Civil Law – Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Rejection of Amendment Application set aside – Plaintiffs sought to amend plaint to include property details and elaborate coparcenary claim – High Court held that trial had not commenced as affidavit of evidence had not been tendered – Delay alone not sufficient to deny amendment – Amendment allowed subject to cost – Learned Single Judge erred in treating amendment as mala fide without supporting material [Paras 9, 19, 23]

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Suit – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Trial Court dismissed suit without trial citing prior judicial admission and law post-Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Held: Dismissal without permitting parties to lead evidence was improper – Suit raised arguable questions of fact and law regarding nature of properties and formation of coparcenary – Pleadings sufficiently disclosed cause of action [Paras 16, 21]

Hindu Law – Coparcenary – Ancestral Property – Plaintiffs claimed partition based on Mitakshara law, asserting property devolved from forefathers and retained ancestral character – Court held that such assertions require factual determination – Premature to dismiss suit on basis of legal assumption or prior compromise by one defendant without trial [Paras 5, 21–22]

Civil Procedure – Discretion of Court – Costs and Interim Orders – Learned Single Judge erred in requiring plaintiffs to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs as condition to maintain suit – Also erred in linking amendment rejection to subsistence of interim orders – Court emphasized that procedural defects and interim reliefs cannot override substantive adjudication of claims [Paras 24–25]

Decision: Appeals allowed – Order dated 12.08.2016 rejecting Amendment Application and dismissing suit set aside – Suit restored to original number – Amendment allowed on payment of Rs. 25,000/- as cost – Parties to appear before learned Single Judge (Roster Bench) on 11.11.2025.

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – Reversal of Acquittal – Accused Gulab stabbed victim Raju during a scuffle while co-accused held the victim – Trial Court acquitted all four accused citing inconsistencies and lack of recovery – High Court held that intention to kill was not clearly made out but injury with sharp weapon and testimony of injured victim established offence under Section 324 IPC – Judgment of acquittal set aside – All accused convicted under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 1–30]

Evidence – Injured Witness – Credibility – Testimony of injured Raju (PW-2) corroborated by PW-3 and PW-4 – Minor inconsistencies and contradictions in witness accounts held immaterial – High Court reaffirmed principle that injured witnesses are generally more reliable and their testimony cannot be discarded lightly in absence of major contradictions [Paras 13–19]

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Scope – Co-accused held victim while main assailant delivered knife blow – Though there was no pre-planned attack, co-accused did not prevent the stabbing and facilitated the act – Held: Their conduct established common intention to cause injury – All liable under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 24–28]

Investigation – Defective Investigation – Lapses in seizure, non-examination of public witnesses, and recovery of weapon – Held: Such lapses, though present, were not fatal to prosecution case – Credible evidence from victim and corroborative testimony sufficient to sustain conviction [Paras 22–23]

Sentence – Delay and Time Already Undergone – Incident occurred in 1998 – Appeal pending since 2002 – Accused had spent some time in custody during trial – Considering long passage of time, High Court sentenced accused to period already undergone [Para 31]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Acquittal set aside – All four accused convicted under Section 324/34 IPC – Sentenced to period already undergone – Appeal disposed of.

Criminal Law – Rape – Consent Based on Promise of Marriage – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant convicted under Sections 376 and 415 IPC for allegedly raping the complainant under a false promise of marriage – Evidence revealed complainant was above 20 years at the time of the incident – Admitted romantic relationship between the parties – Repeated sexual acts over time without immediate complaint – No medical or documentary evidence of pregnancy or abortion – No proof that promise of marriage was false from inception – Held: Consent was not obtained under misconception of fact – Physical relationship was consensual – Conviction for rape and cheating unsustainable – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 17–34, 38–50, 52].

Delay in Complaint – Continued Relationship – Effect on Credibility – No prompt complaint made despite alleged repeated sexual assault – Continued voluntary association of complainant with the accused over 2–3 years – Conduct inconsistent with allegation of rape – Held: Long silence and continued physical intimacy undermine veracity of claim – Raises strong presumption of consensual relationship [Paras 24, 32–34, 45–46].

