Property Law – Article 300-A – Forcible Dispossession by State – Mandatory Injunction – Right to Compensation – Respondent/plaintiff, title holder of suit land, found that State had constructed National Highway through his land without following due process of law or paying compensation – Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction decreed partly by Trial Court directing defendants to acquire portion of suit land and pay due compensation within two years – First Appellate Court affirmed – Held: No person can be forcibly dispossessed of his property without legal sanction and without following due process of law – State being a welfare State governed by rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution – State produced no document to show consent of respondent for construction of road through his land – Plea of oral consent held unsustainable – Concurrent findings affirmed – Second Appeal dismissed [Paras 13-20].

Delay and Laches – Continuing Cause of Action – State's Plea Rejected – State contended that claim was stale and highly belated and that respondent had orally consented – Held: Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of continuing cause of action – Being the owner of the suit property, plaintiff was well within his right to file a suit for injunction and mandatory injunction at any stage until the right is defeated by perfection of title through adverse possession – State cannot shield itself behind delay and laches when it has utilised land of a citizen without adopting due process of law – There cannot be a limitation to doing justice [Paras 14-19].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Scope of Interference – Concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed by the High Court in second appeal unless the finding is based on inadmissible evidence, is in ignorance of relevant admissible evidence, is based on misreading of evidence, or is perverse – First Appellate Court is the final court of fact – No substantial question of law arises in the present case – No merit in the appeal [Paras 21-26].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit – Concurrent findings of Courts below upheld – State directed to acquire suit land and pay due compensation in accordance with law [Para 26].

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Commercial Disputes – Trial Court rejected amendment on ground that case was fixed for plaintiff’s evidence – Held: Mere listing for evidence does not amount to commencement of trial – Trial begins when affidavit of evidence is filed and witnesses are examined – Rejection unsustainable [Paras 10, 9]

Commercial Courts Act – Amendment of CPC – Section 16 – Applicability – Stricter regime for amendment after commencement of trial – However, requirement of “due diligence” arises only after actual commencement of trial – Trial Court misapplied provision [Paras 7, 8, 9]

Amendment of Plaint – Nature of Amendment – Clarificatory Pleadings – Proposed amendment related to insurance policy and insured instrument forming basis of suit – Did not change nature of suit or introduce new cause of action – Held: Amendment ought to be allowed [Para 12]

Prejudice to Opposite Party – Test – Plaintiff’s evidence not yet commenced and no cross-examination conducted – Held: No serious prejudice would be caused to defendants – Liberal approach warranted [Para 12]

Scope of Judicial Discretion – Order VI Rule 17 – Courts should adopt liberal approach unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused – Trial Court adopted hyper-technical approach – Failure to exercise jurisdiction properly [Paras 11, 13]

Commencement of Trial – Interpretation – In commercial suits, trial commences upon filing/tendering of affidavit of evidence and not merely upon framing of issues or listing for evidence [Paras 9, 10]

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 12.12.2024 set aside – Amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC allowed.

NDPS Act – Bail – Sections 21 and 25 – Quantity Below Commercial Threshold – Section 37 Not Applicable – Applicant arrested on 28.03.2025 for alleged recovery of 6.08 grams of heroin from speedometer of his motorcycle – Challan filed – 11 out of 19 witnesses examined – Trial not likely to conclude in near future – Multiple prior NDPS cases registered against applicant but no conviction in any – Bail applications earlier dismissed by this Court as withdrawn and by Special Court – Held: Quantity recovered does not fall within commercial quantity and therefore rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not attracted – Registration of multiple prior cases without conviction cannot justify indefinite pre-trial custody – Bail cannot be refused as a matter of punishment – Pre-trial punishment prohibited under law – No useful purpose served by continued custody – Apprehensions regarding tampering and reoffending can be addressed through conditions – Bail granted [Paras 11-17].

