Property Law – Joint Ownership – Partition – Benami Transaction Defense – Preliminary Decree – Plaintiffs sought partition of properties jointly purchased in their names and that of the defendant – Defendant claimed that he alone contributed the entire consideration and plaintiffs were only benami title holders – Court held that Sale Deeds stood in joint names and defendant failed to produce any documentary proof to show exclusive contribution – No bank statements or financial records produced by the defendant for the relevant period (1997–2000) – Defendant's admission that no evidence existed to prove his sole funding, and his reliance on Dena Bank demand draft failed to rebut presumption arising from registered Sale Deeds – Held: Burden of proof to establish benami nature of transaction lies on the party alleging it – Defendant’s plea barred under Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act – Presumption of ownership stands in favour of name-holders – Partition decree granted [Paras 10–16, 19].

Registered Title – Evidentiary Value – Burden of Proof – Registered Sale Deeds (Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3) show names of plaintiffs and defendant as joint purchasers – Defendant failed to rebut the presumption of consideration passing to joint holders – No recital in the documents indicating that defendant was sole purchaser – Held: Registered title cannot be displaced without cogent evidence – Plaintiffs entitled to their respective shares as per recorded ownership [Paras 13–16].

Civil Procedure – Preliminary Decree – Partition Relief Granted – Court held 1st Plaintiff entitled to 1/2 share in Royapuram property (Schedule A) and all three plaintiffs jointly entitled to 3/4 share in Madhavaram properties (Schedule B) – Defendant failed to establish exclusive ownership or contribution – No costs awarded due to family relationship [Paras 20–22].

Decision: Suit decreed – Preliminary decree for partition passed – 1st Plaintiff entitled to 1/2 share in Schedule A property – Plaintiffs 1 to 3 jointly entitled to 3/4 share in Schedule B properties – No order as to costs.

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Sections 125 and 128 CrPC - Recovery of Arrears – Attachment of PPF Account – Magistrate ordered attachment of Rs.19.17 lakhs from account allegedly held by petitioner’s mother – Petitioners contended the account was immune from attachment under Sections 3 and 9 of the Public Provident Fund Act – Court rejected claim and held that PPF protection applies only to compulsory provident fund contributions and not voluntary PPF deposits – Alleged diversion of funds by husband to mother’s account after knowledge of attachment proceedings proved from record – Held: Attachment valid and not violative of statutory protection under PPF Act [Paras 3–6].

Maintenance Liability – Not a Debt Under PPF Act – Petitioners contended maintenance dues were a “debt” and thus exempt from recovery through PPF under Section 9 – Court held that maintenance is a legal and moral obligation and not a financial liability incurred in the course of business or borrowing – Hence, recovery through attachment of PPF account not barred – Protective shield under Section 9 meant to safeguard subscribers from creditors, not spouses seeking maintenance [Para 6].

Execution of Maintenance Order – Abuse of Process to Defeat Enforcement – Court found that petitioner had closed eight of his own accounts and transferred funds to mother's name to frustrate recovery proceedings – Such conduct held to be mala fide – No relief granted to petitioner who acted with intent to defeat lawful enforcement of maintenance order [Para 5].

Finality of Magistrate’s Order – Appeal Dismissed – Original Petition under Article 227 Filed Despite Finality – Sessions Court had already dismissed petitioners’ appeal against Magistrate’s order on 02.07.2025 – No further challenge made – Court held that once order attains finality, collateral challenge under Article 227 not maintainable – Petition rendered infructuous on this ground alone [Para 7].

Decision: Original Petition dismissed – Magistrate's order directing attachment of PPF deposit upheld – Petitioners’ attempt to obstruct enforcement of maintenance order found mala fide and lacking legal merit – Held: Legal protection under PPF Act not available against enforcement of maintenance orders passed under CrPC [Para 7].

Bail – Gangster Act – Second Bail Application – Rejection for Lack of New Grounds – Applicant sought bail under Section 2/3 of the Gangster Act after rejection of earlier application – Criminal history of 11 cases spanning from 2013 to 2023 including prior Gangster Act charges – No new grounds urged beyond continued incarceration and parity with co-accused – Held: Mere parity or passage of time not sufficient – No new material to satisfy Section 19(4)(b) – Bail rejected [Paras 2, 4, 8-10].

