Contempt of Court – Wilful Disobedience – Interim Order – Creation of Third-Party Rights – An interim order dated 16.07.2021 in I.A. No. 1 of 2021 in A.S. No. 1280 of 2017, while releasing original documents to the appellant/respondent No. 2, expressly restrained him from creating third-party rights over the suit schedule properties or pledging/mortgaging the original documents – Respondent No. 2 applied for modification of the interim order to permit pledge of property for a bank loan, which was rejected on 04.08.2022 – Despite this, respondent No. 2 executed a mortgage deed (Document No. 4299 of 2023 dated 07.08.2023) and thereafter a registered sale deed (Document No. 25358 of 2024 dated 10.12.2024) in favour of third parties – Execution of both deeds admitted by respondent No. 2 – Held: Charges of wilful disobedience proved – Contempt committed [Paras 3-26].

Defence – Nominal Transaction – Kararnama – Not Accepted – Respondent No. 2 sought to justify the sale deed as a nominal transaction and pleaded that on the same date the purchasers executed a kararnama agreeing to reconvey the property by 10.06.2026 – Held: The execution of the mortgage deed and the sale deed was a conscious and deliberate act – Application for modification of the interim order was rejected and despite that the alienations were made – Defence of nominal transaction is not acceptable – Financial compulsion cannot justify violation of a Court's order [Paras 19-24].

Wilful Disobedience – Meaning – "Wilful" means an act done voluntarily with specific intent to do something the law forbids, or with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law – Even negligence and carelessness may amount to contempt – The act or omission has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case [Para 25].

Apology – Not Bona Fide – Rejected – Apology is an act of contrition and must be offered at the earliest opportunity in good grace – An apology tendered only when punishment is imminent is shorn of penitence and is the act of a cringing coward – The apology in the present case is not bona fide as the disobedience was conscious and contumacious and the modification application was rejected before the alienations were made – Apology rejected [Paras 27-30].

Punishment – Section 12, Contempt of Courts Act – Respondent No. 2 punished with simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 2,000/- – Additional cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed to be remitted to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee – Respondent entitled to subsistence allowance of Rs. 500/- per day during civil imprisonment to be deposited by the contempt petitioner – In default of fine, action to be taken under Section 421 CrPC/Section 456 BNSS [Paras 31-41].

Decision: Contempt Case allowed – Charges proved – Apology rejected – Respondent No. 2 sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 2,000/- with cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

Partition Suit – Second Partition Suit – Omitted Property – Maintainability – Whether property not included in earlier partition suit can be subject matter of subsequent suit – Held, second partition suit not maintainable for property (CS Khatian No. 21) not included in earlier suit in absence of pleading and proof that omission was intentional or mistaken – Plaintiffs failed to establish circumstances permitting second suit [Paras 33–35, 40]

Res Judicata – Constructive Res Judicata – Omission by Predecessor – Effect on Descendants – Properties which ought to have been included in earlier suit deemed to have been in issue – Descendants bound by conduct of predecessor – Held, claim over CS Khatian No. 21 barred as same was not included in earlier partition proceedings [Paras 41–42]

Joint Family Property – Burden of Proof – No Presumption of Joint Property – Plaintiff must prove existence of joint family nucleus – In absence of proof of joint family fund, no presumption arises – Trial Court erred in shifting burden on defendants to prove self-acquisition [Paras 28–31]

Evidence – Failure to Prove Joint Character – Property recorded in name of individual – No evidence of joint family nucleus or linkage to acquisition – Held, CS Khatian No. 21 not proved to be joint family property [Paras 31–32]

Partition – Earlier Compromise Decree – Effect – Properties in CS Khatian No. 23 already subject matter of earlier suit – Second suit maintainable only to extent of unpartitioned portions and implementation of earlier decree – Held, limited maintainability for Bakshi Bandh Tarn and Telai Tarn and unpartitioned portions of CS Khatian No. 23 [Paras 39, 46–48]

