Mandatory Injunction – Licensor–Licensee Relationship – Maintainability – Suit for mandatory injunction filed by husband and subsequent purchaser against wife occupying flat – Wife claimed to be trespasser post revocation of licence – Held: Where defendant occupies premises as a licensee and licence is terminated, suit for mandatory injunction for recovery of possession is maintainable – Not barred under Section 41(h) Specific Relief Act – Reliance placed on Sant Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh and Bharat Bhushan Gupta v. Pratap Narain Verma [Paras 14–18].

Ownership of Property – Exclusive Title – Stridhan Plea – Wife claimed joint ownership alleging contribution of stridhan and personal assets – Lease deed and allotment documents stood solely in husband’s name – No documentary proof of contribution produced – Affidavit filed by wife not subjected to cross-examination – Held: Burden of proving joint ownership lay on wife and remained undischarged – Trial court rightly held husband to be sole owner [Paras 19–26].

Evidence – Affidavit Without Cross-Examination – Evidentiary Value – Wife failed to appear for cross-examination despite repeated opportunities – Held: Affidavit in evidence without cross-examination cannot be relied upon – Trial court justified in discarding such evidence [Paras 21–24].

Transfer of Property – Sale During Pendency of Suit – Section 52 TPA – Lis Pendens – Sale deed executed in favour of subsequent purchaser during pendency of litigation – Necessary permissions obtained from NOIDA and builder – Indemnity bond executed – Mere pendency of matrimonial or domestic violence proceedings does not invalidate transfer – Purchaser acted in good faith after due diligence – Sale deed held valid [Paras 27–32].

Domestic Violence Act – Right of Residence – Shared Household – Scope – Wife claimed right of residence under PWDV Act – Evidence showed existence of more than one household – Held: Act contemplates right in one shared household only – Disputed flat could not be treated as shared household once licence stood terminated and alternate residence existed [Paras 31–32].

Mesne Profits – Assessment – Quantum – Trial court awarded damages @ ₹60,000 per month based on admitted prior rental value – Claim of low maintenance by wife irrelevant for determining mesne profits payable to lawful owner – Award held reasonable and supported by evidence [Paras 33–34].

Appellate Interference – Findings of Fact – Ownership and Possession – High Court reiterated that findings of fact by trial court should not be interfered with unless perverse – No perversity or illegality shown – Decree affirmed [Paras 36–37].

Decision: Both First Appeals dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 11.12.2018 affirmed – Mandatory injunction, declaration of ownership in favour of purchaser, and award of mesne profits upheld.

Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Election Dispute – Recounting of Votes – Issuance of Election Certificate – Legal Status – Election of President of registered Society initially declared in favour of appellant – On reference under Section 25(1), Prescribed Authority directed recounting of votes – After recount, Assistant Registrar issued certificate declaring respondent elected and cancelled earlier certificate – Held: Election certificate issued by Assistant Registrar has no independent statutory or legal status under the Act – Authority to function as office bearer flows from registration of list under Section 4(1), not from issuance of certificate [Paras 14–16, 25].

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Challenge to Consequential Order – Statutory Appeal Pending – Appellant challenged only election certificate dated 28.03.2025 without assailing foundational order of Prescribed Authority dated 22.03.2025 – Statutory appeal against Prescribed Authority’s order pending before Commissioner under Section 25(1)(d) – Held: Indirect challenge to main order through writ petition not maintainable – High Court cannot record findings which may affect pending statutory appeal [Paras 21–24, 32].

Section 25, Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Powers of Prescribed Authority and Assistant Registrar – Prescribed Authority directed recount and declaration of result – Assistant Registrar bound to comply with directions – Challenge to legality or consequences of such direction lies only in appeal against Prescribed Authority’s order – Writ petition confined to certificate alone held misconceived [Paras 20–21].

Section 25(2), Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Fresh Election – When Attracted – Contention that Assistant Registrar ought to have convened fresh general body meeting after alleged setting aside of election rejected – Held: Occasion to invoke Section 25(2) does not arise when Prescribed Authority’s order directing recount is under challenge in appeal and list of office bearers already registered under Section 4(1) [Paras 30].

