Property Law – Mutation – Supreme Court Judgment Recognizing Ownership – Municipal Records to Reflect Non-Thika Status – Writ Petition Allowed – Petitioner purchased property via registered deed and obtained amalgamation order – Property mutated in its favour in 2008 – Thika Controller later declared respondents’ predecessor as Thika tenants – This was challenged and ultimately reversed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2022, confirming that the premises was not Thika – Respondent Corporation’s reliance on Thika Controller’s order to alter mutation entry was held unlawful – Held: Municipal records must be corrected to show Petitioner as owner and remove Thika classification – Respondents’ civil claim for adverse possession is pending and will not affect current ownership mutation [Paras 1, 8–10, 27–37]

Municipal Law – Scope of Mutation – Title Dispute Not to Be Decided – Mutation Based on Lawful Ownership Recognized by Supreme Court – Corporation argued it cannot determine title – High Court held that where ownership is already determined by the Supreme Court, Corporation is bound to act accordingly – Pending civil litigation on adverse possession does not preclude mutation in favour of Petitioner as rightful owner – Corporation directed to act in compliance with Supreme Court judgment [Paras 18, 28, 32, 36]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Availability of Alternate Remedy Not a Bar Where Supreme Court Judgment Ignored – Despite availability of alternate statutory mechanism under KMC Taxation Rules, High Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 as municipal authority failed to act on Supreme Court’s final judgment – Held: Inaction despite final adjudication of title and property classification justifies writ remedy [Paras 18, 21, 35]

Tenancy Law – Thika Tenancy – Claim Rejected by Supreme Court – Mutation Based on Thika Tenancy Set Aside – Property Declared Non-Thika – Thika Controller had declared respondents’ predecessor as Thika tenant – Supreme Court conclusively ruled that property is not Thika – Held: All entries treating property as Thika and mutation in favour of private respondents based on Thika status are illegal – Property to be recorded as non-Thika [Paras 6–7, 28–30]

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Respondent Corporation directed to:

(i) Record the property as a non-Thika premises

(ii) Restore mutation in the name of the Petitioner as lawful owner

(iii) Give effect to any civil court decree in favour of private respondents, if passed in future [Paras 36–37]

Property Law – Unregistered Sale Deed – Section 17 & 49 Registration Act – Section 53-A TPA – Document Written as Sale Deed, Not Agreement – No Registration – No Title or Possession Rights – Ex.B1 executed in 1983 for Rs.1100 treated as sale deed by defendant but unregistered – Held: Unregistered sale deed cannot convey title; inadmissible to prove transfer of property; cannot be converted into sale agreement for invoking Section 53-A – Defendant’s plea inconsistent and self-contradictory – First Appellate Court erred in granting protection of part performance [Paras 10–16, 20–21].

Part Performance – Section 53-A TPA – Applicability Prior to 2001 Amendment – Only Available for Genuine, Lawful, Uncompleted Contract – Burden on Transferee to Prove Valid Contract and Free Consent – Evidence shows Ex.B1 written in two inks, suspicious thumb impression placement, possibility of interpolation – No proof that contract executed with free will – Held: Defendant not entitled to benefit of Section 53-A even under pre-amendment law [Paras 11, 18–19, 22].

Title & Possession – Plaintiffs’ Possession Established – House Tax Receipts (Ex.A3 & Ex.A4) in joint names – Defendant failed to prove vendor (2nd plaintiff) was exclusive owner – Defendant’s claim of prior possession and renovation not credible – First Appellate Court misdirected itself by treating defendant’s possession as part performance without establishing contractual foundation [Paras 10, 16, 19].

Interpretation of Precedents – Reliance on Guman Singh v. Manga Singh, MANU/SC/0872/2016 & Ranchhoddas Chhaganlal v. Devaji Supdu Dorik, (1977) 3 SCC 584 – Part performance can be used only as a defence, not as a basis for claiming title – Ex.B1 cannot operate as both sword and shield – Defendant’s attempt rejected [Para 20–21].

Decision: Second Appeal Allowed – Judgment of First Appellate Court set aside – Trial Court decree restoring plaintiffs’ title and recovery of possession revived – Defendant directed to hand over possession within one month [Paras 23–25].

