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].

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 Law – Murder Conviction – Section 302 IPC – Upheld for Accused No. 4 – Based on testimony of four consistent eyewitnesses who specifically attributed sword blows to the accused – Minor inconsistencies held immaterial – Conviction for murder upheld despite lapses in investigation [Paras 11, 15-16].

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal of Co-Accused – Accused No. 2 Acquitted – No Direct Evidence – Conviction based solely on discovery panchnama which was not proved in accordance with law – Neither eyewitnesses nor circumstances linked him to the crime – Held: Conviction not sustainable – Acquittal ordered [Paras 12-14, 18].

Test Identification Parade – Procedural Lapses – TIP Not Trustworthy – Conduct of TIP not in accordance with law – Witnesses knew many dummy participants – No corroboration between parade and court testimony – However, in-court identification of Accused No. 4 by multiple witnesses deemed reliable – TIP discrepancies did not vitiate case against him [Paras 11(4), 12].

Discovery Evidence – Section 27 of Evidence Act – Knife Recovery Unreliable – Panch witnesses to discovery panchnama turned hostile – Investigating Officer failed to narrate full details of discovery – Recovery pertained to weapon allegedly used by another accused – Held: Discovery inadmissible and cannot form sole basis for conviction [Paras 13-14].

Police Notification – Section 135(1) of Gujarat Police Act – Notification Not Proved – Prosecution failed to produce certified copy or gazette publication of weapon prohibition order – Held: Conviction under Section 135(1) unsustainable due to non-compliance with Section 78 of Evidence Act [Para 17].

Faulty Investigation – Not a Ground for Acquittal – Though lapses occurred in identification and recovery processes, they do not override consistent eyewitness accounts – Court reiterated that faulty or negligent investigation alone does not justify acquittal if guilt is otherwise proven – Held: No interference with conviction of Accused No. 4 [Paras 10, 15].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction of Accused No. 4 under Section 302 IPC confirmed – Conviction under Section 135(1) Gujarat Police Act set aside – Accused No. 2 acquitted of all charges – State not having filed appeals against acquittals or certain IPC charges – Held: Criminal Appeal No. 1004 of 2017 allowed – Criminal Appeal No. 1149 of 2018 partly allowed [Paras 16-18].

Civil Law – Challenge to Transfer Deed on Grounds of Fraud – Validity of Declaratory Relief – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff Sansar Singh, paternal uncle of the defendants, filed suit for declaration and injunction claiming fraudulent transfer of his 1/3 share in joint property based on misrepresentation – Both Trial and First Appellate Courts held transfer deed dated 06.01.2006 to be result of fraud – High Court affirmed findings, holding that the defendant failed to prove execution by attesting witness as required under Section 68 of the Evidence Act – Further held that suit was maintainable as it was accompanied with consequential relief – Appeal dismissed [Paras 4-20].

Transfer Deed – Proof under Section 68 Evidence Act – Attesting Witnesses Not Examined – Transfer Deed Declared Void – Plaintiff Sansar Singh challenged the transfer of his 1/3 share in the suit property, claiming fraud and misrepresentation – Despite denial of execution, defendant failed to examine attesting witnesses as required under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act – Held: Burden of proof was on the defendant; non-examination of attesting witnesses rendered the transfer deed unproved and void [Paras 10-13].

Family Dispute – Fraud and Misrepresentation – Elder Uncle Deceived by Nephews – Plaintiff claimed that believing the document to be a Will, he was fraudulently induced to sign a transfer deed – Subsequent conduct of defendants, including attempt to dispossess him, confirmed fraudulent intent – Held: Courts below rightly held the transfer to be invalid due to fraud [Paras 4-7, 14-16].

Maintainability – Simplicitor Declaration Suit with Consequential Relief – Section 34 of Specific Relief Act – Appellant objected that suit was barred as it was for declaration only – Held: Suit also claimed injunction and alternative relief of joint possession – Hence, maintainable under Section 34 – Objection rejected [Paras 17-19].

Appeal – Concurrent Findings – No Illegality or Perversity – Dismissal Upheld – High Court found no error in concurrent findings of fraud and lack of valid execution – Held: Appeal devoid of merit and dismissed [Para 20].