Section 4(1), Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Registration of List of Office Bearers – Effect – List of office bearers after recount registered on 02.04.2025 and signatures of respondent attested – No challenge laid to registration or attestation under Section 4(1) or appeal under Section 4(1-A) – Held: Relief restraining respondent from functioning as President cannot be granted [Paras 24–25].

Election Law Analogy – Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Inapplicability – Comparison drawn with powers of High Court under R.P. Act to declare candidate elected rejected – Held: Scheme of Societies Registration Act distinct – Once challenge confined to certificate lacking legal sanctity, analogy with R.P. Act provisions misplaced [Paras 31].

Decision: Special Appeal dismissed – Order of learned Single Judge upholding dismissal of writ petition affirmed – No interference warranted – No opinion expressed on merits of Prescribed Authority’s order dated 22.03.2025 pending before Commissioner [Paras 34–35].

Specific Performance – Agreement to Sell – Execution through Father – Subsequent Ratification – Plaintiff residing abroad – Agreement dated 11.03.1985 executed by father on his behalf – Power of attorney executed on 04.06.1985 prior to target date for execution of sale deed – Subsequent ratification vide power of attorney dated 08.06.1987 – Doctrine of relation back applies – Held: Ratification validates earlier act from date of original transaction and agreement not void for want of prior authority [Paras 8, 9, 12].

Stamp Act – Unstamped/Insufficiently Stamped Power of Attorney – Admissibility vs Validity – Objection regarding stamping and authentication raised – Supreme Court in Re: Interplay between Arbitration Agreements and Indian Stamp Act (2024) 6 SCC 1 relied upon – Non-stamping renders document inadmissible but not void – Defect curable on payment of duty and endorsement – Held: Subsequent duly embossed power of attorney cured defect in earlier instrument and document could be acted upon [Paras 11, 12].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Photocopy of Power of Attorney – Objection not raised before First Appellate Court regarding mode of proof – Held: In absence of specific objection at appellate stage, appellant barred from challenging admissibility in second appeal – Allowing additional evidence did not amount to filling lacuna but to clarify authority and ratification [Para 10].

Readiness and Willingness – Proof – Bank Draft Prepared – Notices Issued – Plaintiff issued notices dated 09.05.1985 and 21.05.1985 – Appeared before Sub-Registrar – Bank draft prepared for balance consideration as proved by Bank Officer (PW-4) – Defendant failed to turn up and did not initiate criminal proceedings alleging fraud – Held: Continuous readiness and willingness established [Paras 9, 13].

Agreement to Sell – Vagueness – Absence of Specific Khasra Numbers – Land described as approximately 28 kanals with stipulation of proportionate adjustment – Non-availability of jamabandi with defendant – Execution proved by scribe and attesting witnesses – Held: Agreement not vague or unenforceable [Para 14].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 41 Punjab Courts Act – Framing of Substantial Question of Law – Not mandatory for Punjab and Haryana High Court – No perversity or illegality in First Appellate Court judgment – Held: No interference warranted – Appeal dismissed [Paras 15, 16].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court granting specific performance upheld – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Summoning of Additional Accused – Abetment of Suicide – Dowry Harassment – Revision Allowed – Revisionists (father-in-law and step-mother-in-law of deceased) summoned under Section 306 IPC by the trial court invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C., despite being exonerated during investigation and a closure report being filed against them – Charge sheet filed only against husband for offences under Sections 306, 498-A, 323 IPC – Allegations against revisionists found to be general and vague, unsupported by specific evidence of cruelty or additional dowry demand – Held: Impugned order summoning revisionists is not sustainable and is set aside – Trial court directed to decide the pending session trial expeditiously [Paras 2, 31-35].

Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Extraordinary Power – Standard of Proof – Higher than Prima Facie – Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and extraordinary in nature, to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection – Mere prima facie case is insufficient; strong and cogent evidence against the person sought to be summoned is required – The word "appears" in Section 319(1) imports a lesser degree of probability than proof but the court must be satisfied that the evidence, if unrebutted, may lead to conviction – Summoning order not to be passed in a casual and cavalier manner – Relied upon: Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2014 SC 1400; Sarabjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2009 SC 2792 [Paras 16-19, 29-30].

Evidence – "Evidence" under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Confined to Trial Evidence – The word "evidence" in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. is limited to evidence recorded during trial and does not include materials in the charge sheet or case diary – Trial court can add a person as accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it – Relied upon: Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92; Omi @ Omkar Rathore vs. State of M.P., 2025 INSC 27; Shiv Baran vs. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 3008 of 2025; Brijendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706 [Paras 24-25].