Trademark Infringement – Interim Relief – Likelihood of Confusion – Modified Injunction – Appellant’s restaurant name "GULSHAN-E-KARIM" found to infringe respondent’s registered mark "KARIM" used since 1913 – Respondent held to have established prima facie case of infringement under Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act – Use of “KARIM” as dominant part of both marks considered likely to cause initial interest confusion among consumers – Commercial Court’s interim injunction upheld in principle – However, complete restraint modified on equity grounds as appellant’s use was innocent and confined to Moradabad – Appellant allowed to continue using the mark with mandatory disclaimer distancing itself from respondent’s restaurant group – Failure to comply within six weeks to result in revival of original injunction [Paras 7.1, 11.5–12.8, 13.1–13.4, 14.1–14.5, 15.1–15.6, 16.1–16.9, 17–18].

Similarity – Dominant Part Test – Anti-Dissection Rule – Publici Juris Argument Rejected – Court holds "KARIM" is the dominant and memorable part of both the appellant’s and respondent’s marks – Phonetic and visual similarity sufficient for infringement even without side-by-side comparison – Appellant’s argument that “KARIM” is generic or publici juris rejected in light of its own trademark application and Section 31(1) presumption of validity – Anti-dissection rule held applicable only to plaintiff’s mark, not to infringer’s mark – Doctrine of dominant part upheld in infringement analysis [Paras 12.1–12.8, 13.1–13.4, 14.1–14.5].

Equity – Innocent Infringer – Modification of Injunctive Relief – Court finds appellant’s use of "GULSHAN-E-KARIM" was innocent and not intended to ride on respondent’s goodwill – Mark found to be suggestively laudatory in nature and used only locally since 2016 – Respondent’s remedy to protect brand equity adequately served by requiring appellant to display disclaimer in English and Hindi, disassociating itself from the respondent’s restaurants – Complete prohibition on appellant’s mark held disproportionate and inequitable under Order XXXIX CPC [Paras 16.1–16.9].

Acquiescence – Delay Not Fatal – Inaction Alone Not Sufficient – Respondent found to have acted with diligence upon discovering appellant’s use of the mark in 2020 – Evidence did not support continuous commercial use by appellant since 1997 – No positive act of encouragement or waiver by respondent – Legal principle from Midas Hygiene and Power Control Appliances applied to hold that mere inaction is not acquiescence – Acquiescence cannot defeat injunction in case of proven infringement [Paras 15.1–15.6].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Commercial Court’s order modified to allow continued use of “GULSHAN-E-KARIM” with mandatory disclaimer – Appellant to comply within six weeks or face reinstatement of full injunction – No order as to costs [Paras 17–18

Tenancy Law – Eviction – Alternate Suitable Residence – Decree of eviction passed against tenant under Section 13(1)(l) of Bombay Rent Act – Tenant during pendency of suit acquired 2 BHK flat jointly with son – Held: Despite being joint ownership, tenant was financial contributor, helped in loan repayment, and suppressed fact during trial – Decree upheld as alternate suitable residence was indeed acquired [Paras 24–27]

Will and Testament – Bequest of Premises – Suit premises claimed to be not needed due to bequest of rooms in Kelkar Museum to tenant and wife under a Will – Will imposed strict conditions including prohibition on altering furniture and requirement to display rooms to public – Held: Rooms were not freely usable or private, hence not “suitable alternate residence” under Rent Act [Paras 22–23]

Tenancy Inheritance – Right to Sue – Legal heirs brought on record after tenant’s death – Landlord argued tenancy rights extinguished with eviction decree – Held: Right to sue survives for legal heirs already brought on record and paying mesne profits – But such entry does not confer tenancy rights under Section 5(11)(c) of Bombay Rent Act in absence of evidence of co-residency at time of death [Paras 17–18]

CPC – Order XXII and Legal Representation – Legal heirs brought on record without objection – No automatic conferment of tenant status – Determination under Section 5(11)(c) requires evidence, cannot be assumed in writ proceedings [Paras 17–18]

Maharashtra Rent Control Act – No Eviction Ground – Petitioners argued decree not sustainable under new Act as Section 16 lacks alternate residence ground – Rejected – Decree based on cause of action and trial under Bombay Rent Act remains valid and enforceable [Para 19]

Writ Jurisdiction – Concurrent Findings – Trial and appellate courts found acquisition of alternate suitable residence by tenant – High Court upheld findings as probable and based on evidence – No jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference under Article 227 [Paras 21, 27–29]

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Decree of eviction upheld – Petitioners directed to hand over vacant possession within six weeks – Respondent permitted to withdraw deposited compensation [Paras 29–31]

