Civil Law - Title and Possession – Dismissal Confirmed – The appellants (plaintiffs) sought declaration of title, possession, and alternatively partition, over land alleged to be part of a tank acquired by their father – Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently found that the defendants were in possession for over 25 years, pursuant to a 1984 family partition, and plaintiffs failed to prove title or possession – Revenue records relied upon by plaintiffs were held insufficient to establish title – The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC – Second appeal dismissed, confirming concurrent findings [Paras 1–3, 14–26].

Title Suit – Declaration and Possession – Plaintiffs Must Prove Their Own Title – Plaintiffs failed to establish legal ownership or entitlement over the suit land – Defendants proved possession under 1984 partition – Held: In a suit for declaration, plaintiffs must succeed on the strength of their own title and cannot rely on weakness of defendant’s case – Courts below rightly rejected claim [Paras 14, 18, 24].

Adverse Possession – Long Possession by Defendants – Suit Barred – Plaintiffs approached Court after over 25 years – Defendants in open, uninterrupted possession since 1984 – Held: Plaintiffs lost any right over suit land by efflux of time – Suit barred by limitation under Article 65 of Limitation Act [Paras 19, 21, 24].

Unregistered Partition Deed – Ex.B.3 – Admissible as Memorandum of Oral Partition – Partition deed though unregistered was treated as proof of earlier oral partition – Plaintiffs’ witnesses admitted to 1984 partition and continuous possession by defendants – Held: Courts below rightly relied on Ex.B.3 to establish family division [Paras 16, 18].

Co-ownership – Not Established – Plaintiffs and Defendants Not Co-heirs – Plaintiffs not entitled to claim partition or joint possession – Held: Presumption of joint possession or claim of co-heirship not applicable – Alternative relief of partition rightly rejected [Paras 22-23].

Revenue Records – Not Proof of Title – Exs.A1, A2, A6-A9 – Pattadar passbooks and adangals held insufficient to prove legal title or possession – Held: Such records do not confer ownership in absence of supporting title deed or consistent possession [Para 21].

Section 100 CPC – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings Upheld – Courts below applied correct legal principles – Held: High Court cannot re-appreciate facts unless findings are perverse or legally flawed – No such error found – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 14-15, 25-26].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court confirmed – No costs awarded – Plaintiffs failed to prove title or possession after 25 years of inaction [Para 26].

Tender Process – Allegation of Cartelisation – No Illegality Proven – Contract Upheld – The writ petition challenged the award of a work contract to Taibin Warjri on grounds that all other bidders had quoted the same price and colluded to back out, leaving the field open – The Single Judge found the process non-transparent and ordered a fresh tender – The Division Bench held that although the process lacked ideal transparency, no direct proof of cartelisation existed – Held: Award of tender not illegal or arbitrary; contract upheld in public interest.

Legitimate Expectation – Exclusion from Final Negotiation – Compensation Awarded – The appellant Odimar Syiemsad, though bidding ₹1 above others, was not invited to the negotiation meeting – The Court found that exclusion unjustified and deprived him of a fair opportunity to compete – Held: Odimar Syiemsad entitled to compensation of ₹21,59,242 (7.5% of contract value) for denial of legitimate expectation.

Judicial Review – Caution in Interference with Government Tenders – Only Gross Irregularities Warrant Action – The Court reiterated that tender evaluations are commercial decisions and interference is warranted only where the decision is grossly arbitrary or against public interest – Held: Procedural imperfections do not justify judicial interference unless public interest is harmed.

Scope of Writ Appeals – First Appellate Jurisdiction – Findings of Fact Can Be Reappraised – Unlike limited intra-court review, writ appeals before the Division Bench under Chapter V are full-fledged appeals where factual and legal findings of Single Judge may be re-evaluated – Held: Division Bench entitled to substitute findings where justified.

Final Judgment – Contract Sustained – Partial Work Executed – Compensation Directed – The Court acknowledged that work amounting to 7.29% had already been completed without an interim stay – Cancelling the entire tender would be unjust to the contractor – Held: Judgment of Single Judge set aside – Contract upheld – Monetary compensation awarded to aggrieved bidder – Appeals partly allowed.