False Promise of Marriage – Distinction Between Breach of Promise and Deception – Reiterated that not every breach of promise results in rape – False promise must be shown to be mala fide from inception – Where relationship is consensual and failure to marry occurs later due to unforeseen reasons, offence of rape not made out – Evidence showed relationship was affectionate, with intention to marry, though marriage ultimately did not happen [Paras 28–30, 49–51].

Medical Evidence – Non-examination of Material Witness – Effect – Victim alleged abortion due to pregnancy from accused – Claimed herbal medicine was given by one Bina Devi – Prosecution failed to examine Bina Devi or produce medical proof of pregnancy or abortion – Held: Serious gap in prosecution case – Adverse inference drawn for non-examination of crucial witness under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act [Paras 38–41].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant discharged from bail bonds – Directed to furnish bail under Section 437A CrPC for six months.

Civil Procedure – Valuation of Suit – Court Fee – Petitioners sought framing of additional issue on under-valuation of suit and direction to plaintiffs to pay court fee on market value – Plaintiffs claimed agricultural land valued under Section 7(2)(b) of the Karnataka Court Fees Act – Trial Court held valuation proper and dismissed IAs 11 & 12 – Held: Possession suit for agricultural property properly valued under Section 29 read with Section 7(2)(b) – No ground to interfere – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 6–9, 11].

Court Fees Act – Possession Suit – Market Value Determination – Agricultural land measuring 15 guntas with paddy field and farmhouse – Held: Suit for possession of such land falls under Section 29 of the Court Fees Act – Market value deemed under Section 7(2)(b), not actual market price – Valuation and court fee payment by plaintiffs found in accordance with law [Paras 7–9].

Civil Litigation – Abuse of Process – Petitioners had earlier filed O.S. No. 115/2004 for declaration and injunction for same property and paid nominal court fee under Section 24(b) – Held: Petitioners cannot object to similar valuation method now adopted by plaintiffs – Conduct undermines their claim for revaluation [Para 10].

Constitutional Law – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Scope – High Court declined to interfere with well-reasoned trial court order rejecting interlocutory applications – Reiterated limited scope under Article 227 – No perversity or legal error shown [Para 11].

Decision:

Writ Petition dismissed – Trial Court’s order upheld – No interference warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution [Para 11].

Partition Suit – Nature of Property – Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 6 vs. Section 8 – Plaintiff claimed that her grandfather’s properties were self-acquired and sought partition—Defendants contended that the properties were ancestral and already partitioned by a registered deed dated 19.12.1973—Held: Plaintiff failed to prove that properties were self-acquired—Father of plaintiff died before commencement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956—Properties held to be ancestral—Daughter not entitled to claim under Section 8—Registered partition of 1973 satisfied Section 6(5) Explanation—No right to reopen partition—Point No.1 answered against appellant [Paras 13–20].

Partial Partition and Non-Joinder – Though plaintiff attacked 1973 partition, she sought division only of properties allotted to her father, not those of her uncle—Such conduct amounts to admission of the earlier partition—Trial Court erred in treating the suit as bad for partial partition and non-joinder—Held: Finding on partial partition and non-joinder set aside—Point No.2 in favour of plaintiff [Para 21].

Limitation – Knowledge of Partition – Article 113 Limitation Act – Plaintiff claimed ignorance of 1973 partition until 2020—Cross-examination revealed awareness of partition during brother’s lifetime—Suit filed after nearly 50 years—Held: Even applying Article 113, cause of action arose in 1973—Claim extinguished under Section 27 of Limitation Act—Suit barred by limitation—Point No.3 against appellant [Paras 22–25].

Appeal – Maintainability – Decree of Dismissal – Trial Court rightly dismissed the claim as time-barred and unsupported by evidence—Appeal dismissed—No order as to costs in view of close family relationship [Para 26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court affirmed – No order as to costs.