Civil Writ - Foreigners Tribunal – Ex-Parte Declaration – Delay in Challenge – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner challenged the ex-parte opinion of the Foreigners' Tribunal after nearly six years – High Court held that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings, had appeared through counsel, and failed to adduce evidence despite multiple opportunities – Delay not justified – Petition dismissed solely on ground of laches and delay [Paras 1-4, 13, 20, 22].

Foreigners Act – Burden of Proof – Section 9 – Not Discharged – Tribunal held the petitioner failed to prove her Indian citizenship prior to 1971 as required under Section 9 – High Court observed that despite filing written statement, the petitioner failed to lead evidence, and absented herself from proceedings – Held: Petitioner failed to discharge burden imposed by law [Paras 2, 10-12, 21].

Writ Jurisdiction – Condonation of Delay – High Threshold in Citizenship Matters – Petitioner claimed poverty, illiteracy, and advocate’s inaction as cause of delay – Court held these reasons insufficient, especially when petitioner’s family members were not prevented from assisting – Held: Delay of 6 years fatal – Petitioner not entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction belatedly [Paras 5-9, 13, 16, 18-20].

COVID-19 Argument – Not Applicable – Pandemic Not a Valid Excuse – Petitioner argued delay due to COVID-19 disruption – Held: COVID limitation relief ended in 2022 – Petition filed in 2025 still barred by gross delay [Para 13].

Final Order – Writ Petition Dismissed – Opinion of Tribunal Sustained – High Court refused to interfere and directed that consequences of the Tribunal’s order would follow – Petition dismissed with directions to record the order in the Tribunal record [Paras 22-23].

Criminal Writ – Hit-and-Run Investigation – Mandamus Issued – Police Found Negligent – Petitioner sought Writ of Mandamus directing filing of charge-sheet in a fatal road accident involving her son – FIR was registered on 17/08/2022 but investigation remained stagnant – Court found initial investigation grossly negligent and directed departmental inquiry against the first IO – Charge-sheet finally filed on 07/08/2025 after court’s intervention – Petition disposed with directions for expeditious trial and liberty to seek compensation [Paras 1–12].

Police Inaction – Dereliction of Duty – Court Orders Inquiry – PSI Mr. Dnyadev Pawar, who led the investigation for two years, failed to seize key evidence including the deceased’s vehicle and ignored available e-challan records – Held: Clear case of dereliction of duty – Director General of Police directed to initiate departmental inquiry and take appropriate action under rules [Paras 8–10].

Compensation – Liberty to Approach MACT – Delay in Criminal Proceedings to Be Excluded – Since the accident involved a motor vehicle and the deceased was unmarried and earning, Court allowed liberty to Petitioner to seek compensation from MACT – Period spent before High Court and Trial Court to be excluded for computing limitation [Para 12(c)].

Expeditious Trial – One Year Timeline – Directions Issued – Trial Court directed to complete trial within one year – All parties directed to cooperate – Adjournments to be strictly limited to compelling reasons only [Para 12(a)-(d)].

Final Decision – Petition Worked Out – Rule Made Absolute – As charge-sheet was filed and investigation completed, petition deemed worked out – However, serious view taken of earlier investigative failures, and directions issued for systemic accountability [Paras 7–12].

Civil Writ - Minority Institution – Appointment Approval – Article 30 Protection – Approval Mandated – Petitioners appointed after advertisement, interviews, and panel preparation by Christian minority schools – DI rejected approval citing non-compliance with Notification No. 1314 – Held: Minority institutions protected under Article 30 have autonomy in staff appointments – Special Rules under Notification No. 641 govern such institutions – Rejection orders are arbitrary and unlawful – Writs allowed [Paras 1–32].

Constitutional Rights – Article 30(1) – Administrative Autonomy – Affirmed – Christian minority institutions enjoy constitutional autonomy in staff appointments subject only to regulatory oversight – Court reiterated principles from TMA Pai Foundation, P.A. Inamdar, and Ivy C. Da Conceicao – State’s role limited to regulatory measures, not administrative interference [Paras 10–13, 20–22, 28].