Criminal Law – Murder – Unlawful Assembly – Arson – Conviction Upheld – Accused formed unlawful assembly and launched attack on the deceased in course of property dispute – House of deceased was set on fire and he was assaulted with lathis on vital body parts causing fatal cranio-cerebral injuries – Trial court convicted under Sections 148, 436 and 302 IPC read with Section 149 – High Court found evidence of eye-witnesses, many of them injured, consistent and corroborated by medical evidence – Held: Conviction justified [Paras 1, 9, 13-14, 17-18]

Evidence – Injured Witnesses – Medical Corroboration – Six injured witnesses confirmed to have sustained blunt force trauma consistent with lathi assaults – Medical reports supported their presence at scene and nature of assault – Minor omissions and initial non-disclosures found not material – Credibility intact despite pendency of counter-case against them [Paras 11-14]

Medical Jurisprudence – Cause of Death – Post-mortem revealed depressed skull fracture, haemorrhage in brain stem and multiple antemortem injuries – Death opined to be due to cranio-cerebral trauma caused by hard and blunt weapon – Medical findings fully matched with witness account of assault – Held: Death was clearly homicidal [Para 9]

Common Object – Section 149 IPC – Applicability – Acts of setting fire, fatal assault on deceased and coordinated attack on rescuers established that unlawful assembly had common object – Specific roles attributed to each appellant – No requirement to prove individual overt act where offence committed in furtherance of common object – Vicarious liability under Section 149 attracted [Paras 13, 17]

Hostile Witnesses – Effect on Prosecution – Some prosecution witnesses turned hostile or did not support prosecution – Held: Core case established by consistent and credible testimony of injured and independent witnesses – Conviction can be sustained on basis of quality evidence despite some hostile witnesses [Para 16]

Motive – Land Dispute – Claim of accused that house belonged to them contradicted by prosecution evidence showing longstanding possession by deceased – Existence of land dispute supported motive – Presence of motive strengthens prosecution version but not essential in light of direct evidence [Para 15]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction of surviving appellants under Sections 148, 436 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC affirmed – Appeal abated against Appellant-Basudev Barik due to death – Remaining appellants directed to surrender within three weeks [Para 18]

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part II – Appellant convicted for stabbing wife during sudden quarrel in fit of rage while under influence of alcohol – Incident occurred at home with only minor daughter present – No evidence of premeditation or prior enmity – Knife used was kitchen knife picked from spot – Victim’s dying statement to landlady, "Inhone mere ko kya maar diya", construed to refer to husband – Appellant remained at scene and cooperated during investigation – Held: Though act had knowledge of likely consequence, it lacked intent to kill – Conviction modified to Section 304 Part II IPC – Sentence reduced to 7 years simple imprisonment [Paras 38, 41, 44, 55–57, 60–64]

Criminal Procedure – Right to Silence – Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Appellant’s silence during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding genesis of quarrel held not incriminating – Court held silence could not fill evidentiary gaps – Prosecution case itself showed absence of murderous intent – Silence alone cannot lead to murder conviction [Paras 50–51]

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Identification by Victim – Victim’s repeated utterance “inhone” interpreted in cultural context as pointing to husband – Though no eyewitness to stabbing, circumstantial evidence and victim’s immediate utterance held reliable [Paras 28–31]

Criminal Law – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Applicability – Conditions for Exception 4 met: sudden quarrel, no premeditation, act done in heat of passion, no undue advantage taken – Appellant acted impulsively, under influence of alcohol, using kitchen knife at hand – Held: Circumstances supported reduction of offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 44, 54–56, 58–64]

Criminal Sentencing – Sentence Reduction – Original sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC modified to 7 years simple imprisonment under Section 304 Part II IPC – No fine imposed – Compensation to be disbursed per Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018 as recommended by Trial Court under Section 357A Cr.P.C. [Paras 64–67]

Civil Law - Evidence – Secondary Evidence – Admissibility – Application Allowed Without Pleading Custody of Original – Order Set Aside – Plaintiffs sought to prove registered Will dated 17.11.1979 by secondary evidence, claiming original was with defendant – No such averment made in plaint – Application moved after closure of evidence at rebuttal stage – Trial Court allowed application – Held: No foundational pleading or timely action to justify late-stage application – Application wrongly allowed – Trial Court directed to determine admissibility and proof of Will under Evidence Act independently [Paras 1, 5–6, 9, 21–23]

Civil Procedure – Order 18 Rule 3 CPC – Scope for Rebuttal Evidence – No Automatic Right to Produce Secondary Evidence – Application to lead secondary evidence filed at rebuttal stage under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC – Held: Rule permits rebuttal evidence but does not override requirements of Sections 65–66 of Evidence Act – Application required prior foundational pleadings and timely disclosure – Delay and lack of basis rendered application untenable [Paras 10–11, 21]