Criminal Law – Bail – Requirement under Section 19(4)(b) of Gangster Act – Court reiterated that before granting bail under the Act, it must be satisfied that accused is not guilty and not likely to reoffend – Applicant's criminal antecedents and recurrence of charges under the Gangster Act indicate he remains a threat to society – Satisfaction under Section 19(4)(b) not recorded – Bail rightly refused [Paras 6-7, 9].

Successive Bail Applications – No Change in Circumstances – Not Maintainable – Relying on precedent Satya Pal v. State of U.P., 1998 (37) ACC 287 and State of Maharashtra v. Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2292 – Court held that unless substantial change in fact situation is shown, successive bail application not maintainable – Filing repeated applications with same grounds held to be abuse of process [Paras 7-8].

Criminal History – Consideration for Bail – Threat to Society – Applicant had history of repeated offences including under Cow Slaughter Act, Arms Act, IPC and earlier Gangster Act charges – Bail denied citing threat to public order and possibility of further offences – Public interest outweighs individual liberty in such cases [Paras 7, 9].

Decision: Second bail application rejected – No new or substantial ground shown – Long criminal history and repeated invocation of Gangster Act noted – Satisfaction under Section 19(4)(b) not possible – Applicant deemed threat to society if released [Para 10].

Civil Law – Fraudulent Decree – Family Settlement – Registration Requirement – Limitation – Concurrent findings upheld – Decree dated 01.04.1988 held fraudulent as Smt. Ram Bhuli never appeared, signed, or engaged counsel – No pre-existing right in appellant; decree compulsorily registerable – Unregistered consent decree conveys no title – Plaintiffs proved as natural heirs – Suit within limitation under Art. 65 – Fraud vitiates all proceedings – RSA dismissed [Paras 38–48].

Fraud – Proof and Effect – Decree obtained through deception – Evidence showed Smt. Ram Bhuli never appeared in Court, signed pleadings, verified written statement, or engaged counsel – Power of attorney and written statement bore no advocate’s endorsement or verification – Proceedings manipulated behind her back – Held: decree dated 01.04.1988 obtained by fraud; fraud vitiates even the most solemn proceedings – Applies Chengalvaraya Naidu principle [Paras 10, 39–41].

Consent Decree – Requirement of Registration – Where decree purports to transfer immovable property above ₹100 to a person having no pre-existing right, registration is mandatory under Section 17(1)(b) Registration Act – Appellant, a daughter-in-law of brother of Smt. Ram Bhuli, had no antecedent right – Decree operated as instrument of transfer – Being unregistered, conveyed no title – Bachan Singh and Dhian Singh distinguished as involving genuine family settlements between persons with pre-existing rights [Paras 16, 39–40, 42, 46].

Family Settlement – Non-existence – No pleadings or evidence of any family arrangement – Appellant had no pre-existing right; relationship too remote – Alleged settlement an afterthought – Cannot validate a fraudulent or unregistered decree [Paras 39–40].

Limitation – Date of Knowledge – Plaintiffs discovered decree only after death of Smt. Ram Bhuli in 1993 on approaching revenue authorities – Suit filed in 1995 within 12-year period under Article 65 – Void decree need not be cancelled under Article 59 – Follows Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi, 2025 (SC) – Limitation correctly computed by courts below [Paras 12, 34, 43].

Estoppel – Mutation – No estoppel against statute or fraud – Mutation entries do not confer title – Fraudulent decree being void, all proceedings including mutation fall automatically – Estoppel plea rejected [Para 44].

Heirs – Locus Standi – Once decree found void and property remained vested in Smt. Ram Bhuli, her heirs were entitled to challenge fraudulent decree after her death – Cause of action arose upon gaining knowledge – Plaintiffs held rightful heirs based on oral and documentary evidence including mutation No. 2158 [Paras 9, 12, 45].

Concurrent Findings – Second Appeal – Findings of both courts based on proper appraisal of evidence; no perversity shown – RSA Court declines to interfere – Concurrent findings affirmed [Paras 38, 47–48].

Decision – Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Decree dated 01.04.1988 declared void, unlawful, unregistered; plaintiffs entitled to possession of 1/3rd share – Judgments of Trial Court & First Appellate Court upheld – Pending applications disposed [Paras 48–49].