Vague and General Allegations – Matrimonial Disputes – In-Laws – Caution Against Mechanical Summoning – Allegations against revisionists (father-in-law and step-mother-in-law) were general and vague with no specific demand of dowry or specific act of cruelty attributed to them during the entire subsistence of the marriage – PW-1 (father of deceased) himself admitted no complaint was made regarding cruelty or additional dowry demand – Minor daughter of deceased did not allege cruelty by revisionists – FIR not lodged under Dowry Prohibition Act nor was any charge sheet filed under the same – Held: Vague and cryptic allegations insufficient to summon accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Relied upon: Chhaya vs. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 17 SCC 8; Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 [Paras 25-28, 31-34].

Hearsay Evidence – Dowry Harassment Cases – Section 306 IPC – While the trial court itself acknowledged that the testimony of PW-8 (bhabhi of deceased) regarding the deceased's oral complaints of harassment constituted hearsay evidence, it proceeded to summon the revisionists on that basis – Trial court erred in relying on such hearsay evidence as strong and cogent ground for summoning revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – The revisionist (father-in-law) himself had promptly informed the complainant of the deceased's death, indicating absence of concealment [Paras 8, 22, 31].

Criminal Revision – Maintainability – Post-Framing of Charge – Scope of Revision vs. Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Contention of opposite party that revision is not maintainable as charges have already been framed against the revisionists – Held: Scope and ambit of criminal revision under Cr.P.C. and inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are entirely different – Reliance on the Division Bench judgment in Shueb Mahmood Kidwai vs. State of U.P. (Application No. 3044 of 2017) to bar revision found inapplicable in the present context [Paras 12-15].

Decision: Criminal revision allowed – Impugned order dated 31.10.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 17, Agra in Session Trial No. 2243 of 2023 set aside – All further orders passed on the basis of said order also set aside – Trial court directed to decide the pending session trial against other accused expeditiously in accordance with law [Paras 35-36].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Enhancement – Change in Circumstances – Divorced wife suffering from schizophrenia sought enhancement of maintenance – Husband, a Chartered Accountant employed in Dubai, earning substantial income – Wife unemployed, dependent on parents, and medically unfit to sustain herself – Held: Education does not equate to employability, particularly where mental illness is established – Husband who secured divorce on ground of wife’s mental illness cannot deny maintenance by asserting her earning capacity – Change in financial capacity of husband and rise in cost of living constitute valid grounds for enhancement [Paras 21–26, 34–36].

Maintenance – Quantum – Overseas Employment – Assessment of Income – Husband contended high cost of living in UAE and multiple liabilities – Court held voluntary liabilities such as personal loans and EMIs cannot override statutory obligation to maintain dependent spouse – Only mandatory deductions relevant – Cost of living abroad relevant but cannot be used to defeat wife’s right to dignified sustenance – Maintenance enhanced from ₹15,000/- to ₹20,000/- per month w.e.f. 12.07.2017 [Paras 29–36].

Maintenance – Date of Effect – Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Wife claimed enhancement should relate back to earlier Section 127 petition filed in 2007 which was dismissed on technical grounds – Held: Once earlier petition dismissed, even with liberty to file afresh, subsequent petition cannot relate back – Enhancement rightly granted from date of fresh application i.e. 13.01.2011 – No illegality in Family Court’s approach [Paras 37–45].

Execution Proceedings – Interpretation of Maintenance Order – Dispute whether maintenance was enhanced to ₹9,000/- or by ₹9,000/- per month for period prior to 12.07.2017 – Plain reading of operative portion showed substitution of amount, not addition – Family Court correctly held that ₹9,000/- per month was payable from 13.01.2011 till 12.07.2017 and ₹15,000/- thereafter – Execution rightly closed as satisfied with excess payment [Paras 46–51].

Conduct of Litigant – Frivolous Re-interpretation of Orders – Petitioner accepted interpretation of maintenance order for years and later took inconsistent stand during execution – Attempt to reopen settled issues deprecated – Revision challenging execution order held frivolous [Paras 52–54].

