrar on 26.10.1996 itself; thereafter made complaints to SP, Chief Minister, and SDM – SDM advised filing suit for cancellation in 2007 but suit filed only on 12.10.2009, approximately 13 years after accrual of knowledge – Held: Limitation commenced on 26.10.1996 when facts of alleged execution first became known; suit filed belatedly is grossly barred by time [Paras 47–48].

Decision: Appeal dismissed at admission stage under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC with costs throughout – Impugned judgment and decree dated 07.10.2025 affirmed.

Education Law – Review Jurisdiction – SSLC Examination – Grading System – Draft Rules – The State of Karnataka filed a Review Petition against the order directing it to conduct valuation for SSLC 2025-2026 as per the Revised Circular dated 28.10.2025 – State sought review on the ground that a Draft Notification dated 10.04.2026 for introduction of a grading system under the Karnataka School Examination and Assessment Board Act, 1966 had not been placed before the Court at the time of disposal of the Writ Petition – Held: The SSLC examination had already been conducted from 18.03.2026 to 02.04.2026 before the Draft Rules were notified on 10.04.2026; the Draft Rules being yet to be promulgated in accordance with law, there is no error apparent on the face of the record – Review Petition disposed of [Paras 6, 8, 10].

Review Jurisdiction – Error Apparent on Face of Record – Scope – A Draft Notification yet to be published by the competent authority and not having attained the force of law cannot constitute an error apparent on the face of the record for the purposes of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – It is always open to the State Government to take decisions in accordance with law in future, which lies within its domain, unless challenged before the Court [Para 8].

Judicial Review – Article 226 – Scope – Power of judicial review under Article 226 is to interfere with the decision-making process and not with the decision itself – The court's order should not curtail the power of the State Government to take lawful decisions in future – The second part of paragraph 8 of the impugned order clarified accordingly [Para 9].

Decision: Review Petition disposed of – Valuation for Academic Year 2025-2026 to be conducted as per Revised Circular dated 28.10.2025 – State Government's power to take future decisions in accordance with law preserved.

Specific Performance – Contingent Contract – Sale Agreement – Property of Statutory Body – Where a sale agreement stipulated that the vendors would first obtain a sale deed from the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board in respect of the non-residential portion of the suit property within three months and only thereafter execute a conveyance in favour of the purchaser, the contract as regards that portion was contingent within the meaning of Section 32 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Since the statutory authority had not conveyed the non-residential portion to the vendors even as on the date of the judgment, the contingency had not occurred and the contract remained unenforceable in respect of that item – Held: The decree for specific performance as regards Item No. 2 (non-residential portion) is set aside; the contract, to that extent, cannot be specifically enforced [Paras 22, 27, 32].

Sections 43 TPA and 13 SRA – Inapplicability – Imperfect Title – Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 applies only where a person fraudulently or erroneously represents himself to be authorised to transfer property and subsequently acquires an interest therein – In the present case, the vendors made no false representation regarding title; the sale agreement itself expressly acknowledged that conveyance of the non-residential portion was yet to be obtained from the statutory authority – Similarly, Section 13(1)(a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 has no application where the vendor did not misrepresent title and never in fact acquired title to the second item – Section 13(1)(b) equally inapplicable since the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, a statutory body, was under no obligation to execute a conveyance of the non-residential portion, the Act not providing for allotment of commercial plots – Held: These provisions do not assist the purchaser in the circumstances of the present case [Paras 23, 24, 25].

Mandatory Injunction – Statutory Authority – Bar under Section 14(d) SRA – The trial Court's direction compelling the vendors to obtain a sale deed from the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board within a fixed time and thereafter execute a conveyance in favour of the purchaser was unsustainable – The Slum Clearance Board is a statutory body constituted for eradication of slum conditions and provision of residential accommodation; its Act and Rules contain no provision for allotment of non-residential or commercial plots – The Board cannot be compelled to convey the non-residential portion, and equally the vendors cannot be directed to procure such conveyance – The grant of such mandatory injunction would also require continuous supervision by the Court, which is expressly barred under Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Held: Mandatory injunction to obtain sale deed from statutory body set aside [Paras 25, 26, 28].

Part Performance – Section 53A TPA – Unregistered Agreement – Defendant Tenant – The defendant was admittedly a tenant in the non-residential portion of the suit property at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,730/- – His plea that possession stood transformed into that of an agreement holder in part performance of the contract upon payment of Rs. 50,000/- on 15.06.2006 is untenable – For Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to apply, the agreement must be in writing, registered (as required by the amendment introduced by Act 48 of 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2001), and must contain a recital evidencing delivery of possession in part performance – The sale agreement dated 15.12.2005 was unregistered and contained no clause regarding delivery of possession – A tenant cannot unilaterally alter his status into that of a purchaser in possession – Held: Defendant's possession of Item No. 2 referable only to his tenancy; claim of part performance unsustainable [Paras 30, 31].

Partial Specific Performance – Order XLI Rule 33 CPC – Complete Justice – The suit property being divisible, Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 permits grant of specific performance in respect of part of the contract – Decree for specific performance of the sale agreement confirmed as regards Item No. 1 (residential portion) in respect of which the vendors held clear title – Decree in respect of Item No. 2 set aside – Since the defendant had already deposited the entire agreed sale consideration of Rs. 24,50,000/- and a court-executed sale deed had been obtained for Item No. 1 treating the full consideration as referable thereto, and since the defendant had occupied Item No. 2 for nearly two decades without payment of rent, this Court invoked Order XLI Rule 33 CPC to do complete justice – Held: The amount attributable to Item No. 2 stands adjusted towards arrears of rent and occupation charges; defendant to continue as tenant in respect of Item No. 2 from the date of judgment; plaintiff's rights as landlady, including for enhanced rent and eviction, kept open [Paras 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39].

CMP No. 5647 of 2023 – Additional Evidence – The defendant sought to mark as additional evidence a sale deed executed by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board dated 28.09.2015 to demonstrate that the Board was not incapable of executing sale deeds – On perusal, the document related to a residential plot and not to a non-residential portion as averred – Application filed on an incorrect factual premise – Held: CMP No. 5647 of 2023 dismissed in limine [Para 19].

Decision: AS No. 638 of 2018 dismissed — judgment and decree in O.S. No. 6773 of 2015 confirmed — relief of return of title deeds infructuous as defendant became owner of Item No. 1 — AS No. 637 of 2018 partly allowed — decree of trial Court in O.S. No. 6774 of 2015 confirmed insofar as it relates to Item No. 1 of the suit property and set aside insofar as it relates to Item No. 2 — suit dismissed as regards Item No. 2 — defendants in O.S. No. 6774 of 2015 entitled to withdraw the entire amount deposited together with accrued interest — defendant to continue as tenant in respect of Item No. 2 — CMP No. 5647 of 2023 dismissed — no order as to costs [Para 41].