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.

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.

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.

Criminal Law – Section 528 BNSS – Quashing of Charge-sheet – Cognizable Offence Disclosed – Application Dismissed – FIR lodged by informant (aged 73 years) alleging that Applicant No. 1 (his former driver) along with others forcibly entered his house, misbehaved with him and outraged the modesty of his daughter-in-law by tearing her clothes – Charge-sheet filed under Sections 354-Kha, 452, 352, 323, 504, 506 and 448 IPC – Applicants contended that the dispute was civil in nature arising from a builder's agreement, that the FIR was a counterblast to their own FIR dated 04.08.2023 against the informant, and that there were material contradictions in witness statements – Held: Prima facie cognizable offence is made out from contents of FIR; question of counterblast and contradictions in witness statements are matters for the trial court; inherent power under Section 528 BNSS cannot be exercised to evaluate evidence; application dismissed [Paras 11-14].

Inherent Jurisdiction – Section 528 BNSS – Scope and Limitations – High Court's inherent power under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) may be exercised to prevent abuse of process of court, to give effect to an order under the Code, or to otherwise secure the ends of justice – Power must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases – Court cannot conduct a mini trial or evaluate evidence in such proceedings – Pendency of civil case has no bearing on continuation of criminal proceedings where cognizable offence is disclosed [Paras 8, 12-14].

Decision: Application under Section 528 BNSS dismissed – Charge-sheet and cognizance/summoning order not quashed – Matter to proceed before trial court.

Money Laundering – Challenge Show Cause Notice – Supply of Relied Upon Documents – Rule 13(2) of Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013 – Petitioners challenged show cause notice dated 25.11.2025 issued under Section 8(1) of PMLA and prayed for supply of all Relied Upon Documents (RUDs) in a bound paper book – Despite repeated requests, petitioners contended that complete RUDs were not served; only RUD-1, RUD-2A, RUD-2B and RUD-3 were received through email – Petitioners filed para-wise comments before the Adjudicating Authority without prejudice to their rights – Held: It is for the Adjudicating Authority to decide whether documents already supplied are the complete RUDs or not; writ petition disposed of with directions [Paras 17, 24, 28–30].

Service of Notice – Electronic Mode – Rule 13(3)(iii) and Rule 13(11) of Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013 – Service of show cause notice through email is valid service under Rule 13(3)(iii) and Rule 13(11) read with Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 – Petitioners' contention that documents were required to be supplied in a bound paper book does not affect the validity of the service of the notice itself – Held: No illegality found in service of notice through electronic mode [Para 20].

Reason to Believe – Adjudicating Authority – Section 8(1), PMLA – The Adjudicating Authority recorded prima facie reasons to believe that petitioners were involved in money laundering in connection with seizure of cash of Rs. 3,00,12,000/- and a mobile phone from their premises – The belief must be based on reasonable grounds and not on mere suspicion – Held: No illegality found in recording of reasons to believe by the Adjudicating Authority [Paras 26, 25].

Adjudicating Authority – Powers – Section 11, PMLA – The Adjudicating Authority has the same powers as a Civil Court including inspection of documents, compelling production of records, examining witnesses on oath and issuing commissions – Petitioners at liberty to avail these remedies before the Adjudicating Authority and, if aggrieved, prefer appeal under Section 26 of the PMLA [Paras 22–23, 30(c)].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Adjudicating Authority directed to first decide whether the documents requested by petitioners are relied upon documents and, if found to be so and not served, to direct the ED to supply the same within two weeks – Petitioners to be given opportunity to file supplementary reply within two weeks of supply – Parties at liberty to avail remedy under Section 26 of PMLA if aggrieved by any order on supply of RUDs – Interim order vacated.