Decision: CRL.REV.P. No. 950/2017 partly allowed – Maintenance enhanced to ₹20,000/- per month w.e.f. 12.07.2017 – No interference with date of enhancement fixed by Family Court – CRL.REV.P. No. 295/2021 dismissed – Execution order upheld – Costs of ₹10,000/- imposed, payable to Delhi State Legal Services Authority.

Taxation Law – Andhra Pradesh VAT Act – Appeal – Rejection at Admission Stage – Delay in Filing Appeal – Appellate Deputy Commissioner rejected appeal filed with delay of 2 years 4 months and 20 days against consequential assessment order – Petitioner pleaded non-service of show cause notice and assessment order – Held: Explanation not satisfactory – Rejection of appeal justified [Paras 5, 9–13].

Service of Notice – Presumption of Knowledge – VAT Proceedings – Show cause notice and assessment order sent by registered post and through departmental staff – Returned with endorsement “no such assessee” and premises found locked – Petitioner failed to intimate closure or change of address – Held: Service procedure under Rule 64 AP VAT Rules duly followed – Plea of lack of knowledge rejected [Paras 6, 10–12].

Delay and Laches – Writ Jurisdiction – Assessee sleeping over statutory remedy – Petitioner had earlier pursued appellate remedy diligently but failed to explain prolonged inaction after remand – Receipt of demand notice dated 14.09.2017 unexplained – Delay held fatal – No ground for interference under Article 226 [Paras 10–12].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Alleged Violation – No Merit – Assessment passed after following statutory procedure – Non-participation by assessee attributable to its own conduct – No violation of principles of natural justice established [Paras 10–12].

Judicial Review – Article 226 – Limited Interference in Fiscal Matters – Order rejecting appeal on limitation neither arbitrary nor illegal – No perversity or jurisdictional error shown – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 12–13].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Order dated 12.12.2017 upheld – No costs – All pending interlocutory applications closed.

Specific Performance – Agreement of Sale – Allegation of Loan Transaction – Dismissal of Second Appeal – Defendant contended that agreement of sale dated 13.08.2004 was fabricated and intended only as security for loan – No contemporaneous complaint or reply to legal notice disputing execution – Silence of defendant for years held fatal – Held: Findings of trial court and first appellate court based on proper appreciation of evidence – No perversity warranting interference [Paras 4–14].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Substantial Question of Law – Scope – Questions raised relating to alleged loan transaction, family property and sister’s share – Concurrent findings of fact against defendant – No substantial question of law arising – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 9–14].

Specific Performance – Family Property – Agreement Executed by One Co-sharer – Defendant failed to establish that suit property could not be subject matter of agreement of sale – Mere plea of sister’s share without supporting evidence insufficient – Agreement extent consistent with pleadings and evidence [Paras 5–7, 10].

Evidence – Conduct of Party – Silence After Legal Notice – Defendant failed to reply to notice seeking execution of sale deed and did not initiate criminal proceedings alleging fabrication – Conduct weighed against defendant – Adverse inference drawn [Paras 10–13].

Execution Proceedings – Challenge under Article 227 – Consequence of Dismissal of Second Appeal – Sale deed executed and possession delivered pursuant to decree – Civil Revision Petitions challenging execution and delivery warrant rendered infructuous – No ground for interference once decree upheld [Paras 15–16].

Civil Revision – Article 227 – Limited Supervisory Jurisdiction – Executing court acted in accordance with decree – No jurisdictional error or material irregularity shown – Revisions dismissed [Paras 15–16].

Decision – Second Appeal and Civil Revision Petitions Dismissed – Decree for specific performance confirmed – No costs – All pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Land Revenue – Mutation Proceedings – Registered Consent Decree – Scope of Jurisdiction – Revenue authorities deleted mutation entry despite existence of registered Consent Decree passed by High Court – Held: Mutation proceedings are fiscal and administrative – Authorities under Sections 149 and 150 MLRC have no jurisdiction to adjudicate title, testamentary succession or validity of civil court decrees – Once a registered civil court decree subsists and is not set aside, revenue authorities are bound to give effect to it for mutation purposes [Paras 58–63, 78].

Civil Court Decree – Binding Effect – Revenue Authorities Cannot Sit in Appeal – Impugned orders examined validity of vendors’ title, probate, succession, prohibitory orders and legality of registration of Consent Decree – Held: Such exercise amounts to sitting in appeal over civil court decree – Impermissible and without jurisdiction – Decree continues to bind authorities until set aside by competent court [Paras 62–75].

