Permanent Injunction – Tenant Holding Over – Section 116, Indian Evidence Act – Relief Denied - Plaintiff, a tenant under the Municipal Committee, sought permanent injunction claiming title after lease expiry – Trial Court dismissed the suit; First Appellate Court reversed – Held: Tenant estopped from denying landlord’s title under Section 116 during or after tenancy unless lawfully surrendered – Injunction cannot protect unlawful possession [Paras 8, 12].

Title Dispute – Unconstitutionality of Statute – No Vesting in Tenant – The Haryana Municipal Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1974 was declared unconstitutional in Rajinder Prashad case – Held: This did not vest title in tenants or co-sharers – Vesting dispute may lie between Panchayat and Committee, but tenant has no locus to claim possession on that basis [Paras 9, 13].

Biswedar Claim – No Documentary Proof – Equitable Relief Refused - Plaintiff claimed co-sharer (biswedar) status in shamlat land – No documentary evidence produced – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court found no basis for such claim – Held: Equitable relief of injunction cannot be granted without legal entitlement or proof of ownership [Para 10].

Lease Evidence – Revenue Records and Auction Entries – Estoppel Applied - Documents including auction record (Ex. D8) and Rapat Roznamcha (Ex. D10) proved plaintiff took land on lease – Held: Having accepted lease, plaintiff estopped from challenging landlord's title – Possession after lease expiry deemed unauthorized [Paras 11-12].

Final Disposition – Appeal Allowed – Appellate Court Judgment Set Aside - High Court found First Appellate Court erred in ignoring legal principles on estoppel and tenancy – Held: Judgment dated 10.02.1994 set aside; Trial Court’s decree restored; Plaintiff not entitled to injunction – Suit dismissed [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Writ - Child Custody – Habeas Corpus – Biological Parent vs. Grandparent – Petitioner, biological father and natural guardian, sought custody of son from maternal grandmother – Respondent contended emotional bond, financial incapacity of father, and pending custody proceedings – Held: Biological parents’ right to custody prevails unless welfare of child is demonstrably at risk – Grandparent has no superior right over natural guardian – Custody directed to be restored to petitioner [Paras 12-14, 16].

Maintainability – Habeas Corpus vs. Guardians and Wards Act – Pendency of custody proceedings before Family Court no bar – Writ jurisdiction may be exercised in exceptional cases where detention is unlawful – Habeas Corpus maintainable where biological parent is deprived of custody by third party – Supreme Court precedents in Tejaswini Gaud (2019) 7 SCC 42 and Gautam Kumar Das (2024 INSC 610) applied [Paras 10-12, 14].

Welfare of Child – Paramount Consideration – Petitioner and wife living together, gainfully employed – Already caring for twin brother suffering from cerebral palsy – Nothing on record to show incapacity – Property disputes irrelevant – Welfare best served in custody of parents – Adjustment difficulties temporary – Welfare safeguarded with visitation rights to grandmother [Paras 12-14, 17].

Visitation Rights – To balance child’s welfare and existing bond with grandmother, respondent no. 5 allowed weekday visitation (9:00 am to 6:00 pm) at petitioner’s residence for three months – Respondent nos. 6 to 8 permitted to accompany – Petitioner directed to cooperate [Para 17].

Decision – Petition partly allowed – Police directed to secure custody of minor from respondent no. 5 and hand over to petitioner within two weeks – Visitation rights granted – No order as to costs [Paras 16-18].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Rape converted to Outraging Modesty – Sections 354/323 IPC – Conviction Set Aside – Trial Court convicted appellant for outraging modesty despite charge under Sections 376/511 IPC – High Court found victim’s evidence inconsistent with FIR, medical records, and Section 164 statement – Hostile witnesses and alternative version of incident (dispute over spitting at gate) created reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt extended; conviction set aside; appeal allowed. Acquittal. [Paras 10-15, 21].