Partition Law – Exceptions for Second Suit – Applicability of Sasi Mohan Saha principle – Three situations analysed – Present case does not fall within first or second exception; partially covered under third for execution/working out of earlier decree [Paras 34–39]

Civil Procedure – Pleadings – Absence of Necessary Averments – No explanation in plaint for omission of property in earlier suit – No evidence led to show intentional exclusion – Held, fatal to maintainability of claim [Paras 7, 40]

Appellate Interference – Erroneous Preliminary Decree – Inclusion of property without proof of joint ownership – Held, preliminary decree liable to be set aside to that extent [Para 45]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned preliminary decree set aside insofar as it includes CS Khatian No. 21 – Matter remanded to Trial Court for determination of shares limited to unpartitioned portions of CS Khatian No. 23 (Bakshi Bandh Tarn and Telai Tarn) – Parties permitted to adduce further evidence – No order as to costs – Connected applications disposed of.

Civil Law – Judgment on Admissions – Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Scope – Suit for possession decreed based on registered Sale Deed – Defendant relied on Rajinama, Declaration and unregistered Family Settlement – Held: Documents did not create any right, title or interest in immovable property and even if admitted, did not constitute a valid defence – Decree on admissions justified [Paras 26, 30, 39, 40]

Property Law – Title and Ownership – Registered Sale Deed vs Unregistered Documents – Plaintiff proved ownership through registered Sale Deed dated 30.09.2005 – Defendant’s reliance on prior unregistered documents and vague pleadings rejected – Held: Registered Sale Deed prevails and conclusively establishes ownership in absence of challenge [Paras 26, 27, 32]

Family Settlement – Requirement of Registration – Alleged family settlement creating rights in immovable property – Not registered – Held: Such document requires compulsory registration under Section 17 Registration Act and cannot be read in evidence to create or transfer rights – No enforceable title flows from unregistered family settlement [Paras 36, 37]

Transfer of Property – Creation of Rights – Section 54 TPA – Transfer of ownership in immovable property can only be effected through registered instrument – Informal arrangements or declarations insufficient to confer ownership rights [Paras 36]

Limitation and Specific Performance – Defendant’s plea based on Declaration – No action taken within limitation period for enforcement – Held: Even if document assumed valid, remedy for specific performance not pursued within prescribed time, weakening defence [Para 33]

Pleadings and Defence – Vague and Unsupported Claims – Defendant failed to specifically plead or substantiate documents relied upon – Documents filed without proper pleadings carry no evidentiary value – Defence held illusory and insufficient to resist decree [Paras 27, 38, 39]

Possession – Permissive User – Defendant’s possession held to be permissive in absence of valid title – No legal right to retain possession against true owner [Para 40]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned judgment dated 08.01.2025 upheld – Decree of possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC confirmed – Pending applications disposed of.

Bail – UAPA Offences – Prima Facie True Test – Section 43D(5) – Allegations of association with Babbar Khalsa International and conspiracy for targeted killings – Mobile data and disclosure statements showing connectivity with co-accused and handlers – Held: Sufficient prima facie material exists – Bail rightly declined [Paras 7, 8]

Bail – Seriousness of Offence – Terror Funding and Target Killings – Allegations of receiving arms, financial assistance and reconnaissance of targets – Involvement in planned killings of specific community leaders – Gravity of offence disentitles accused from bail – Stringent approach warranted [Paras 3, 8]

Bail – Criminal Antecedents – Relevance – Multiple prior FIRs against appellant – Antecedents reinforce prosecution case and risk assessment – Factor against grant of bail [Para 2, 8]

Bail – Custody Period – Not Sole Ground in UAPA Cases – Custody of about 3 years – In view of statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) and seriousness of allegations, long custody alone not sufficient to grant bail [Para 8]

Appellate Interference – Rejection of Bail – No Illegality – Order of Sessions Court found justified – No ground to interfere – Appeal dismissed with direction to expedite trial [Paras 10, 11]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order rejecting bail upheld – Trial directed to be expedited – Observations not to influence merits of trial.