Civil Writ - Constitutional Law – Right to Property – Article 300-A – Land Taken Without Compensation – TDR Certificates Directed – Petitioners executed gift deed for 405 sq. yards of land in 2014 for road widening—Respondents denied compensation or TDR on ground that land was voluntarily gifted as condition for building permission – Court held there was no record showing waiver of compensation or that gift deed was a pre-condition for permission – Held: Petitioners were entitled to TDR certificates as land was taken for public purpose without due compensation, violating Article 300-A of the Constitution [Paras 1–2, 14–20].

Municipal Law – Land Surrender for Public Purpose – Gift Deed Does Not Bar Compensation – Municipal Corporation relied on the gift deed and petitioners’ development benefits to deny compensation – Court ruled that gift deed cannot be used to override constitutional right to fair compensation for public acquisition – Building permission and constructed area allotted to petitioners were held irrelevant to the compensation claim [Paras 7–9, 15, 19].

Property Law – Voluntariness and Coercion in Development Agreements – Gift Deed Not Truly Voluntary When Conditioned on Official Permissions – Court noted that even if any affidavit or undertaking was taken from the petitioners to waive compensation, such documents would not amount to voluntary consent if extracted as a condition for development approval – Such undertakings were held unenforceable and contrary to constitutional protections [Para 17].

Reliance on Precedents – Compensation for Public Acquisition Must Be Fair and Just – Court relied on Bommadevara Venkata Subba Rao v. State of A.P. and Kolkata Municipal Corpn. v. Bimal Kumar Shah – Reaffirmed that even if right to property is no longer fundamental, it remains a constitutional right—State cannot forcibly acquire land without compensation [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Respondents directed to calculate eligibility and issue TDR Certificates to petitioners within 8 weeks – No order as to costs.

Senior Citizens’ Rights – Eviction from Self-Acquired Property – Peaceful Living and Dignity – Appeal by daughter-in-law against decree directing her eviction from in-laws' property – Respondents, aged parents-in-law, pleaded mental distress and toxic cohabitation due to acrimonious matrimonial dispute – Held: Senior citizens, as undisputed owners of self-acquired property, are entitled to live peacefully with dignity and can seek eviction of daughter-in-law when alternate accommodation is offered under Section 19(1)(f) of PWDV Act – Right of residence is not an indefeasible right to remain in the same premises [Paras 1, 6–8, 24–27, 33–34, 39–40]

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act – Right of Residence – Shared Household – Appellant claimed suit property as her shared household under Section 2(s) PWDV Act and challenged decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Held: Right under Section 17 is not absolute or proprietary – Where senior citizens provide suitable alternate accommodation, eviction is permissible – Statutory right of residence does not override lawful ownership [Paras 28–31, 35–36]

Decree on Admission – Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Appellant admitted ownership of suit property – Sole defence was shared household status – Court held no real triable issue existed and decree was rightly passed on admission, considering offer of alternate residence [Paras 29–32]

Alternate Accommodation – Adequacy and Parity – Respondents offered rent-capped alternate residence with allied expenses covered – Appellant’s demand for equivalence in size and configuration rejected – Held: Purpose of alternate accommodation is to ensure safety and dignity, not parity in luxury – A two-bedroom flat in comparable locality deemed sufficient [Paras 34–38, 42]

Balance of Rights – PWDV Act vs. MWPSC Act – Court affirmed that both statutory protections must co-exist – Woman’s right to shelter must be balanced against senior citizens’ right to peaceful living – Civil suit not barred by prior proceedings under special statutes – Decree achieves just equilibrium [Paras 39–41, 44]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Directions of Single Judge upheld – Appellant to be provided two-bedroom alternate accommodation with rent up to Rs. 65,000/month and associated costs – Appellant to vacate suit property within two weeks of offer [Paras 42–45]

Criminal Law – Quashing - Defamation – Social Media Defamation – Creation of Fake Online Profiles – Prima Facie Case Made Out – Allegation that petitioner created fake social media accounts portraying respondent as a prostitute and posting derogatory content – Such material accessible to public at large constitutes publication and attracts Section 499 IPC – If proved, allegations are defamatory – Held: Trial Court justified in taking cognizance and framing charges [Paras 2, 4].