Victim’s Evidence – Weight and Corroboration – Law recognises that sole testimony of prosecutrix can sustain conviction if trustworthy – In present case, contradictions between FIR, deposition, Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, and medical report undermined reliability – Court held victim’s testimony lacked cogency and required corroboration, which was absent [Paras 13-15].

Interested/Hostile Witnesses – Evaluation – PWs 3 and 4 (relatives in same premises) did not support prosecution version – PW 4 gave different account of quarrel between accused and victim’s husband – Witness not declared hostile – Lack of corroboration from neighbours and family members further weakened prosecution [Paras 14, 16-17].

Medical Evidence – Injury Report – Doctor noted only tenderness on chest and limbs, no signs of scuffle, sexual assault, or vomiting as alleged – Injury report used against accused though not put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Inadmissible for conviction as per Sujit Biswas principle – Medical evidence failed to corroborate prosecution story [Paras 13, 19-20].

Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Principles of Natural Justice – All incriminating materials must be put to accused – Failure to confront with injury report violated audi alteram partem – Such evidence excluded from consideration [Paras 19-20].

Standard of Proof – Two Possible Views – As per Kali Ram and Raj Kumar Singh, where two views are possible, one favouring accused must prevail – Prosecution evidence not free from doubt; alternative version supported by some witnesses – Accused entitled to acquittal [Paras 18, 21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and conviction dated 17/09/2014 set aside – Appellant acquitted of charges under Sections 354 and 323 IPC – Bail bond discharged in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 481 BNSS, 2023) [Paras 21-24].

Civil Law  – Declaration of Matrimonial Status – Sections 7 & 8, Family Courts Act – Jurisdiction – Appeal Allowed in Part – Plaintiff claimed declaration as second wife of late Mukesh Sharma – Trial court dismissed suit holding matrimonial status declaration lies exclusively within jurisdiction of Family Court – High Court upheld finding of lack of jurisdiction but held trial court erred in dismissing instead of returning plaint – Order 7 Rule 10 CPC mandates return of plaint for presentation before competent Family Court – Impugned judgment modified accordingly [Paras 13-22].

Family Court Jurisdiction – Section 7 Explanation (b), Family Courts Act – Exclusive domain over validity of marriage and matrimonial status – Civil Court jurisdiction barred under Section 8 – Supreme Court in Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav, (2016) 13 SCC 308 applied – Declaration of matrimonial status can only be sought before Family Court [Paras 14-15, 18].

Return of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 10 CPC – Mandatory where Court lacks jurisdiction – Trial court committed illegality by dismissing suit outright – Supreme Court in EXL Careers v. Frankfinn Aviation Services, (2020) 12 SCC 667 reiterated principle – High Court directed return of plaint to enable presentation before competent court [Paras 16-19, 21-22].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Impugned judgment and decree dated 17/09/2022 set aside to extent of dismissal of suit – Finding of lack of jurisdiction upheld – Trial Court directed to return plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for presentation before Family Court – No order as to costs [Paras 21-23].

Public Interest Litigation – Road Safety – Median Cut Closure – Dismissal of PIL – The petitioner sought reopening of a median cut on National Highway No. 44 near village Khari, which was earlier closed due to safety concerns following accidents – The National Highways Authority of India submitted that the closure was based on recommendations from a Road Safety Audit Report in accordance with MoRTH guidelines – Held: The Court found no reason to interfere with expert advice taken for public safety – Mere inconvenience due to an alternative cut being 1.5 km away was not a sufficient ground to reopen the closed median cut [Paras 1-6].

Judicial Review – Role of Courts in Expert Decisions – Limited Scope – The Court reiterated that judicial review does not extend to substituting expert opinion with judicial wisdom, especially in matters involving technical expertise and road safety audits – Held: Courts should defer to technical assessments unless manifestly arbitrary or mala fide – Petition rightly dismissed [Para 5].