Service Law – Recruitment – Non-Joining Vacancies – Claim for Appointment from Merit List – Petitioner secured marks below cut-off and not selected – Claimed appointment against vacancies caused due to non-joining of selected candidates – State policy mandates carry forward of such vacancies to next recruitment – Held: No right accrues to non-selected candidate to claim appointment from exhausted select list [Paras 29–31, 35].

Waiting List / Select List – Nature and Operation – Select list cannot be treated as perpetual reservoir for appointment – Once recommended candidates equal to advertised vacancies are appointed, selection process ends – Vacancies arising thereafter treated as fresh vacancies – Held: No mandamus to fill such vacancies from same merit list [Paras 17, 18, 35].

Policy Decision – Carry Forward of Vacancies – Clause 16 of Government Resolution dated 16.07.2007 provides that vacancies arising due to non-joining shall be carried forward to next recruitment – Consistent policy since 1977 upheld – Held: Policy valid and binding, cannot be interfered with [Paras 17, 26, 35].

Participation in Selection – Estoppel – Petitioner participated in selection process knowing rules and policy – After being unsuccessful, cannot challenge recruitment process or policy – Held: Challenge barred by principle of acquiescence and estoppel [Paras 31–34].

Right to Appointment – No Indefeasible Right – Mere participation or inclusion in merit list below cut-off does not confer right to appointment – State not bound to fill all vacancies unless decision is arbitrary – Held: No arbitrariness shown [Paras 29, 35].

Subsequent Recruitment – Effect – Subsequent advertisements issued and recruitment process completed/underway – Earlier select list loses significance – Held: Relief cannot be granted at belated stage [Paras 30, 35].

Distinction – Cases where waiting list operated – Supreme Court precedents allowing filling of vacancies from waiting list distinguishable – In present case, no waiting list prepared and policy mandates carry forward – Held: Petitioner not entitled to benefit [Paras 20–24, 35].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No direction for appointment – Pending applications dismissed.

Police Protection – Property Rights – Petitioner sought protection against trespass and obstruction by private respondents – Civil court decree granted injunction in petitioner’s favour – Respondents continued interference despite decree – Held: Police bound to ensure protection of lawful possession and prevent breach of peace [Paras 3, 16].

Title and Possession – Purchase Certificate under KLR Act – Petitioner obtained certificate of title through Land Tribunal proceedings – Respondents challenged validity alleging temple ownership – No material to substantiate claim – Devaswom not aggrieved and no valid appeal – Held: Petitioner has valid prima facie title and possession [Paras 8–12].

Civil Court Findings – Binding Nature – Trial court conclusively found that petitioner’s property (Re-survey No.20/1) distinct from temple property (Re-survey No.20/2) – Evidence including admission of respondent supports petitioner’s case – Held: Findings reinforce petitioner’s exclusive possession [Paras 10–11].

Locus Standi – Challenge to Tribunal Order – Appeal filed by Temple Protection Samithi without locus – Devaswom itself did not challenge the order – Held: Challenge to purchase certificate lacks legal basis [Paras 9].

Revenue Records – Evidentiary Value – Entries in settlement register or revenue records do not confer title – Cannot override title obtained through lawful proceedings – Held: Respondents failed to establish any right over property [Para 13].

Devaswom / Government Land – Long Possession with Title – Occupation based on sale deed and purchase certificate cannot be termed unauthorised – Courts should not interfere with such settled possession – Held: Petitioner’s possession lawful unless set aside by competent court [Paras 14–15].

Law and Order – Duty of Police – Interference with established proprietary rights likely to create law and order issues – Police obligated to act when civil rights supported by decree are threatened – Held: Direction for effective police protection justified [Para 16].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Police directed to provide adequate and effective protection to petitioner’s life and property against interference by respondents.

