Declaration of Title – Gift Deed – Prior Partition – Second Appeal – Trial Court dismissed suit holding that donor had no title due to earlier family partition of 1958 – First Appellate Court reversed decree relying on revenue records and gift deed – High Court examining divergent findings – Held: First Appellate Court erred in ignoring categorical admissions regarding earlier partition – Trial Court judgment restored [Paras 1–2, 20–22].

Gift Deed – Competence of Donor – Effect of Earlier Partition – Registered gift deed dated 19.03.1992 executed by Narasimhaiah in favour of plaintiff – Evidence revealed that property in Sy.No.11 had already been partitioned orally in 1958 between Thimmaiah and Kariyanna – Donor retained name in revenue records only as senior family member – Held: Mere continuance of revenue entries does not confer exclusive title – Donor lacked absolute right to gift suit property [Paras 5, 15, 20–21].

Partition – Oral/Palupatti Partition – Admissions – Plaintiff (P.W.1) and witness (P.W.2) admitted existence of family partition of 1958 and separate enjoyment of northern and southern portions divided by bund – Such admissions constitute substantive evidence – Held: Admissions conclusively establish earlier partition acted upon, notwithstanding absence of registered deed or mutation [Paras 15–16, 20–21].

Evidence – Revenue Records versus Admissions – RTCs and mutation entries continuing in donor’s name relied upon by First Appellate Court – However, oral evidence and admissions showed actual division and enjoyment – Held: Admissions override presumptive value of revenue records – First Appellate Court committed perversity in ignoring material evidence [Paras 17, 20–21].

Encroachment and Injunction – Consequence of Failure to Prove Title – Relief of recovery of possession and mandatory injunction granted by First Appellate Court based on invalid gift deed – Held: When title itself is not proved, consequential reliefs cannot be granted [Paras 2, 21].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – Whether First Appellate Court justified in upholding gift deed ignoring admissions and earlier partition – High Court held reversal to be contrary to evidence and perverse – Interference warranted [Paras 10, 14, 21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 21.03.2023 in R.A.No.4/2015 set aside – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 28.11.2014 in O.S.No.37/2008 restored.

Criminal Law – Acid Attack – Conviction under Sections 326/34 and 304/34 IPC – Appeals against conviction – FIR held ante-timed – Effect of ante-timing – FIR shown to be registered at 6:30 a.m. but evidence established that informant returned from Delhi only around 7:45 a.m. and FIR was lodged after consultation around 9:00 a.m. – Held: FIR clearly ante-timed and belonging to category affecting prosecution case – Ante-timed FIR requires cautious scrutiny of prosecution evidence [Paras 32–38, 68–72].

Evidence Appreciation – Ocular Testimony – Injured Witness – PW-2 (injured son) gave detailed account but admitted at end of testimony that all were asleep and he did not know anything – Material self-contradiction going to root of prosecution case – Injured witness though generally accorded higher weight, testimony liable to be discarded if wholly unreliable – Held: Evidence of PW-2 not trustworthy [Paras 49–50, 59–60, 73].

Evidence Appreciation – Eye-witness Testimony – PW-3 (daughter of deceased) – Claimed to have witnessed acid attack while awake – Version found inherently improbable and self-contradictory – Contradictions regarding sequence of events, manner of assault, role of accused, and position of witnesses – Material inconsistencies with testimony of injured witness – Held: PW-3 not a reliable eye-witness [Paras 55–57, 65–67].

Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence – Material Discrepancies – Inconsistent accounts as to who poured acid on deceased – One witness attributing fatal act to Bablu, another to Anil – Discrepancies regarding resistance by victims, running to hydrant, physical scuffle – Not minor variations but contradictions on core incident – Held: Prosecution failed to present a coherent and consistent version [Paras 62–67, 74].

Motive – Double-edged Weapon – Prior conviction of two appellants for rape of informant’s daughter – Possible motive for accused to commit offence as well as for informant and family to falsely implicate – In blind crime with unreliable eyewitnesses, motive to falsely implicate assumes relevance – Held: Possibility of false implication could not be ruled out [Paras 17–22, 77–90].

