Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Partition Suit – Cause of Action Disclosed – Appellant sought partition of ancestral and joint family properties – Trial court rejected plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC citing prior consent decree, limitation, and lack of co-ownership – Held: Plaint discloses cause of action – Questions of limitation, title, and effect of prior consent decree are mixed questions of fact and law requiring trial – Plaint cannot be rejected at threshold [Paras 13–16, 20, 25–27]

Civil Procedure – Consent Decree – Misrepresentation – Order XXIII Rule 3 – Bar under Rule 3A – Plaintiff claimed signatures on compromise were obtained by misrepresentation – Presence not recorded in decree – Plaintiff not recorded as party to earlier suit – Held: Whether plaintiff was party to decree or her rights extinguished by it is a triable issue – Bar under Rule 3A CPC applies only to parties to compromise decree – Not adjudicable at preliminary stage under Order VII Rule 11 [Paras 17, 21–22]

Limitation – Accrual of Cause of Action – Consent Decree and Subsequent Denial – Plaintiff claimed her rights were denied after mother’s death and refusal by brother to partition properties unless she relinquished claim over other property – Held: Accrual of cause of action is a disputed factual issue – Cannot be conclusively decided at Order VII Rule 11 stage – Limitation defence to be adjudicated during trial [Paras 21, 25]

Family Law – Coparcenary Property – Hindu Joint Family – Plaintiff's Right to Partition – Plaintiff, daughter, claimed right in ancestral and coparcenary property – Father supported her claim – Held: Whether HUF exists and plaintiff is entitled to share are triable issues – Mere absence of detail about HUF or co-ownership in title documents is not ground for rejecting plaint – Rejection of suit at threshold unwarranted [Paras 19–20]

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Scope – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope limited to plaint and annexed documents – Validity of consent decree, extent of partition rights, and alleged misrepresentation must be adjudicated at trial – Court cannot reject plaint based on defence pleadings or external documents – Rejection set aside and suit restored [Paras 13, 17, 26–29]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment dated 07/05/2024 set aside – Plaintiff’s suit for partition (CS(OS) 90/2017) restored to original number – Parties directed to appear before Roster Bench on 02/12/2025.

Land Acquisition – De-notification under Section 101-A of 2013 Act – No vested right – Petitioners sought de-notification on the ground that the land acquired in 2008 under urgency clause remained unutilised – High Court held that Section 101-A does not confer any right on landowners to demand release – De-notification is a discretionary power of the State Government, exercisable only when the public purpose becomes unviable or non-essential – Land was found to be essential per approved layout plan and hence, refusal to de-notify upheld [Paras 2, 11, 25–26].

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Res judicata – Constructive Res Judicata – Petitioners earlier filed writ under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act and withdrew it with liberty to file under Section 101-A – Present writ re-argued same issues including possession and non-utilisation – Held: Writ barred by principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata – Once relief has been denied or not pursued in previous litigation, it cannot be revived in fresh proceedings [Paras 6, 15–20].

Possession – Validity – Drawing of Rapat Roznamcha held sufficient – Petitioners claimed continued possession and unauthorised construction as evidence of lack of acquisition – Court held that drawing of possession record (Rapat Roznamcha) constitutes valid possession by State – Continued presence of petitioners treated as trespass [Paras 7, 12–13, 22–24].

Delay and Laches – Inordinate delay of over 17 years – Petitioners first challenged acquisition a decade after award – Filed representation under Section 101-A nearly three years after writ withdrawal – Court held delay fatal – Relief denied on grounds of laches, acquiescence and waiver – No explanation offered for delay despite opportunity [Paras 18, 27–30].

Misuse of Judicial Process – Abuse of process – Petitioners re-litigated settled issues under new pretext – Court held repeated litigation without fresh grounds as frivolous and an abuse of process – Writ petitions dismissed with strong judicial condemnation [Paras 31–32].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Held barred by res judicata, laches, and absence of vested right under Section 101-A – Land found to be utilised and essential per town planning – Petitioners declared trespassers – Connected applications also dismissed [Para 32].