Documentary Evidence – Will – Secondary Evidence – Legal Standards – Filing Application Not Mandatory Where Document Already Exhibited – Will already marked as Exhibit PW5/2 (certified copy) and Mark-G (photocopy) – One attesting witness examined as PW5 – Held: In such circumstances, no separate application under Section 65(c) required – Trial Court must evaluate evidence on merits as per settled legal standards without being influenced by application or order – Application and trial court’s order set aside [Paras 13–16, 20–23]

Judicial Discretion – Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice – Procedural Lapse Cannot Supplant Statutory Requirements – Though courts should not non-suit parties on technicalities, procedural laxity cannot override specific legal requirements under Evidence Act – Trial Court erred in allowing application based on equitable considerations without legal foundation – Held: Admissibility and probative value of the Will must be tested under law [Paras 12, 18, 22–23]

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Order dated 13.09.2024 permitting production of Will by secondary evidence set aside – Application dismissed – Trial Court directed to examine admissibility and proof of Will under Evidence Act on merits without being influenced by prior order [Paras 23–24]

Gram Nyayalayas Act – Appeal Bar under Section 34(2)(b) – Valuation Below ₹1,000 – Exception for Questions of Law – Appeal Held Maintainable – Original suit filed in 2000 for cancellation of will valued at ₹200 – Transferred to Gram Nyayalaya under Section 16 – Gram Nyayalaya declared will void – Appeal filed before District Judge challenged by petitioner on ground of Section 34(2)(b) bar – District Judge held appeal maintainable as it raised a question of law – High Court affirms view, noting that Section 34(2)(c) permits appeal where legal question is involved even if valuation is below ₹500 – Dismissal of petition upheld [Paras 3, 4, 25, 27].

Appeal – Right of Appeal – Substantive Right – Vested at Time of Suit – Cannot Be Taken Away Retrospectively Unless Expressly Provided – Court reiterates settled law that right of appeal is a vested and substantive right, accruing on the date of institution of the suit – Refers to landmark decisions including Colonial Sugar Refining Co. v. Irving, Garikapatti Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhury – Held: Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 does not operate retrospectively – Right of appeal governed by law prevailing on date of suit in 2000 – District Judge rightly entertained the appeal [Paras 13–24].

Question of Law – Maintainability of Suit Before Gram Nyayalaya – Matter to Be Decided by Appellate Court – Though High Court notes that suit for cancellation of will may not lie before Gram Nyayalaya as per Second Schedule – Leaves the issue open for appellate court to determine – Declines to adjudicate maintainability in Article 227 jurisdiction [Para 26].

Judicial Review – No Jurisdictional Error – Rejection of Objection by Appellate Court Not Illegal – High Court finds no illegality in District Judge’s decision to entertain the appeal – Rejects petitioner’s contention that appeal was barred by Section 34(2)(b) – Writ petition under Article 227 dismissed [Paras 24–27].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – District Judge’s order upholding maintainability of appeal affirmed – Question of whether suit for cancellation of will is maintainable before Gram Nyayalaya left open to be decided by appellate court.

Service Law – Pension Revision – Inclusion of Special Pay – Tribunal directed that Special Pay be treated as part of Basic Pay for fixation of revised pay and pension – Tribunal relied on dismissal of SLP No. 18368/1995 and earlier precedents – Petitioners challenged direction contending excessive interest and delay of 11 years in filing OA – Held: Delay in filing OA cannot be raised at this stage as the Tribunal decided the matter on merits – Tribunal rightly followed binding precedent – No legal infirmity found in impugned order [Paras 2–6]

Interest on Arrears – Tribunal awarded 9% interest on delayed pension and arrears from the date of eligibility as per Annexure A4 – Petitioners sought waiver or reduction of interest citing compliance except for interest payment – Court held that the beneficiaries were mostly aged pensioners with serious health concerns and entitled to compensation for delay – No grounds to interfere with Tribunal’s direction on interest – Interest to be paid within three months [Paras 3, 4, 6, 7]

Article 227 – Judicial Review – High Court declined to interfere under Article 227 where Tribunal acted within jurisdiction, followed binding judgment, and granted reliefs in accordance with law – Petition dismissed for lack of merit [Paras 6–7]

Decision: Original Petition dismissed – Petitioners directed to pay interest at 9% within three months as directed by Tribunal – No order as to costs.