Related and Interested Witnesses – Principles of Scrutiny – Evidence of close relatives requires careful and discerning scrutiny, especially where animosity exists – Court relied on Vadivelu Thevar, Raju @ Balachandran, Dalip Singh and other precedents – Held: Testimony of related witnesses failed to meet standard of credibility required for conviction [Paras 58–60, 83–86].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Burden of Proof – Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Ante-timed FIR coupled with unreliable, contradictory ocular evidence created grave doubt – Held: Prosecution failed to discharge burden – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 92–94].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Acquittal of all appellants – Release directed forthwith unless required in any other case – Bonds under Section 481 BNSS / Section 437-A CrPC directed [Paras 95–96].

Public Premises – Unauthorised Occupation – Expiry of Licence – Definition under Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act – Licence granted up to 31.03.2011 not renewed thereafter – Mere acceptance of licence fee after expiry does not amount to implied renewal – Continued occupation after expiry of licence held unauthorised – Eviction under Section 5(1) justified [Paras 18–27].

Public Premises – Eviction Proceedings – Compliance with Procedure – Estate Officer issued notice under Section 4 – Opportunity of hearing and evidence afforded – Findings recorded after considering oral and documentary evidence – No violation of principles of natural justice – Eviction order upheld by appellate authority under Section 9 – No interference warranted under Article 227 [Paras 22–30].

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Scope of Interference – Supervisory jurisdiction maintainable against appellate order under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act – Interference limited to jurisdictional error, perversity or violation of law – Orders of eviction found legal and proper [Paras 17, 28–30].

Public Premises – Recovery of Licence Fee – Arrears – Petitioner liable to pay licence fee at agreed rate with annual increment of 5% till date of sealing of premises – Acceptance of licence fee by authority does not regularise occupation – Order for arrears upheld [Paras 35–36].

Damages – Assessment under Section 7(2) – Requirement of Evidence – Damages must be assessed on basis of cogent evidence of market rental value – Mere reliance on internal policy insufficient – No evidence led regarding prevailing market rent or comparable properties – Award of damages held unsustainable [Paras 39–40].

Shop Policy, 2014 (BHEL) – Applicability – Industrial Premises – Policy not incorporated into licence by execution of fresh deed – No renewal under policy framework – Without contractual adoption of policy, damages cannot be mechanically levied on its basis – Order granting damages under Shop Policy set aside [Paras 36–38, 40].

Damages – Exorbitant Levy – Judicial Scrutiny – Damages enhanced from ₹3,718 per month to ₹3,84,820 per month – Increase more than 100 times – Held arbitrary, excessive and without authority of law – Estate Officer exceeded jurisdiction [Para 40].

Enforcement – Removal of Belongings – Section 6 – Conditional Right – Petitioner permitted to remove temporary structures and articles subject to payment of arrears – Failure to pay arrears entitles authority to recover dues by auction [Para 41].

Decision: Eviction order under Section 5(1) upheld – Order for arrears of licence fee upheld – Order directing payment of damages under BHEL Shop Policy, 2014 set aside – Petitions partly allowed – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Quashing of FIR – Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Applicants sought quashing of FIR registered under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC alleging that mere utterance of insulting words does not amount to “abetment” – Court examined statutory scheme under Sections 306, 107 and 108 IPC and settled principles governing “instigation” and “mens rea” – Held: At the stage of quashing, the Court is required to see prima facie material and not conduct a mini-trial [Paras 6–14].

Abetment – Meaning of Instigation – Mens Rea – “Instigation” implies goading, provoking, inciting or encouraging a person to commit an act – For offence under Section 306 IPC, there must be intention and active role of the accused either by direct or indirect acts – Mens rea can be inferred from circumstances and conduct of accused – Each case depends on its own facts and no straight-jacket formula can be laid down [Paras 11–14].

Humiliation and Attack on Character – Proximate Cause – Allegations disclose that applicants, under influence of liquor, entered the deceased’s house, abused her in filthy language, publicly referred to her as a “prostitute” and humiliated her in presence of villagers – Such repeated utterances attacking the character of the deceased affected her self-respect and mental equilibrium – Held: Prima facie material shows proximity between acts of humiliation and the suicide committed immediately thereafter [Paras 15–21].

Evidence at Quashing Stage – Prima Facie Satisfaction – Statements of informant, father-in-law and independent villagers consistently disclose public humiliation and character assassination – Whether such acts finally amount to abetment is a matter for trial – At this stage, material is sufficient to infer intention and indirect incitement – Interference under Section 482 CrPC declined [Paras 15–22].