Civil Writ - Industrial Zoning – Use of Land in Food Processing Park – Environmental Impact – Writ Appeal Dismissed as Infructuous – Appellants challenged licence agreement (Ext.P4) issued by KINFRA in 2013 permitting R5 (Malabar Gold Pvt. Ltd.) to establish a gold manufacturing unit in Kakkancheri Food Processing Park – Held: The land was part of a general zone within the industrial park, as per State notification and KINFRA scheme, permitting non-food industries – NEERI report confirmed negligible environmental impact – Retail operations commenced in 2023 under lease deed dated 07/05/2021 – Appeal challenging earlier licence agreement rendered infructuous by subsequent developments – No interference warranted with judgment of learned Single Judge [Paras 2.3, 6–10].

Industrial Development – Scope of Permissible Activities – Zoning – High Court upheld that Kakkancheri Park included food, IT, biotech, and general industrial zones – Gold manufacturing facility permitted within general zone, subject to pollution control compliance – No bar under 1993 Act or 1999 Act prohibiting such activity – Park’s mixed-use character supported by Government Notification and KINFRA Board decisions [Paras 5–7, 9–10].

Environmental Concerns – NEERI Report – Negligible Impact – Appellants alleged risk from chemicals used in gold manufacturing to food-related production – Held: NEERI’s expert report found environmental risk to be negligible – Manufacturing permitted subject to clearances – No basis for interference under Article 226 [Paras 2.3, 10].

Writ Appeal – Infructuous Appeal – Licence Agreement Implemented – Construction Completed – Lease Deed Executed – Commercial Operations Started – Held: Once lease deed signed and unit commenced operations, challenge to initial licence agreement becomes infructuous – Writ Appeal dismissed on this ground [Paras 4, 9].

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed – Challenge to licence agreement (Ext.P4) held infructuous in view of subsequent lease, construction, and operational commencement – No illegality in permitting gold manufacturing unit in general zone of KINFRA Park – Judgment of learned Single Judge upheld.

Civil Law – Substitution – Delay Condonation – No Requirement That Delay Application Must Precede or Accompany Substitution Application – Application for substitution of deceased defendant filed belatedly – Separate delay condonation application filed later – Trial court condoned delay and allowed substitution – Held: Formal delay application not mandatory if sufficient cause is shown and Court is satisfied – Delay condonation under Section 5 Limitation Act permissible even if filed subsequently – No legal bar to consider both applications together [Paras 12–13, 16]

Civil Procedure – Abatement of Suit – No Separate Application to Set Aside Abatement Required If Relief Is Implicit – Suit abated under Article 120 of Limitation Act after expiry of 90 days from date of death of defendant – Plaintiff did not file separate application to set aside abatement – Held: Substitution application containing prayer for bringing legal representatives on record can be treated as implied request to set aside abatement – Technical plea rejected – Courts should adopt liberal and justice-oriented approach [Paras 17–20]

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Sufficiency of Cause – Discretion of Court – Court satisfied with explanation that Power of Attorney holder was out of station – Delay not deliberate or mala fide – Held: Court rightly exercised discretion under Section 5 Limitation Act – Delay condonation proper [Paras 23, 25]

Civil Procedure – Revision under Section 115 CPC – Limited Scope – Non-speaking or unreasoned order not by itself a ground for interference – Unless failure of justice or irreparable injury shown, revisional interference unwarranted – Trial court order allowing substitution and amendment upheld [Paras 21–22]

Civil Procedure – Liberal Construction in Substitution Matters – Order XXII Rule 10A CPC – Obligation on counsel to inform Court of death – Intention of legislature is to ensure substitution matters are not defeated by procedural delay – Courts must adopt realistic and equitable approach [Para 24]

Decision: Revision dismissed – Order dated 12.12.2024 of trial court upheld – Delay condonation and substitution application valid – No separate application to set aside abatement required – No costs.