Income Tax – Assessment in Name of Non-Existent Entity – Amalgamation – Final assessment order for AY 2016-17 was passed in the name and PAN of Boeing International Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. after its amalgamation with Boeing India Pvt. Ltd. had already been intimated to the Revenue – TPO order and DRP directions had in fact been issued in the name of the amalgamated entity – Held: assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is void ab initio and suffers from a substantive illegality, not a mere procedural defect – Appeal dismissed [Paras 21-22, 28-30, 33-41].

Section 292B – Curable Defect – Scope – Revenue contended that the final assessment order bore the old name because of an ITBA portal glitch and that the defect was curable – Held: Section 292B cannot cure a jurisdictional defect arising from framing an assessment against a non-existent entity – such defect is akin to assessment against a dead person and is not saved as a technical mistake or clerical omission [Paras 30-32, 34-35].

Amalgamation – Duty of Revenue After Intimation – Assessee informed the Assessing Officer about the amalgamation by letter dated 10.04.2018 and again during assessment proceedings – Despite such disclosure, the Revenue failed to carry necessary corrections into the assessment proceedings and ultimately issued the final assessment order only in the name of the erstwhile entity – Held: once amalgamation was brought to the notice of the AO, it was incumbent upon the Revenue to proceed against the amalgamated entity in accordance with law [Paras 28, 33, 35, 38].

Precedential Consistency in Tax Litigation – Maruti Suzuki and Sony Mobile Applied – Revenue sought to distinguish the rulings on the ground that the original jurisdictional notice under Section 143(2) had been issued before amalgamation and that substantial compliance existed through later proceedings – Held: the controversy stands covered by the principles in Maruti Suzuki, Sony Mobile, Spice Entertainment and Vedanta Limited – certainty and consistency in tax litigation require adherence to settled law [Paras 30-31, 36-40].

Mahagun Realtors and Sky Light Hospitality – Distinction – Revenue relied on Mahagun Realtors and Sky Light Hospitality to argue that the mistake was curable and that assessment could still survive – Held: both decisions turned on their peculiar facts – unlike those cases, the assessee here had clearly disclosed the amalgamation well before the final assessment order and had not suppressed the fact of corporate reorganisation [Paras 23-30].

Technical Glitch in Departmental Portal – No Defence – Revenue argued that the ITBA portal automatically carried forward the old PAN and name – Held: malfunction or limitation of the Revenue’s own portal cannot prejudice the assessee or validate an otherwise void assessment order – Revenue must ensure that its systems conform to statutory requirements [Paras 34-35, 39].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Order of the ITAT quashing the final assessment order dated 30.03.2021 upheld [Paras 41-42].

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.

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.

Criminal Law – Section 34 IPC – Common Intention – Requirement of pre-arranged plan or meeting of minds – Mere simultaneous or similar intention insufficient – Common intention may develop on the spot but must be proved from conduct and circumstances – Held: No evidence of common intention to commit attempt to murder [Paras 31–36, 42–43]

Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC – Firing by co-accused – Other accused only threw bricks and stones – No knowledge or prior meeting of minds regarding use of firearm – Act of firing held to be individual act – Held: Conviction under Section 307/34 IPC unsustainable [Paras 42–45]

Evidence – Ocular and Medical Evidence – Consistent testimony of police witnesses and independent witness supported by medical evidence – Injuries simple in nature caused by hard and blunt objects – Held: Offence under Section 323 IPC proved [Paras 26–27, 44]

Constructive Liability – Limits – Section 34 IPC does not create substantive offence but fixes joint liability – Requires participation and shared intention – Absence of common intention disentitles vicarious liability [Paras 32–35]

Benefit of Partial Acquittal – Appellate Court – Where graver offence not proved but minor offence established – Conviction can be altered accordingly – Held: Appellant liable only under Section 323 IPC [Paras 43–46]

Sentencing – Mitigating Circumstances – Long lapse of time (over four decades), advanced age of appellant, and partial incarceration – Reduction of sentence to period already undergone justified [Para 46]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 323 IPC maintained – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Appellant not required to surrender – Directions issued under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. / Section 481 BNSS.