Pre-Trial Detention – Prolonged Custody – Pendency of Trial – Applicant in custody since 28.03.2025 – Trial not likely to conclude in near future given pace of recording of evidence – Prior registration of cases without conviction cannot be a ground to keep accused in judicial custody for indefinite period – State made no effort to seek cancellation of bail in any of the other registered cases – Bail application cannot be rejected as a matter of punishment [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Applicant directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of like amount – Subject to conditions of regular attendance, non-tampering with evidence, no inducement or threat to witnesses, and no travel outside India without prior permission of Court – State at liberty to seek cancellation of bail in case of violation of conditions [Paras 17-21].

Perjury — Section 340 CrPC / Section 379 BNSS — Maintenance Proceedings — False Affidavit — Prosecution for Perjury — Expediency Test — Appeal dismissed — Appellant-husband sought prosecution of his wife under Sections 211, 213, 222, 232 BNS alleging she made false statements about his income (Rs. 80,000/- and Rs. 1,25,000/- per month) in affidavit filed in Section 125 CrPC proceedings, whereas his actual income was Rs. 11,000/- per month — Family Court rejected the application — Held: Section 340 CrPC is conditioned by expediency in the interest of justice; prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned only where falsehood is deliberate and conscious and conviction is reasonably probable — Income of appellant is to be determined by the Family Court on the basis of evidence; it is common knowledge that wives generally exaggerate husband's income in maintenance proceedings, which does not by itself warrant action under Section 340 CrPC — No material illegality or perversity in the impugned order — Appeal dismissed [Paras 9, 12, 13].

Decision: Appeal dismissed.

Property Law – Title vs Adverse Possession – Competing claims – Plaintiff established title through registered sale deed and release deed – Defendants claimed title through agreement of sale and long possession – Held: Agreement of sale does not confer title – Registered title prevails [Paras 20, 24]

Adverse Possession – Essential Requirements – Possession originating under agreement to sell – Held: Such possession is permissive/derivative and not hostile – Cannot ripen into adverse possession without clear repudiation of true owner’s title – No evidence of hostile animus [Paras 22-23, 32-33]

Limitation – Article 65 – Suit for possession based on title – Limitation begins when possession becomes adverse – Held: In absence of proof of adverse possession, limitation under Article 65 not attracted [Paras 25, 34]

Limitation – Articles 58 & 59 – Declaration and cancellation of instruments – Right to sue accrues when cause of action first arises – In case of fraud, limitation begins from date of knowledge – Suit filed upon discovery of fraudulent gift deeds held within limitation [Paras 28, 34]

Registered Documents – Effect – Registration constitutes notice and confers legal sanctity – Title flowing through registered instruments upheld over unregistered agreement-based claims [Paras 24, 30]

Adverse Possession – Burden of Proof – Mere long possession insufficient – Must establish nec vi, nec clam, nec precario and hostile assertion to knowledge of true owner – Earlier litigations only sought protection of possession and negated hostility [Paras 31-32]

Cause of Action – Accrual – Execution of impugned gift deeds and attempted construction in 2010 constituted clear threat to plaintiff’s rights – Suit held within limitation [Paras 26-29, 34]

Concurrent Findings – Trial Court – Declaration of title and cancellation of gift deeds upheld – Suit for adverse possession rightly dismissed [Paras 10, 34-35]

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court upheld – Plaintiff entitled to declaration, possession and cancellation of gift deeds – Defendants’ claim of adverse possession rejected.

POCSO Act – Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault – Section 6 – Conviction Upheld – Accused, the cousin brother and blood relative of the minor victim aged 14 years, subjected her to repeated forcible sexual intercourse from the time she was in 9th standard, taking advantage of the prohibited familial relationship and the victim's vulnerability as her parents were staying away in Coimbatore – Victim became pregnant; accused refused responsibility and directed her to give a false version of kidnap and rape – Held: Prosecution established the foundational facts; testimony of the victim is reliable, trustworthy and of sterling quality; conviction affirmed [Paras 18-40].

POCSO Act – Sole Testimony of Victim – Sterling Witness – Corroboration Not Required – Conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim in cases of sexual assault if the evidence is found trustworthy and of sterling quality – Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies do not constitute grounds to discard an otherwise reliable prosecution case – In the instant case, the victim was consistent in her complaint (Ex.P1), Section 164 statement (Ex.P2) and court deposition; withstood rigorous cross-examination; PW4 (independent witness) corroborated her version – Held: Corroboration not required; sole testimony sufficient [Paras 31-34].