Murder – Criminal Conspiracy – Common Intention – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant (original Accused No.3), a SRPF personnel, convicted by the Sessions Court for murder of deceased Kishor Khatri committed on 03.11.2015 at Somthana Shivar, Akola – Deceased was taken by Accused No.2 from Balaji Mall in a Tata Safari vehicle and found dead on a kachcha road – Ocular testimony of PW 5 and PW 10 established that appellant inflicted a knife blow on the neck of the deceased and Accused No.2 thereafter fired a gunshot – Conviction under Sections 302 read with 34 and 120-B IPC confirmed – Sentenced to imprisonment for life – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 53-55].

Homicidal Death – Medical Evidence – Post-Mortem – Death of deceased held established as homicidal on the basis of post-mortem report of PW 6-Dr. Nikhil Ingle disclosing a deep chopped wound on the neck and a gunshot entry and exit wound on the chest – Both injuries independently held sufficient to cause death – Ballistic expert PW 13 opined that empty cartridge recovered from the scene was fired from the country-made pistol seized from the vehicle of Accused No.2 – Nature of injuries incompatible with self-infliction or accident [Paras 11-18].

Chance Witnesses – Admissibility – Credibility – PW 5 and PW 10 described as chance witnesses by defence – Held: Evidence of chance witnesses cannot be discarded merely on that ground if presence is natural and testimony reliable – Presence of PW 10 at Somthana established by documents showing uncle's residence there – Delay in approaching police explained by fear of influential accused – Testimony consistent on material particulars and corroborated by medical evidence – Followed: Rana Pratap v. State of Haryana, (1983) 3 SCC 327; Thangaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 9 SCC 650; Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353 [Paras 20-30].

Recovery – Section 27 Evidence Act – Admissibility – Detailed Description Not Mandatory – Appellant contended that recovery of Kukari was inadmissible as the memorandum lacked detailed description of the place of concealment – Held: What is essential under Section 27 is the free will and volition of the accused to make a statement leading to discovery – Accused led police to spot and produced weapon from beneath a mango tree – Recovery duly proved through panch witnesses and Investigating Officer and consistent with medical evidence – To require detailed description of place of concealment would run contrary to the very essence of voluntary disclosure – Followed: Boby v. State of Kerala, (2023) 15 SCC 760; Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor, 1946 SCC OnLine PC 47; Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 11 SCC 255 [Paras 34-38].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120-B IPC – Inference from Circumstances – Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – No direct evidence of prior agreement between accused persons – Held: Agreement constituting conspiracy may be inferred from proved circumstances and conduct before, during and after occurrence – Deceased taken by Accused No.2 to secluded location – Appellant present at spot armed with Kukari – Successive assault with two lethal weapons on vital parts indicates preparation and concert – Both accused absconded after incident – Chain of circumstances reasonably establishes prior meeting of minds – Absence of proof of motive not fatal where reliable ocular evidence of participation exists – Distinguished: K.R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala, (2005) 12 SCC 631 [Paras 43-52].

Investigation Lapses – Non-Recovery of Bullet – Held: Minor lapses in investigation do not enure to the benefit of accused when substantive evidence otherwise inspires confidence – Non-recovery of bullet, absence of fingerprint examination and non-examination of tyre marks do not affect the core of the prosecution case established by reliable ocular, medical and ballistic evidence [Para 40].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120-B IPC confirmed.