Service Law – Academic Arrangement Lecturers – Constitutional Validity of Exclusion from Regularization – Upheld – Petitioners appointed on academic arrangement basis sought regularization and struck down of Section 3(b), 10(2), and 10(2A) of the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 – Held: Classification excluding academic arrangement appointees from regularization is not arbitrary – It has rational nexus with object of Act which is to regularize only those engaged against clear vacancies on ad hoc, contractual, or consolidated basis – Article 14 does not mandate equal treatment for unequals – Section 3(b) and related provisions held constitutionally valid [Paras 24–29].

Nature of Appointment – Academic Arrangement vs Ad hoc/Contractual – Distinction Determined – Appointments made against sanctioned posts and continued year after year either through limited selection or court intervention held to be contractual and consolidated in nature – Such appointments qualify for regularization under the Act of 2010 – Academic arrangement nomenclature not determinative – Substance of engagement considered over form [Paras 30–33].

Relief Granted – Directions for Regularization – High Court directs constitution of High-Level Committee to identify eligible appointees – Only those engaged prior to the commencement of the Act of 2010 against clear vacancies and completed 7 years of continuous service found eligible – Regularization to be prospective or retrospective based on date of eligibility – Future academic arrangements against clear vacancies prohibited – Committee to explore creation of additional teaching posts and refer vacancies to Public Service Commission [Paras 36–37].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed in Part – Tribunal’s judgment partially set aside – Section 3(b), 10(2), and 10(2A) upheld as valid – However, petitioners engaged prior to the Act on sanctioned posts held entitled to benefit of regularization – Matter remitted to committee for scrutiny and implementation of regularization exercise [Paras 29, 36–37].

Motor Accident Claim – Compensation – Enhancement – Section 168, Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation Enhanced – Claimant, a 29-year-old labourer, suffered multiple injuries and 30% permanent disability in a road accident – MACT awarded ₹66,000/- with 6% interest – High Court held Tribunal erred in ignoring Disability Certificate issued by Medical Board – Applying multiplier method, daily wages, and future prospects, Court reassessed compensation at ₹2,11,880/- with 6% interest – Held: Just compensation must be awarded even if it exceeds the claim amount; appeal allowed, compensation enhanced [Paras 12-21].

Assessment of Disability – Medical Board Certificate – Cannot be ignored – PW-2, Orthopedic Surgeon and Board member, certified 30% permanent disability – Tribunal wrongly reduced to ₹30,000/- – Court accepted disability assessment, computed loss of earning capacity accordingly [Paras 13-15, 17].

Just Compensation – Broad and Liberal Approach – Supreme Court precedents (Baby Sakshi Greola; Yadava Kumar; Rajkumar; Sidram) emphasize liberal and realistic computation – Compensation not confined to rigid formulas; Court must restore injured as far as possible to pre-accident status [Paras 12, 16].

Awarding More Than Claimed – No Restriction – In line with Nagappa, Kajal, and Ramla – Tribunal/Court bound to grant “just compensation” even beyond claim amount – Principle applied to grant enhanced award exceeding original claim [Para 20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Compensation enhanced from ₹66,000/- to ₹2,11,880/- with 6% interest per annum from date of petition till realization – Liability fastened on owner and insurer jointly – Claimant entitled to withdraw enhanced amount; required to pay Court fee on enhanced portion – No order as to costs [Para 21].

Civil Law - Succession – Scheduled Tribe – Application of Indian Succession Act – Appeal Dismissed – The appellants challenged judgments declaring the plaintiff/respondent as the successor to agricultural land formerly owned by Tulsabai (widow of Gamna), asserting absence of adoption and claiming title based on ancestral gift and possession – Held: No exemption under Section 3 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 was proved to exclude Bhil tribe – Therefore, succession rightly governed by Sections 24, 28, and 32 of the Act – Plaintiff, as nephew of deceased, was closest kindred entitled to succeed – Second appeal dismissed as no substantial question of law arose [Paras 13-21, 26-30].

Adoption – Custom Not Proved – Succession Upheld on Basis of Kindred – Plaintiff's adoption was not accepted by the courts below for lack of evidence – However, concurrent findings held him to be the nearest surviving relative of the deceased couple – Courts rightly relied on statutory succession principles rather than unproven adoption or custom – Adoption plea immaterial to final outcome [Paras 12-15, 21].