Decision – Criminal Application dismissed – FIR and charge-sheet under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC not quashed – Proceedings to continue in accordance with law [Para 22].

Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce on ground of cruelty – Allegations of dowry demand, forced medical tests, attempted strangulation and harassment – Evidence found unsubstantiated – Reliance on evidence from separate proceedings impermissible – No cruelty proved – Dismissal of divorce petition affirmed [Paras 10–26].

Cruelty – Standard of Proof – Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act – Allegations of physical and mental cruelty must be proved by cogent, convincing and independent evidence – Mere allegations without corroboration insufficient to dissolve marriage – Family Court rightly insisted on strict proof [Paras 10, 19–21].

Medical Evidence – Alleged Forced Abdominal Scan – Appellant alleged ultrasound scan conducted to detect premarital abortion – Exhibits P2 to P4 only established that ultrasound of abdomen and pelvis was conducted on doctor’s advice – No indication of purpose being premarital abortion – Doctors not examined – Admission of appellant that respondent accompanied her for general check-up contradicted her plea – Allegation not proved [Paras 11–11.2].

Evidence from Other Proceedings – Limited Use – Appellant relied on depositions and documents from proceedings under Section 125 CrPC (Exs. R30 to R32) – Held: Evidence recorded in separate proceedings cannot be mechanically relied upon in matrimonial proceedings unless witnesses are examined and evidence proved afresh – Supreme Court’s clarification while dismissing SLP reinforced such limitation [Paras 12–12.2, 14].

Attempt to Murder / Strangulation – Lack of Proof – Serious allegation of attempted strangulation unsupported by medical records, police complaint or independent witnesses – Panchayatdars not examined – Mere assertion without contemporaneous evidence insufficient to constitute cruelty [Paras 13, 14].

Dowry Demand and Criminal Proceedings – Pendency Not Proof – Registration of criminal case under Sections 498A and 506 IPC and dismissal of petition under Section 482 CrPC do not by themselves establish guilt or cruelty – Criminal trial pending – Family Court justified in not treating pendency of criminal case as proof of cruelty [Paras 17–18].

Conduct of Parties – Mental Cruelty Alleged by Respondent – Evidence indicated repeated complaints, letters to employer and RTI applications by appellant and her father – Family Court’s finding that respondent was subjected to mental harassment upheld – Appellate court found no perversity in appreciation of evidence [Paras 19–21].

Maintenance and Stridhana – No Automatic Relief – Claim of higher maintenance and non-return of stridhana rejected for want of proof – Maintenance already fixed at Rs.6,000/- per month in separate proceedings – No evidence of change in circumstances or proof of assets and liabilities – Liberty reserved to seek modification in accordance with law [Paras 22–25].

Scope of Appellate Interference – Family Court Findings – Appellate court will not interfere with well-reasoned findings of Family Court unless perversity or misreading of evidence shown – Impugned judgment based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence – No ground for interference made out [Paras 21, 26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 24/02/2022 passed in M.C.No.241/2017 by the Family Court, Shivamogga upheld – Divorce on ground of cruelty refused – Liberty reserved to appellant to seek modification of maintenance in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Para 26].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Illegal Gratification – Proof of Demand and Acceptance Mandatory – Appellant, a police officer, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act for allegedly accepting ₹10,000 as bribe to avoid arresting the complainant’s relative – Complainant (PW-7) turned hostile and denied having any direct interaction with the appellant – Panch witness (PW-8) gave contradictory testimony regarding raid and was unaware of crucial facts – Complainant’s friend (PW-11) also did not support the prosecution version – Held: Demand and acceptance not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable. Acquittal [Paras 5–16].

Criminal Trial – Hostile Witnesses – Effect – Complainant and other key witnesses failed to support the prosecution case – Their testimonies inconsistent and materially contradictory – Panch witness admitted he was unaware of facts and signed blank papers – Court held that prosecution failed to prove factum of demand and acceptance of gratification, which is a sine qua non for conviction under PC Act [Paras 5–15].

Burden of Proof – Demand and Acceptance – Standard Reiterated – Citing B. Jayaraj and Neeraj Dutta, Supreme Court decisions – Court reaffirmed that proof of both demand and acceptance is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act – Mere recovery or possession of money is insufficient – Even circumstantial evidence must unerringly establish demand and acceptance [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Bail bond cancelled and surety discharged [Paras 17–19].