Criminal Procedure – PMLA – Stay of Proceedings – Predicate Offence Under Challenge – Trial May Proceed – Petitioner sought deferment of PMLA trial on ground that proceedings in predicate offence (NDPS FIR No.35/2015) remain stayed by Supreme Court – Petitioner had been initially summoned under Section 319 CrPC, which was set aside by Supreme Court – Later nominated as accused on further investigation – Petitioner challenged arrest and chargesheet; SLP pending – Enforcement Directorate opposed deferment, citing settled conviction of co-accused (Gurdev Singh) in predicate offence – Held: Since scheduled offence stands established through conviction of other accused, trial under PMLA not dependent on pending challenge to petitioner’s role in predicate offence – [Paras 6, 7, 8, 9, 11]

PMLA – Independent Offence – Not Contingent on Outcome of Scheduled Offence – Referring to Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1 and Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1586, Court held that offence under Section 3 PMLA is independent – Person accused under PMLA need not be named in predicate offence – What is essential is existence of proceeds of crime and a predicate offence – Acquittal/discharge in predicate offence of all accused may impact PMLA case, but pendency of trial against petitioner does not bar independent prosecution under PMLA – [Paras 8–9]

Criminal Law – PMLA – Trial Not Dependent on Pending Challenge to Predicate Offence – Allegations against petitioner are that he assisted co-accused (already convicted) in laundering proceeds of crime from drug trafficking – Complaint under PMLA preceded supplementary chargesheet in predicate offence – Held: Trial for money laundering can proceed regardless of pendency of SLP or stay of proceedings in predicate offence – [Paras 6–10]

Distinction from Other Cases – Application of Bharti Cement Case Not Applicable – Telangana High Court judgment in M/s Bharti Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement distinguished – There, same person was accused in both predicate and PMLA offences – Here, petitioner is accused of laundering proceeds after scheduled offence was committed by co-accused already convicted – Therefore, trial in PMLA case not dependent on fresh adjudication in predicate offence – [Para 10]

Decision: Petition dismissed – No stay granted – Trial in money laundering case (PMLA) may proceed independently of the trial in the scheduled offence.

PIL - Constitutional Validity of the Kerala Finance Act, 2025 Court Fees – Constitutional Validity of Amendment – Legislative Competence – Entry 3 List II – Kerala Finance Act, 2025 upheld – Petitioner Association challenged the amendment to the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 via the Kerala Finance Act, 2025 on grounds of arbitrariness and excessive burden – Held: State has legislative competence under Entry 3, List II of Seventh Schedule – Court recognised economic legislation must be judged with judicial restraint – Revisions made after long intervals (up to 63 years in some categories) are reasonable and justified [Paras 1–3, 15–16, 25, 41].

Article 14 – No Unreasonable Classification – Section 73A Exempting Government from Court Fees Valid – Petitioner challenged Section 73A granting Government exemption from court fees as arbitrary – Held: Provision upheld by previous Division Bench in Human Rights Protection Forum v. State of Kerala – Reasonable classification exists as State pays into its own exchequer – No fresh material to re-examine the settled view – Challenge dismissed [Paras 9–11, 49].

Article 21 – Access to Justice – No Violation by Enhanced Court Fees – Petitioner argued increased court fees restrict access to justice – Held: No concrete data or individual cases presented to show denial of access – Mere enhancement not violative of Article 21 – State's power to revise fees includes consideration of inflation, devaluation, judicial infrastructure costs – Right of access not absolute in fee context [Paras 22–24, 42–44].

Ad Valorem Fees – No Change in Rate – Challenge Not Pressed – Court held there was no change in percentage of ad valorem fees; only computation base modified – Petitioners conceded and did not press this point further – Hence, challenge to ad valorem fees rejected [Paras 13–14, 49].

Justice V.K. Mohanan Committee Report – Validity of Fee Revision Process – Report formed part of legislative background – Allegations of perfunctory process and arbitrary reasoning rejected – Revision based on long-standing stagnation, inflation, increased judicial expenditure – No requirement of mathematical correlation – Broad nexus between revenue and judicial cost sufficient [Paras 20–24, 28–29, 34–35, 41].

Public Interest Litigation – No Material to Justify Challenge – Blanket Challenge Unfounded – Petitioner failed to specify which classes or litigants were affected – Court emphasised need for precise pleading and evidence in PILs challenging legislation – No individual litigants or hardship shown – Challenge dismissed [Paras 43–45].

Court Fees and Infrastructure – Fee Collection Intended for Judicial Administration – Not General Revenue – State showed budgetary allocation for judiciary has grown significantly while court fee revenue lags – Consistent with All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India – Court fees validly levied to support justice delivery [Paras 32–33, 39].