Procedural Validity – Notification No. 641 Overrides General Rules – Recruitment by Minority Schools Lawful – Special Rules under Notification No. 641 specifically empower School Committees and Founder Bodies to appoint staff – Notification No. 1314 cannot override constitutional and special rule protections – Hence, appointments made were lawful [Paras 19–21, 26–27].

Grounds of Rejection – New Grounds in Affidavit – Not Permissible – Orders Must Stand on Recorded Reasons – Court held that DI cannot supplement rejection orders with new justifications in affidavits – Action contrary to principles laid down in Mohinder Singh Gill – Validity to be judged only by original reasons [Paras 14, 30].

Final Decision – Rejection Orders Set Aside – Directions Issued – High Court set aside rejection orders dated 06.08.2009, 22.11.2019, and 18.11.2019 – Directed DI to approve petitioners’ service and pay fixation within four weeks – Writ petitions allowed [Para 32].

Criminal Law - Section 482 Cr.P.C - Inspection of Judicial Records – Enforcement Directorate’s Right – Rule 2, Chapter 16, Part C, High Court Rules – Inspection Allowed – Petitioners objected to ED inspecting IT Department’s complaint records before the Magistrate, arguing secrecy under Article 28 of Indo-French DTAA – Court held Rule 2 allows even strangers to inspect pending judicial records for sufficient cause – ED, being a statutory investigative agency under FEMA, had valid reasons – Permission to inspect upheld [Paras 4, 7].

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement – Secrecy Clause – No Absolute Bar – Reliance on Ram Jethmalani Case – Information May Be Used in Judicial Proceedings – Petitioners argued disclosure violated Article 28 of Indo-French DTAA – Court relied on Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India holding similar DTAA provisions do not create absolute secrecy and allow disclosure in judicial proceedings – Held petitioners cannot object to ED’s access; if any violation, only the contracting state could object [Paras 8, 8.1, 8.3].

Right to Privacy – Balancing with Investigative Needs – Names/Details not for Public Dissemination – Court reiterated that while right to privacy protects individuals from public disclosure of bank details, investigative agencies may access such information for inquiry – ED’s request was limited to investigation, not public dissemination – Hence permissible [Paras 8.1, 8.2].

Doctrine Against Indirect Evasion – Not Attracted – No Circumvention of Law – Petitioners relied on K. Shyam Sunder v. State of Tamil Nadu to argue ED was indirectly accessing restricted information – Court held there was no evasion, as inspection was legally permissible under High Court Rules and DTAA did not bar intra-state investigative use [Para 8.4].

Final Decision – Petitions Dismissed – ED Permitted Inspection with Safeguards – Court dismissed all petitions – Directed that ED may inspect complaint records for investigation but barred public dissemination of information without due legal process [Paras 9].

Civil Law - Commission Report – Re-inspection of Property – Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC – Remand Ordered – Petitioners (defendants) challenged Trial Court’s rejection of their request to re-entrust commission to Advocate-Commissioner to measure suit schedule property – Trial Court held re-entrustment impermissible as objections to commission report already filed – High Court held that no inquiry was conducted by Trial Court regarding why measurement was not done – Set aside impugned order and remanded for proper inquiry – Directions issued for re-consideration [Paras 1–21].

Commissioner's Report – Partial Execution – Re-entrustment Justified – Advocate-Commissioner had only recorded physical features and not measured properties due to alleged non-cooperation – Petitioners requested measurement with assistance of surveyor – Court held: If initial commission not fully executed, same commissioner can be directed to complete work, not barred by law – Reliance placed on Kushal Rao v. Shyam Rao (1997 (1) ALT 93) [Paras 16–18].

Trial Court Jurisdiction – Duty to Inquire Before Dismissal – Judicial Error – Court observed that dismissal of re-entrustment petition without inquiring into failure of commission execution amounted to procedural irregularity – Matter remanded with direction to conduct inquiry and decide whether warrant should be re-issued – Trial Court to complete process within four weeks [Paras 19–21].

Final Decision – Order Set Aside – Matter Remanded – High Court allowed revision petition, set aside order dated 29.07.2024 passed by I Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nellore – Directed trial court to conduct inquiry regarding Advocate-Commissioner’s failure to execute warrant as per terms, and decide on re-entrustment thereafter [Para 21].