Criminal Law – Cruelty by Husband – Conviction under Section 498A IPC – Evidence of physical and mental abuse – Prosecution proved that husband repeatedly abused, assaulted, and neglected his wife – Evidence of illicit relationship and alcohol addiction corroborated by multiple witnesses including son of deceased – Complaint by deceased wife prior to suicide revealed consistent ill-treatment – Held: Conviction under Section 498A IPC upheld as prosecution established cruelty [Paras 10–15, 24–28, 29–31].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Acquittal under Section 306 IPC – Prosecution failed to establish mens rea or specific instigation by accused to commit suicide – No direct act or provocation proved to have led to suicide – Mere cruelty not sufficient to convict under Section 306 IPC – Evidence lacked proximate link between accused’s conduct and suicide – Held: Conviction under Section 306 IPC unsustainable in absence of evidence of abetment [Paras 32–40].

Evidence Law – Inconsistencies and Hearsay – Prosecution witnesses largely family members – Some statements hearsay or general in nature – Complaint regarding dowry demand found inconsistent and unsupported by documentation – Dowry Prohibition Act charges not framed – Held: Conviction under Section 498A not affected as cruelty proved, but higher threshold for abetment to suicide not met [Paras 4–6, 29–31, 36–38].

Criminal Procedure – Sentence – Appellant already undergone over 2 years in custody – Sentence for 498A IPC (2 years) covered by time served – Directed to be set off under Section 428 CrPC – Conviction under Section 306 IPC set aside – Appellant not required to undergo further imprisonment [Para 41].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 498A IPC confirmed – Conviction under Section 306 IPC set aside – Sentence adjusted to time already served – No further imprisonment required.

Negotiable Instruments – Cheque Dishonour – Financial Capacity – Section 138 NI Act – Accused issued cheque of Rs.5,00,000 which was dishonoured for insufficient funds – Trial Court acquitted accused holding complainant failed to prove her financial capacity to lend the money – Appellate Court held that unless accused disputes financial capacity with evidence, presumption under Section 139 operates – Held: Trial Court erred in doubting complainant’s capacity without any rebuttal by accused – Complainant’s explanation regarding source of funds from property sale found credible [Paras 9-10].

Presumption under NI Act – Section 139 – Accused did not rebut presumption – Accused neither entered witness box nor challenged issuance or signature of cheque – No defence evidence led – Held: Presumption under Section 139 NI Act remained unrebutted – Conviction proper [Paras 5, 11].

Criminal Procedure – Legal Notice – Notice returned as “Unclaimed” – Held: Due service presumed – Complaint filed within limitation – All conditions under Section 138 NI Act fulfilled – Accused did not respond to notice nor deny liability [Paras 8-9].

Compensation and Sentencing – Conviction under Section 138 NI Act – Fine of Rs.8,00,000 imposed – Rs.7,80,000 directed to be paid to complainant as compensation under Section 357A CrPC – In default, accused to undergo simple imprisonment for three months [Para 11, Order].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Acquittal set aside – Accused convicted under Section 138 NI Act – Fine of Rs.8,00,000 imposed – Rs.7,80,000 payable to complainant as compensation – Default sentence of three months’ simple imprisonment.

Motor Accident – Compensation – Quantum – Income Assessment – Tribunal assessed monthly income of deceased at ₹15,680 based on Deputy Commissioner’s wage notification for skilled labour – Appellant insurer contended income should have been computed as ₹8,245 per minimum wage notification – Held: Deceased held valid licence for heavy vehicles and was rightly treated as skilled labour – Deputy Commissioner’s wage notification applicable – No perversity or illegality in Tribunal’s approach – Tribunal’s award of ₹19,60,000 with 7.5% interest upheld [Paras 3–11].

Appellate Review – Scope – Interference by appellate court only if findings are perverse or arbitrary – Mere alternative view not sufficient – Citing Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co., 2024 INSC 816, Court held that absence of contrary evidence justifies reliance on local wage notifications for income computation – Findings of Tribunal affirmed [Paras 6–9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Tribunal’s award upheld – Appellant Insurance Company entitled to refund of statutory deposit of ₹25,000 [Paras 12–13].