Anticipatory Bail Applications – Specific Challenge Deferred – Court Fee Increase Not Unreasonable Per Se – Challenge to ₹500 court fee for anticipatory bail not substantiated – Court left issue open for adjudication in appropriate individual cases [Para 46].

Provision for Exemptions – Special Categories Protected – Financial Hardship Addressed in Act – Sections 72–75 of the Act of 1959 allow fee exemptions or remissions for weaker sections (SC/ST, women, poor, ex-servicemen, NGOs, etc.) – State Government empowered to notify additional remissions [Para 47–48].

Decision: Writ Petition Dismissed – No violation of Articles 14 or 21 found – Amendment Act upheld as valid legislative exercise – Petitioners directed to approach State Government if any category of litigants requires exemption or relief – [Paras 50–52].

Civil Procedure – Impleadment of Parties – Plaintiff’s Discretion – In a suit for permanent injunction and compensation filed by the petitioner, third-party villagers claiming communal interest in the land were permitted to be impleaded as defendants by the Trial Court – Court below justified the order only on ground of avoiding multiplicity of litigation – Held: Plaintiff is dominus litis and cannot be compelled to implead parties against whom no relief is sought – Where existing defendants have already raised identical pleas, presence of third-party interveners is not necessary – No independent stand or distinct legal interest shown by proposed parties – Impleadment held unjustified [Paras 7, 10-15].

Order 1 Rule 10 CPC – Scope – Addition of parties permissible only if necessary for effective adjudication – Repetition of existing pleadings by proposed parties not a valid ground – Trial Court failed to give cogent reasoning or satisfy test of necessity – Impleadment solely to prevent future litigation not a legally sustainable basis [Paras 10, 12, 14].

Plaintiff as Dominus Litis – Right to Choose Adversary – Plaintiff not claiming relief against third-party applicants – Law settled that plaintiff is the master of the suit – Addition of parties must be judicially justified and cannot be compelled by opposing defendants – Cited Supreme Court and High Court rulings reaffirm this legal position [Paras 7, 12].

Distinguished Case Law – Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021) 6 SCC 418 distinguished – Impleadment in that case arose at execution stage and was based on Commissioner's report – Held not applicable to trial-stage impleadment where no relief is claimed against proposed parties [Para 13].

Decision: Petition allowed – Trial Court's order permitting impleadment set aside – Application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by third-party villagers dismissed [Para 15].

Service Law – Terminal Benefits – Right to Gratuity – Delay in Payment – Liability of Employer – Withholding of terminal dues of retired employees on ground that PACS had not remitted its share to DCCB – Petitioners, all senior citizens, rendered unblemished service and retired between 2009 and 2013 – Held: Right to gratuity is a statutory and enforceable right under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act – Delay in payment without legal justification violates Sections 4 and 7 – Interest @10% awarded from due date till payment [Paras 24–28].

Administrative Law – State Liability – Article 12 Entities – DCCB and PACS held to be 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution – Financial incapacity of PACS cannot be accepted as defence against statutory obligation – Both entities held jointly and severally liable – Respondents directed to release terminal dues within 8 weeks with liberty to recover inter-se [Paras 34–36, 41(i)-(ii)].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 and Article 300-A – Right to Property and Livelihood – Denial of pensionary and terminal dues without due process held violative of Articles 21 and 300-A – Refusal to disburse terminal benefits without lawful justification affects right to dignity and life – Reference made to SC precedents in Deokinandan Prasad, D.S. Nakara, Gagan Bihari Prusty – Right to pension and gratuity treated as enforceable constitutional property right [Paras 29–33, 39].

Elderly Rights – Protection of Senior Citizens – Petitioners aged and vulnerable – Court deprecated prolonged denial of retirement benefits and noted decline in societal values concerning dignity of aged persons – Stressed need to uphold welfare of retired employees who served without blemish – Symbolic costs of ₹10,000 imposed on each respondent in favour of petitioners [Paras 37–38, 41(iii)].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – DCCB directed to release all terminal benefits with 10% interest within 8 weeks – Liberty to recover share from PACS – Respondents directed to pay ₹10,000 each as costs to petitioners – Delay and financial incapacity no ground to deny statutory and constitutional entitlements [Paras 41–42].