Mutation – “Person Interested” – Locus Standi – Respondent claimed locus as lessee and objected to mutation – Mere bald assertion of possession or tenancy without foundational documentary proof insufficient – “Person interested” cannot be expansively construed to allow obstruction of mutation based on unsubstantiated claims – Independent rights, if any, to be established before civil court [Paras 67–68, 85].

Mutation vs Title – Well-settled Law – Entries in revenue records do not confer, extinguish or declare title – They are maintained for fiscal purposes – Revenue authorities can examine documents only to see whether they disclose acquisition of rights, not whether such rights are legally valid – Title disputes lie exclusively within civil court jurisdiction [Paras 59–60, 69–70].

Probate and Testamentary Succession – Effect in Mutation Proceedings – Absence of probate or letters of administration may be relevant in civil proceedings – Cannot justify refusal or deletion of mutation when claimant relies on a subsisting civil court decree – Questions of succession and representative title cannot be reopened by revenue authorities [Paras 69–72, 88].

Prohibitory / Restraint Orders – Effect on Mutation – Alleged prohibitory orders restraining transfer relied upon by objector – Held: Revenue authorities cannot examine legality or consequences of such orders to declare civil court decree ineffective – Validity and effect of restraint orders must be decided in appropriate substantive proceedings [Paras 73–74, 87].

Delay in Registration – Stamp and Registration Issues – Long delay in registration of Consent Decree and stamp duty objections raised – Held: Once decree stands registered and registration remains undisturbed, revenue authorities cannot refuse mutation on ground that registration was illegal or time-barred – Such issues fall outside mutation jurisdiction [Paras 76–77].

Writ Jurisdiction – Interference Justified – Concurrent findings by statutory authorities normally not interfered with – However, where authorities act beyond statutory competence and commit jurisdictional error, High Court must interfere under Article 226 to prevent manifest injustice [Paras 81–82, 89].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Orders dated 14.05.2009, 29.03.2010 and 30.11.2011 quashed and set aside – Mutation Entry No.2248 restored in favour of Petitioner – Clarified that mutation is for fiscal purposes only and does not confer or determine title – No order as to costs [Paras 90–95].

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Prosecution Sanction – Refusal by Competent Authority – Subsequent Grant by Another Authority – Validity – Petitioner, Assistant Grade-II in Municipal Council, faced prosecution under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) PC Act – President-in-Council, being competent authority under Section 19(1) PC Act, refused sanction – State Department suo motu set aside refusal and Commissioner granted sanction relying on amended Rule 51 – Held: Once competent authority refuses sanction, same cannot be reviewed or overridden in absence of express statutory power – Subsequent sanction held without jurisdiction [Paras 11–15].

Municipal Law – Section 323, M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 – Scope and Limitations – Power under Section 323 confined to suspension or prohibition of unlawful municipal resolutions – Does not confer power of review or reversal of an order refusing prosecution sanction under a Central enactment – State cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction over orders passed under Section 19 PC Act – Impugned order passed in excess of statutory authority [Paras 12–14].

Special Act vs. State Legislation – Prevailing Effect of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – PC Act being a special Central legislation prevails over State Municipal law – Orders under Section 19(3) PC Act cannot be nullified by invoking Section 323 of the Act of 1961 – Sanction regime under PC Act held exclusive and exhaustive [Paras 12–14].

Service Rules – Amendment with Prospective Operation – No Retrospective Sanction Power – Amendment to Rule 51 dated 15.12.2022 enlarging sanctioning authority – Cannot be applied retrospectively to overturn refusal already made by competent authority – Commissioner lacked competence to grant sanction de hors earlier refusal [Paras 14–15].

Administrative Law – Sanction for Prosecution – Application of Mind – Non-delegable Function – Grant or refusal of sanction is an administrative act requiring independent application of mind – Sanction cannot be granted on directions of another authority nor on the basis of a report – Concurrent jurisdiction cannot be exercised to nullify an earlier valid decision [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Both writ petitions allowed – Orders dated 30.05.2023, 17.07.2023 and 24.04.2024 set aside – Prosecution sanction quashed – All consequential proceedings annulled – No order as to costs.