Customary Law – Inapplicability Due to Lack of Exemption – Hindu and Indian Succession Acts Apply – Appellants contended that Bhil tribe is governed by custom and not general succession laws – Court held that without notification under Section 3 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, no exemption applies – Indian Succession Act validly governs devolution of property – Appellants' reliance on Madhu Kishwar distinguished [Paras 18-19].

Mutation and Compensation – No Independent Right Created – Sale by Defendants Invalid – Mutation in favour of defendants and subsequent sale to State under Mahi Canal Project did not create valid title – Original sale deed from 1966 in favour of Gamna remained unchallenged – Courts rightly declared mutation and sale-deed null and void – Compensation declared payable to rightful heir i.e. plaintiff [Paras 5-8, 22-23].

Substantial Question of Law – Not Made Out – Concurrent Findings Not Interfered With – Appellants failed to show any perverse findings or misapplication of law – Legal issues raised regarding adoption, mutation, and compensation did not satisfy threshold under Section 100 CPC – Appeal dismissed in limine [Paras 13, 26-30].

Final Decision – Second Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arose – Plaintiff/respondent declared rightful successor and owner – Defendants’ mutation and sale of land declared invalid – Compensation awarded to plaintiff – Costs not imposed [Paras 29-30].

Civil Law – Ex-Parte Order Passed Without Service of Summons – Recalled Subject to Cost – The petitioner-defendant challenged an ex-parte order passed in a suit where no summons was served on him under Order 5 Rule 1 CPC – Despite entering appearance via caveat and participating in injunction proceedings, the court had not recorded his appearance or fixed a date for filing written statement – Held: Mere appearance in interim application does not imply waiver of formal summons – Ex-parte order against petitioner liable to be recalled [Paras 1, 7–10, 12–15].

Appearance via Caveat – Not Equivalent to Service of Summons – Order 5 Rule 1 Mandatory – The defendant had lodged a caveat under Section 148A CPC and appeared in the injunction proceedings – Held: In absence of a recorded appearance and fixed date for written statement, service of summons remains mandatory – Time limit for filing written statement cannot begin without such recording – High Court distinguished cases where service was waived voluntarily or by conduct [Paras 8–12, 15–16].

Doctrine of Waiver – Inapplicable When Court Fails to Fix Date for Written Statement – The trial court failed to fix a date for filing written statement or to treat appearance as effective under Order 5 – Held: Waiver must be explicit or inferred from conduct along with court direction – Absence of such record precludes implication of waiver – Trial court’s refusal to recall the ex-parte order was procedurally flawed [Paras 11, 15].

Delay Tactics vs Procedural Fairness – Negligence of Defendant Acknowledged but Court’s Role Also Criticised – Though the High Court noted the petitioner’s inaction and intent to delay proceedings, it held that procedural fairness required proper service and recording of appearance – The trial court erred by not issuing or recording summons before treating the defendant as ex-parte – Balance of procedural compliance and fairness maintained [Paras 13, 16].

Decision – Revisional Application Allowed – Ex-Parte Order Set Aside – Written Statement Permitted – High Court set aside the trial court’s order refusing recall – Directed petitioner to pay ₹25,000 as cost to the plaintiff and file written statement within 15 days – Failure to comply would entitle trial court to proceed ex-parte – Urgent certified copy permitted [Paras 17–19].

Civil Law - Substitution of Legal Representative – Will Executed by Deceased Plaintiff – Order 22 Rule 3 CPC – Substitution Allowed – Original plaintiff Munni Devi filed suit for declaration and partition claiming 1/3rd share – After her death, petitioner (her son) filed substitution application based on a will executed by her in his favour – Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that other legal heirs named in the will were not impleaded – Held: A legatee under a will represents the estate of the deceased and is entitled to be substituted – No allegation of fraud or collusion was made by the respondents – Application wrongly rejected – Order of Trial Court set aside and petitioner directed to be impleaded as plaintiff [Paras 1–10].

Procedural Lapse by Trial Court – Failure to Declare Suit Abated – Judicial Criticism – Trial Court, while rejecting the substitution application, did not declare the suit abated despite no surviving plaintiff – Instead, the matter was posted for plaintiff’s evidence – Held: Such action reflects lack of basic procedural understanding – Presiding Officer requires training – Order to be forwarded to District Judge, Director of JOTRI, and Registrar General for appropriate action [Paras 12–13].