Public Safety vs Local Convenience – Balancing Interests – Median Cut Closure Justified – Though the petitioner cited inconvenience to villagers due to distant alternate routes, the Court observed that safety considerations on a National Highway override such inconvenience – The closure was deemed in public interest to avoid accidents – Petition dismissed accordingly [Paras 4-6].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – The High Court declined to entertain the PIL citing valid expert recommendation and public safety grounds – No interference warranted – Petition dismissed [Para 7].

NDPS Act – Second Bail Application – Commercial Quantity – Allegation of conscious possession – 151.6 kg of ganja recovered from intercepted DCM truck – Applicant apprehended on spot along with driver – Held: Once contraband is recovered from vehicle and accused was present therein, presumption of conscious possession applies – Burden on accused under Section 35 & 54 to rebut – Mere status as “cleaner” insufficient to displace statutory presumption – Bail rightly refused [Paras 2-3, 20-21]

Bail – Section 37 NDPS Act – Stringent Conditions – Twin requirements under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) not met – No reasonable grounds to believe applicant is not guilty – Likelihood of re-offending not ruled out – Held: Bail under NDPS Act cannot be granted unless both limbs of Section 37(1)(b) are satisfied – No special circumstances warranting deviation found [Paras 8-9, 13-14, 21-23]

Criminal Procedure – Non-filing of FSL Report with Charge Sheet – Not Fatal – Charge sheet filed on 31.12.2023 based on sufficient evidence – FSL report dated 02.12.2023 included later in case diary under Section 173(8) – Held: Non-inclusion of FSL report with charge sheet does not vitiate proceedings or entitle accused to bail – FSL report is corroborative evidence admissible under Section 293 CrPC [Paras 5-6, 14-20]

Section 52A NDPS Act – Delay or Non-Compliance – Not Ground for Bail – Supreme Court’s ruling in NCB v. Kashif (2024) reiterated – Purpose of Section 52A is early disposal of seized drugs – Lapse is procedural irregularity, not illegality – Does not vitiate prosecution case or entitle accused to bail [Paras 9-13]

Search and Seizure – Applicability of Section 50 NDPS Act – Section 50 applies only to personal search – Not applicable to search of vehicles – Argument of non-compliance with Section 50 rejected based on settled Supreme Court law [Para 17]

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Court finds no reasonable ground under Section 37 of NDPS Act to enlarge applicant on bail – Application rejected with reference to conscious possession and sufficiency of evidence including FSL report.

Real Estate Regulation – Interest for Delay – Section 18(1)(a) RERA – Interest is Automatic – Tribunal justified in awarding interest for delay in possession without inquiry – Delay in possession admitted by promoter – Interest for period 01.01.2020 to 13.10.2022 rightly granted at MCLR + 1% – Held: Section 18(1)(a) is mandatory in nature and operates without need for further adjudication where delay is established – Interpretation of phrase “as the case may be” limited to eventualities within Section 18 itself [Paras 25–32].

Appellate Tribunal Powers – Jurisdiction under Sections 44(6) and 53 – Tribunal Not Bound by CPC – Tribunal has power to grant appropriate relief including awarding interest – Held: Tribunal rightly exercised powers to modify Adjudicating Officer’s order and award interest instead of compensation – Exercise of power in conformity with object of Act and guided by principles of natural justice [Paras 26–32].

Statutory Pre-Deposit – Section 43(5) RERA – Appropriation Valid – Pre-deposit can be appropriated toward interest payable to allottee – Held: Pre-deposit is not merely procedural but represents part payment of liability – Tribunal rightly directed release of amount to allottee after verification – Refund permissible only if amount exceeds liability [Paras 33–38].

Maintainability of Appeal – Challenge to Interest on Admitted Delay – Appeal Not Maintainable – No substantial question of law involved – Held: Where facts such as date of agreement, delay, and possession are undisputed, Tribunal’s award of interest cannot be challenged under Section 58 read with Section 100 CPC – Appeal lies only on substantial question of law – Admission of delay precludes challenge [Paras 39–43].