POCSO Act – Statutory Presumption – Section 29 – Once foundational facts established that victim is a minor and has been subjected to sexual relationship, presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act arises – Accused offered no explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and adduced no evidence to rebut presumption – Held: Statutory presumption unrebutted; conviction justified [Para 35].

Evidence – Discrepancy – False Version of Kidnap Attributed to Accused's Instructions – Victim initially gave a version of kidnap and rape by one known and three unknown persons but retracted before the doctor stating she did so on the accused's instruction – Held: Discrepancy regarding kidnap and rape, explained by the victim's fear of shame and trauma of prohibited relationship, does not affect the core prosecution case of repeated sexual assault [Paras 34, 37].

POCSO Act – Delay in FIR – Sexual Assault by Blood Relative – Delay in lodging complaint in cases of sexual assault committed by a close blood relative in a prohibited relationship cannot be a ground to discredit the prosecution case, as the minor victim was under fear of shame and social stigma [Para 38].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of ten years RI under Section 6 POCSO Act affirmed – Trial Court directed to secure the accused and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining sentence.

Bail – Prostitution – PIT Act – Sections 3, 4 and 5 – Accused No. 2 arrested during a raid at a flat in KPHB Colony where prostitution was allegedly being organised by the main accused – Petitioner alleged to be a sub-organizer acting as mediator for customers – Petitioner claimed she visited the premises only to collect money due in connection with her chit fund business and had no connection with the illegal activities of A.1 – Held: No specific material at this stage to show petitioner owned or managed the premises; presence alone without independent material showing active role requires examination during trial; investigation substantially completed and petitioner is a woman; bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 4-6].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties; to appear before the concerned SHO every Wednesday between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM for eight weeks or till filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier.

Family Law – DNA Test – Paternity – Children's Rights – Divorce Petition on Desertion – Petitioner filed HMOP No. 45 of 2019 seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of desertion – During pendency, petitioner filed I.A. No. 553 of 2022 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking DNA testing of two children to prove they were not born out of the wedlock – Trial court dismissed the application holding that DNA test would expose children to social ridicule and cannot be ordered mechanically – High Court upheld dismissal – Held: To prove adultery of wife, petitioner cannot seek DNA testing of children who are not parties to the lis, and the rights and best interests of the child cannot be sacrificed to enable one party to the marriage to have the benefit of fair trial [Paras 3, 9].

DNA Test – Child's Right to Identity – Right to Privacy vs. Right to Fair Trial – Supreme Court's position reiterated that DNA test is an extremely delicate and sensitive matter and courts must be reluctant to direct such tests as they may bastardise an innocent child – Presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act that a child born during a valid marriage is legitimate is very strong and blood test cannot be ordered as a matter of course without strong reasons – Child cannot be used as a pawn to establish the mother's alleged adultery – Right to fair trial of one party to a marriage cannot override the child's right to identity [Paras 5, 6, 7, 8].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 3,000/- payable to the District Legal Services Authority within three weeks – Interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed.

Criminal Law – Bail – Section 69 BNS – Promise of Marriage – Sexual Exploitation – Pregnancy – Accused, the maternal aunt's son of the complainant, allegedly developed a physical relationship with her under repeated assurances of marriage, took her to an OYO room on 04.06.2025, and had physical relations with her – Complainant became seven months pregnant at the time of filing the complaint and subsequently gave birth to a baby boy on 18.02.2026 – Accused refused to marry her and denied paternity – DNA samples awaited as child had not yet attained the minimum age of two months required for collection – Petitioner in custody since 13.01.2026 – Held: Considering the period of incarceration and the facts and circumstances, bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 2, 6].

Decision: Criminal petition allowed – Bail granted on execution of personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of like amount – Petitioner to appear before the concerned SHO every Wednesday between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM for eight weeks or till filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier – Petitioner to abide by conditions under Section 483(2) BNSS.