Criminal Law – Rape – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant convicted under Section 376 IPC for alleged rape of sister-in-law – Incident dated 20.01.2015 and attempt on 23.01.2015 – FIR filed after one month with no satisfactory explanation for delay – Held: Delay not convincingly explained, undermining the prosecution’s case [Paras 1, 15, 21] –

Prosecutrix Testimony – Inconsistencies and Improvements – Material omissions and contradictions between initial complaint, Section 164 CrPC statement, and deposition in court – New elements such as acid threat, coerced letter, voyeurism and threats by family emerged only in later versions – Contradictions about place of occurrence and sequence of events – Court found improvements to be significant and not minor – Testimony held unreliable [Paras 16-17] –

Medical Evidence – Lack of Corroboration – Medical examination conducted a month after alleged rape – No signs of injury or assault – Hymen old torn – No FSL report submitted – Held: Medical evidence did not support prosecution’s claim of forcible sexual assault [Paras 11, 19] –

Defence – Matrimonial Motive for False Implication – Defence established prosecutrix was seeking divorce from appellant’s brother due to infertility – Prosecutrix admitted filing maintenance and DV proceedings – Husband confirmed infertility through medical report and pending divorce – Divorce settled for ₹3,20,000 – Held: Background supports defence of false implication to pressure husband – Benefit of doubt deserved [Paras 6, 20] –

Documentary Evidence – Letter by Prosecutrix – Letter allegedly written under threat of acid attack did not mention physical relationship – Court held it neither supported nor contradicted rape allegation – Defence was denial, not consensual sex – Letter irrelevant to core issue [Para 18] –

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds cancelled – Sureties discharged [Paras 21-23].

Property Law – Partition Suit – Effect of Previous Litigation – Interpretation of Decree – Appellants (Plaintiffs) sought partition of joint property claiming half share – Respondent (Defendant) contended that Appellants lost rights due to failure to pay Rs. 5,300/- as ordered in a previous Second Appeal (S.A. No. 641 of 1988) – First Appellate Court dismissed the partition suit on grounds of non-compliance with the previous decree – High Court held that the previous decree only created a charge on the property for the amount due and did not extinguish the Appellants' title – The previous judgment clarified that title would not pass without a registered relinquishment deed, which was never executed – Held: First Appellate Court misconstrued the clauses of the earlier decree; the remedy for Respondent was execution/auction, not denial of partition – Plaintiffs entitled to partition [Paras 15-18, 20].

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Oral Agreement – Respondent claimed an oral agreement existed wherein Appellants agreed to sell their share for Rs. 1,00,000/- – No evidence produced to substantiate the oral agreement – High Court found that the First Appellate Court erred by reversing the Trial Court’s decree without proper appreciation of evidence – High Court noted that Appellants had eventually deposited the requisite amount with the Trial Court – Findings of the First Appellate Court were vitiated by misinterpretation of documentary evidence (Ex. A-1) – Interference under Section 100 CPC justified when findings are perverse or based on misconstruction of documents [Paras 14, 19-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court set aside – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court (decreeing the suit for partition) restored – Each party to bear their own costs.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Conviction – Revisional Jurisdiction – Petitioners convicted for dishonour of cheque amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/- issued as partial refund for unfulfilled property sale agreement – Defence pleaded coercion in obtaining the cheque and refund agreement, and denied receipt of original consideration – Held: Mere lodging of a police complaint by the accused alleging coercion, without further corroborative evidence or legal steps to challenge the agreement, is insufficient to displace statutory presumption – Existence of signed Refund Agreement acknowledging liability of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- weakens defence – Failure to produce financial records to disprove receipt of consideration renders the defence of "no liability" improbable – Concurrent findings of guilt by Trial Court and Revisional Court upheld [Paras 16-19, 24].

Evidence – Statutory Presumption – Rebuttal – Minor Discrepancies – Petitioners argued that the Complainant failed to specify the exact place of signing/handing over the cheque during cross-examination – Held: Once the issuance of the cheque and signature are admitted, technical omissions regarding the place of execution do not constitute material contradictions – Such minor discrepancies cannot defeat the prosecution case when the accused fails to prove their defence affirmatively [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Revisional application dismissed – Judgment and order of conviction and sentence affirmed – Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 directed to surrender within 15 days to serve the sentence – Stay prayer rejected.