Trademark Law – Interim Injunction – Suppression of Material Facts – Plaintiff failed to disclose joint business activities with defendant and proceedings before Trade Marks Registry – Misleading plea of prior use despite declaring mark as “proposed to be used” – Held: Suppression disentitles plaintiff from equitable relief and injunction can be refused on this ground alone [Paras 16, 17(1), 19]

Trademark Law – Composite Mark – Anti-Dissection Rule – Section 17 – Plaintiff held registration of device mark – Attempt to claim exclusivity over word “Kshetrapal” rejected – Held: Rights exist only in mark as a whole and not in individual non-distinctive components unless separately registered or shown to have acquired distinctiveness [Paras 15, 17(3)]

Trademark Law – Distinctiveness – Religious/Generic Expression – Word “Kshetrapal” held to be name of deity and publici juris – Lacks inherent distinctiveness – No secondary meaning established – No monopoly permissible over such expression [Paras 16(iv), 17(2), 17(3)]

Trademark Law – Prior User vs Registered Proprietor – Sections 28 and 34 – Plaintiff’s mark registered as “proposed to be used” – Defendant prima facie established prior use since 2014 – Held: Prior user rights prevail over subsequent registration – Plaintiff failed to prove prior use in relevant trade [Paras 16(i), 17(2)]

Trademark Law – Presumption of Validity – Section 31 – Registration is only prima facie evidence – Cannot be used to claim exclusivity over part of composite mark – Presumption applies to mark as a whole, not its components [Para 17(4)]

Trademark Law – Likelihood of Confusion – Real Estate Transactions – Application of average consumer test – Purchase of immovable property involves due diligence – Held: Possibility of confusion remote and not sufficient to grant injunction [Para 17(5)]

Equitable Relief – Clean Hands Doctrine – Plaintiff approached Court with suppression and inconsistent stands before Registrar and Court – Held: Litigant suppressing material facts not entitled to interim or final relief [Paras 17(1), 19]

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Discretion – Appeal against refusal of injunction – Held: Trial Court exercised discretion judiciously – No interference warranted under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC [Paras 18, 19]

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000 – Order refusing interim injunction upheld – Civil Application dismissed.

Civil Law – Declaration of Title and Possession – Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – Substantial Question of Law – Appellants (defendant Nos.1 and 2) challenged concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs for declaration of title and possession over a vacant site of 435 Sq.yds – Plaintiffs relied on registered sale deed dated 06.05.1968 (Ex.A-1) as proof of title – Defendants claimed the property as ancestral, supported only by self-serving statements and no documentary title – Held: No substantial question of law arises; second appeal dismissed at the stage of admission [Paras 13–15, 29–30].

Presumption as to Ancient Documents – Section 90, Indian Evidence Act – Ex.A-1 registered sale deed dated 06.05.1968 is more than 35 years old – When a document over 30 years old is produced from proper custody, the court may presume due execution and attestation without examining the attesting witnesses – Contention of the appellants that Ex.A-1 was not proved for want of examination of attestors held unsustainable [Paras 20–21].

Ancestral Property Claim – Absence of Documentary Evidence – Defendant No.1 did not enter the witness box – Defendant No.2 admitted in cross-examination that no registered document exists in their favour for the suit site and he did not even remember its survey number – The gift deed dated 16.10.2006 relied upon by defendants was executed only five months prior to the suit and its original was not filed – Sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 executed just eight days before the suit – Held: Defendants failed to establish any title or ancestral character of the suit property [Paras 22–24].

Adverse Inference – Non-Entry into Witness Box – Defendant Nos.1 and 3 did not enter the witness box to prove their defence – Held: A presumption arises that the case set up by a party who does not offer himself for cross-examination is not correct [Para 25].

Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet – Registration Does Not Confer Title – Mere execution and registration of a document does not create new title – Transfer of immovable property governed by the principle that no person can transfer a better title than what he himself possesses – Gift deed and sale deed created by defendants over a property in which they had no title cannot bind the plaintiffs [Para 23].

Non-Joinder of Parties – Daughters of Plaintiff No.1 Not Made Parties – Held: Suit was filed by plaintiff No.1 against third-party trespassers for declaration of title and possession; defendants are not co-sharers – Objection regarding non-joinder of daughters is unsustainable in the circumstances [Para 28].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed at the stage of admission – Concurrent findings of both courts below confirmed – Defendants granted three months' time to deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property – No costs.