Information Technology Act – Section 66C & 66D – Identity Theft – Impersonation – Creating Fake Social Media Account in Respondent’s Name – Acts amount to prima facie offences under Sections 66C (identity theft) and 66D (cheating by personation) – Offensive and sexually explicit portrayal attracts consideration under Section 67A – No ground to quash proceedings at threshold [Para 4].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of Proceedings – High Threshold – Allegations disputed by the accused cannot be examined in quashing jurisdiction – Whether petitioner actually created accounts is a matter of trial – Sworn statement and preliminary material support cognizance – No perversity in order framing charges – Petition dismissed [Paras 3-5].

Family/Matrimonial Disputes – Online Harassment of Sister-in-law – Posting derogatory content during matrimonial discord – Court notes allegations are serious and cannot be brushed aside as mere family quarrel – Material shows “public domain” posts leading to wide circulation [Paras 2, 4].

Decision – Criminal Petition Dismissed – Proceedings in C.C. No. 16087/2022 to continue before the I ACMM, Bengaluru [Para 5].

Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – POCSO Conviction – Acquittal – Allegation that accused committed sexual assault on 13-year-old girl by hugging and kissing her in a field – Victim’s initial statement to aunt was that she fell down – Complaint made two days later alleging sexual assault – Delay in complaint explained as concern for family honour – Trial court convicted accused under Section 8 of POCSO Act and Section 354A(2) IPC – On appeal, High Court found victim's version had evolved over time with inconsistencies and lacked corroboration – Allegation of enmity arising out of local election dispute supported by defence evidence including medical record showing assault on accused's mother a day prior to the alleged incident – Held: Delay in filing FIR and contradictions in victim’s version made prosecution case doubtful – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 3–5, 13–20, 28–30].

Presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act – Rebuttal – Accused produced evidence of prior assault by victim's family due to local body election rivalry – Accused’s mother injured and admitted in hospital one day prior to alleged assault – Certified medical record (Ex.D2) and testimony of defence witnesses including elected panchayat member (DW2) corroborated the version – High Court held accused had successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 29 – Trial court failed to properly consider defence evidence – Acquittal justified [Paras 21–27, 30].

Criminal Procedure – Appreciation of Evidence – Delay in lodging complaint – Alleged incident on 05.01.2020 but FIR filed on 07.01.2020 – Police station just 10 km away – Delay not properly explained in the context of election violence and counter-allegations – Court held such unexplained delay significant and fatal to the prosecution case in present facts – Tutoring and exaggeration in victim’s statement evident – Held: Trial court erred in convicting by applying presumption without evaluating credibility of evidence [Paras 15–18, 28–30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused acquitted of all charges – Fine to be refunded – Victim compensation not disturbed [Para 31].

Contempt of Court – Fraud on Court – Forgery – Abuse of Judicial Process – Husband of the appellant impersonated her and filed writ petition and writ appeal using forged signatures without her knowledge – Interim orders obtained based on misrepresentation – Court held this to be a gross abuse of process amounting to criminal contempt – Directed initiation of contempt proceedings under relevant provisions of law [Paras 1–17].

Misconduct by Advocate – Breach of High Court Rules – Advocate filed pleadings attesting signatures of the appellant without verifying her presence – Violated Rules 76 and 79 of the High Court Rules – Court permitted the appellant to initiate action against the advocate before appropriate forums [Paras 5, 11, 19].

Passport Law – Non-Disclosure of Criminal Case – Justification for Show-Cause Notice – Husband renewed passport from Indian Consulate, Dubai, without disclosing a pending criminal case – Show-cause notice issued under Sections 10(3)(b) and 10(3)(e) of the Passport Act upheld – Authorities permitted to proceed further in accordance with law after dismissal of the writ appeal [Paras 2, 20].

Immigration Law – Disobedience of Court Order – Attempt to Flee Country – Despite subsisting court direction not to travel abroad without permission, appellant’s husband attempted to fly to Dubai – Was offloaded by immigration authorities – Held: Attempt amounted to contempt and highlighted disregard for judicial authority [Paras 14, 21].

Costs – Exemplary Costs for Fraud and Misuse of Court Time – Rs. 1.5 lakhs directed to be paid to Kerala Legal Services Authority for abuse of judicial process – Additional Rs. 1.5 lakhs imposed as compensation to the appellant for mental agony and dragging her into litigation without consent [Para 16].

Decision: Writ appeal dismissed – Costs of Rs. 3 lakhs imposed on Shibu Mohan – Registry directed to initiate criminal contempt proceedings – Appellant allowed to pursue complaint and action against counsel – Travel restrictions on Shibu Mohan to continue until contempt case is heard.