Criminal Law – FIR Quashing – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Cognizance Taken – FIR lodged in 2024 for alleged sexual harassment incidents dating back to 2018–2020 – FIR registered under Sections 354A, 354D, 506, and 509 IPC – Charge sheet later filed under Sections 354 and 354A IPC – Held: FIR not barred merely due to Section 468 Cr.P.C. which limits cognizance by court, not registration by police – Petition under Section 482 maintainable despite charge sheet being filed subsequently [Paras 7–10, 15, 27, 31]

Limitation – Cognizance After Delay – Sections 468 and 473 Cr.P.C. – Complaint filed after more than four years of alleged offence – Court held FIR and investigation not barred by limitation – However, cognizance of offence punishable with imprisonment up to three years requires trial court to apply mind to condonation under Section 473 – Trial court had taken cognizance under Section 354 IPC without considering delay – Held: Allegations, even if accepted, attract only Section 354A IPC (max punishment 3 years) – Matter remanded to trial court to consider condonation of delay afresh [Paras 23–24, 32–35]

Sexual Offences – Section 354 vs 354A IPC – Interpretation – Complaint alleged inappropriate touching, pulling hand, and removal of saree pin – Court held these acts do not meet threshold of "outraging modesty" under Section 354 IPC – Allegations fall within purview of sexual harassment under Section 354A IPC – Charge under Section 354 IPC not sustainable on face of complaint – Cognizance under Section 354 IPC quashed [Paras 22–23, 33]

Quashing Scope – Stage of Charge Sheet – Legal Position – Court reaffirmed that quashing can be sought even after charge sheet filing and cognizance, if ingredients of alleged offences are not prima facie made out – Cited Anand Kumar Mohatta and Joseph Salvaraj decisions – Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. extends beyond FIR stage [Paras 14–16]

Decision: Criminal petition partly allowed – Cognizance under Section 354 IPC set aside – Case remanded to trial court to consider condonation of delay under Section 473 Cr.P.C. for offence under Section 354A IPC and proceed accordingly – Trial court to determine afresh whether cognizance can be taken for offence punishable under Section 354A IPC in light of limitation [Paras 35–36]

Service Law – Displacement Quota – Employment – G.O.Ms.No.98 – Delay in Application – Writ petitioner, son of displaced person from Dachuru village, filed application for employment 10 years after displacement – Rejection of claim by authorities citing limitation of one year under G.O.Ms.No.98 – Held: One-year limitation cannot be strictly enforced in light of settled precedents and State policy – Authorities directed to include petitioner in the first seniority list based on eligibility – Petitioner entitled to appointment as per turn under displacement quota [Paras 4, 8(I), 10, 11].

Administrative Law – Seniority List – Violation of Natural Justice – Second seniority list of 106 displaced persons was set aside by the learned single Judge without impleading affected parties – Held: Order is unsustainable being passed in violation of principles of natural justice – Affected candidates were not heard – Order set aside – Government Memo restoring second seniority list reinstated – Beneficiaries of the second list directed to be provided employment as per their turn [Paras 6, 8(III), 10(i)].

Displacement & Rehabilitation – Seniority Classification – Two-tier seniority system maintained for displaced persons based on actual submergence and displacement – Dachuru village formed part of the first list where water impoundment and displacement occurred in 2005 – Petitioner wrongly sought inclusion in second list instead of first – Court clarified distinction between lists and corrected placement accordingly [Paras 5, 8(II), 11].

Precedent – Relaxation of Time Limit – High Court reaffirmed position laid down in earlier judgment State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rajola Jagannadha Reddy, W.A. No. 356 of 2023 – One-year application time under G.O.Ms.No.98 is not mandatory – Policy aims at livelihood protection and must be interpreted liberally for displaced families [Paras 8(I)(c)-(d)].

Decision:

Writ Appeal No. 315 of 2024 allowed – Order of single Judge dated 05.01.2023 set aside – Government Memo dated 26.12.2014 approving second seniority list restored – Authorities directed to provide employment to appellants as per their turn under G.O.Ms.No.98 [Para 10(i)-(ii)].

Writ Appeal No. 1289 of 2023 disposed of – Authorities directed to include writ petitioner’s name in the first seniority list, not the second – Employment to be provided as per eligibility and turn under displacement quota [Para 11].