Final Decision – All Appeals Dismissed – Promoter’s appeals dismissed for lack of merit – Allottee’s appeal also dismissed due to absence of arguments for compensation – Held: Tribunal's orders justified in law and fact – No substantial question of law arises [Para 43].

Criminal Revision – Charges under Sections 143, 341, 323, 336 & 307 IPC – Partial Relief – Petitioners challenged order framing charges including Section 307 IPC – Court held: prima facie case under Sections 143, 341, 323 and 336 IPC made out – However, no material showing intention or knowledge necessary for attempt to murder – Charge under Section 307 IPC quashed – Case transferred to CJM, Bhilwara for trial of remaining offences [Paras 18-24].

Framing of Charges – Limited Scope of Judicial Review – Sections 227 & 228 CrPC – At stage of framing charge, Court cannot weigh evidence but must ensure prima facie case – Suspicion alone insufficient; there must be grave suspicion – Trial Court erred in framing charge under Section 307 without prima facie ingredients – Revision partly allowed [Paras 19-22].

Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – Essential Ingredients Missing – Injuries on complainant Mustak and others were simple, caused by blunt objects like lathi and stones – No repeated blows on vital parts, no sharp weapons, no premeditation or motive shown – Incident was sudden fight – Held: necessary mens rea absent – Offence under Section 307 IPC not made out even prima facie [Paras 17-18, 23].

Unlawful Assembly and Simple Hurt – Sections 143, 341, 323, 336 IPC – Sustained – Witness statements and injury reports show petitioners voluntarily caused simple hurt, restrained complainants, and endangered safety by pelting stones – Prima facie offences under these provisions made out – Charges under these sections upheld [Paras 10, 23-24].

Decision – Order framing charge under Section 307 IPC set aside – Petitioners discharged from offence under Section 307 – Charges under Sections 143, 341, 323, and 336 IPC maintained – Case transferred to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara for trial – Revision petition disposed of accordingly [Paras 24-25].

Registration of Sale Deed – Role of Registering Officer – Refusal Held Illegal – The Sub-Registrar and District Registrar, Samba, refused registration of a sale deed on the ground that petitioner’s title was unclear, relying on the Advocate General’s opinion – Held: Registering Officer has no adjudicatory role to assess title – Registration cannot be refused if procedural requirements are met and there is no legal bar – Orders of refusal quashed [Paras 12-14, 17-19].

Ownership Rights – Government Order 254-C of 1965 – No Restriction on Transferability – The petitioner acquired land under Government Order No. 254-C of 1965 – Held: Such ownership is full and unrestricted – No condition prohibits sale or transfer – Reliance on Advocate General’s pending opinion without legal notification is unjustified [Paras 15-16, 18].

Rule-Making Power – Section 69 of Registration Act – Scope Limited – Any rule or instruction not covered under Section 69(1)(a) to (j) is ultra vires – Registration Rules cannot override the Act – Cited SC judgment in K. Gopi vs. Sub-Registrar declaring Rule 55A ultra vires to emphasize limited powers of Registering Officers [Paras 11, 13].

Registration Act – Procedural Compliance Sufficient – No Requirement to Prove Title – Under Sections 34, 52, and 58 of the Registration Act, 1908, registration depends on execution, identity, and procedural formalities – Held: Title disputes beyond the scope of registration proceedings – Petitioner cannot be denied registration solely due to absence of clarification from Government [Paras 6-10, 12].

Decision of Coordinate Bench – Binding Authority – Jarnail Singh Case Followed – Coordinate Bench ruling in Jarnail Singh vs. UT of J&K affirmed that ownership under Order 254-C is absolute – Held: Sub-Registrar cannot disregard this legal precedent in absence of contradictory statutory provision [Para 16].

Final Relief – Writ Allowed – Registration Directed – Impugned orders of Sub-Registrar and District Registrar set aside – Petitioner permitted to re-present the sale deed – Sub-Registrar directed to register if no other legal impediment exists [Paras 19-20].