Final Decision – Misc. Petition allowed – Order dated 08/01/2025 in RCSA No. 233/2021 set aside – Petitioner to be substituted as plaintiff – Trial Court directed to proceed with the suit accordingly [Paras 10–11].

Company Law – Challenge to Sale Transactions – Validity of Board Resolutions – Appellant disputed the execution of sale deeds in favour of 36 purchasers alleging lack of authority and fraudulent resolutions – Court found that the board resolutions dated 12.01.1996, 10.02.1996, and 27.11.1999 were validly passed – Appellant was signatory to key resolutions and raised no timely challenge – Sales upheld as valid and binding [Paras 16–24, 28–30].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Section 10F Companies Act – Scope – Court reiterated that appeals under Section 10F lie only on substantial questions of law – Factual findings by Company Law Board cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse – Cited decisions in V.S. Krishnan, Purnima Manthena, Dale & Carrington, and others – No legal infirmity found in CLB findings [Paras 28–33].

Oppression and Mismanagement – Winding Up – Appellant sought winding up on grounds of ceased business and mismanagement – Court held mere lack of business does not warrant winding up where substantial assets remain – Findings of Company Court that oppression not proved upheld – No just and equitable ground for winding up made out [Paras 25–27, 34–40, 54].

Indoor Management Rule – Siblings as Directors – Appellant claimed ignorance of company affairs – Court rejected invocation of Turquand's rule – All directors had knowledge and participated in decisions – Cannot disclaim responsibility for valid acts of the board [Paras 41–44].

Sale Consideration – Verification by Chartered Accountant – Chartered Accountant appointed by Company Law Board and again by Court confirmed receipt of sale consideration by the company – Minor discrepancies noted but no evidence of misappropriation – No basis to direct deposit or surrender by directors [Paras 45–48, 56–57].

Specific Performance Suit – Mrs. Jayaraj – Suit filed for specific performance based on alternate board minutes dismissed – Minutes III disavowed – Title conferred only to 36 purchasers under registered sale deeds – No recognition of other alleged agreements [Paras 18–19, 52–53].

Decision: All appeals (O.S.A. Nos. 430 & 431 of 2001, C.M.A. No.403 of 2007, Company Appeal No.17 of 2009, C.M.P. No.2007 of 2025) dismissed – Sale deeds to 36 purchasers upheld – Winding up refused – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 51, 54, 58].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Extra-Judicial Confession and Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal Ordered – The appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC for the alleged murder of his parents based on extra-judicial confessions and recoveries made at his instance – The High Court found that the alleged confessions were made in the presence of police and were not recorded under Section 164 CrPC, making them inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act – Further, the prosecution failed to prove a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, with no forensic report linking the accused to the crime – Held: The conviction was not legally sustainable and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused – The appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted [Paras 4, 16, 21–22, 26–33].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Presence of Police – Inadmissible and Unreliable – The conviction was based largely on extra-judicial confessions allegedly made by the appellant before local witnesses – Held: As confessions were made in presence of police personnel, voluntariness is doubtful and such statements cannot be relied upon – No confession was recorded under Section 164 CrPC – Confession inadmissible as per Section 25 of the Evidence Act [Paras 26–31].

Recovery of Weapons – Non-Compliance with Section 27 Evidence Act – Doubt Cast – Though weapons and blood-stained clothes were allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused, there was no recorded discovery statement – No FSL report to link recovered items with the crime – The prosecution failed to establish nexus between recovery and the alleged offence [Paras 21–22, 27].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain Incomplete – Conviction Not Sustainable – The prosecution failed to prove motive, discovery statement, or forensic link – No eyewitness and no direct evidence – Medical opinion did not support weapon used – Held: Chain of circumstances not complete to exclude every hypothesis other than guilt – Conviction unsustainable in law [Paras 4, 16, 32].

Standard of Proof – Extra-Judicial Confession Requires Greater Scrutiny – Citing precedents including Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and Ramu Appa Mahapatar, court held that extra-judicial confession must be voluntary, reliable, and corroborated – These standards were not met in the present case – Confession not recorded in safe environment – No voluntary or corroborated statement [Paras 11–15, 30].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction Set Aside – Acquittal Ordered – The High Court found serious procedural lapses and gaps in evidence – Benefit of doubt extended to the accused – Conviction and sentence under Section 302/201 IPC set aside – Appellant directed to be released unless wanted in any other case [Para 33].