Civil Law – Adverse Possession – Declaration of Title – Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over suit tanks claimed to have been excavated by plaintiff's ancestor Trilochan Behera – Trial Court decreed the suit holding plaintiff and his predecessors in uninterrupted possession for more than statutory period – First Appellate Court reversed, dismissing suit for non-service of notice under Section 80(1) CPC and non-joinder of necessary parties – High Court holds First Appellate Court erred on both counts – Second Appeal allowed, trial court decree restored [Paras 1–16].

"Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Dispenses with Prior Notice – First Appellate Court Erred"

Notice – Section 80 CPC – Suit Against Government – Leave Granted by Trial Court – Trial Court on 15.05.1982 granted leave to the plaintiff to institute the suit without prior notice under Section 80(2) CPC – First Appellate Court dismissed suit holding notice under Section 80(1) not served, overlooking the leave already granted – Held: Once leave under Section 80(2) is granted, the requirement of prior notice under Section 80(1) stands dispensed with – Dismissal on that ground suffers from error apparent on the face of the record [Para 12].

"Non-Joinder Cannot Be Raised at Appellate Stage by Party Who Remained Inactive at Trial"

Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Order I Rule 9 and Rule 13 CPC – Defendant No.3 set ex parte before trial court – Petition for impleadment filed by Biswamber Behera, Brajamohan Behera and Defendant No.3 dismissed as not pressed on 16.09.1983 – No issue on non-joinder framed by trial court – No specific point raised before First Appellate Court either – Held: Objection as to non-joinder must be taken at the earliest opportunity and before settlement of issues – Permitting a party who remained inactive at trial to raise the plea at appellate stage would amount to defeating the decree on a technical ground neither pressed nor adjudicated earlier [Paras 13–14].

"Doctrine of Waiver and Acquiescence – Party Cannot Take Advantage of Own Default"

Waiver – Acquiescence – Defendant No.3 entered appearance before trial court but neither filed written statement nor contested the suit and was set ex parte – Having consciously abstained from participation, defendant No.3 deemed to have waived right to object – A party cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own default or omission – Plea of non-joinder not maintainable at appellate stage merely because trial court judgment was adverse [Para 14].

"Exclusive Adverse Possession – Co-Sharers Not Necessary Parties When Plaintiff Claims Independent Title Against State"

Adverse Possession – Necessary Parties – Where plaintiff asserts exclusive hostile possession against the State and perfection of title by lapse of statutory period, the foundation of the suit is such exclusive possession – Unless it is demonstrated that no effective decree could be passed in their absence, co-sharers are not necessary parties – Suit cannot be held bad for non-joinder on that basis alone [Para 13].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court set aside – Judgment and decree of trial court confirmed – No order as to costs.

Tenancy Law – Bequeath of Tenancy Rights – H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act – Will executed by tenant – Validity – Plaintiffs challenged mutation sanctioned on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by tenant Panchi – Trial Court held that tenant had become owner after commencement of the Act and could validly execute the Will – First Appellate Court held tenant was under a widow landowner and proprietary rights had not vested – Held: Tenancy rights cannot be bequeathed by Will as succession to tenancy is governed exclusively by Section 45 of the Act – Will conferring tenancy rights void and ineffective [Paras 28–36].

Tenancy Law – Conferment of Proprietary Rights – Tenant under widow landowner – Section 104(8) H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act – Effect – Revenue record showed Ishru, widow of Devi Dayal, as owner and Panchi as tenant – Under Section 104(8) a tenant under a widow does not acquire proprietary rights during her lifetime – Held: Tenant Panchi never became owner and therefore could not validly bequeath the land through a Will [Paras 28–31].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Tenancy Dispute – Bar under Sections 57 and 58 H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act – Scope – Defendants contended that remedy lay before Revenue Court under Section 43 – Held: Bar applies only where relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted or where dispute arises during proceedings under the Act – Where parties claim succession to tenancy and status itself is disputed, Civil Court jurisdiction is not barred [Paras 21–27, 37–40].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Requirement of pleadings – Defendant sought to lead additional evidence regarding death of landowner to show tenant had become owner – Held: Additional evidence cannot be permitted where foundational pleadings are absent – Evidence sought to introduce a new plea not raised before Trial Court – Application rejected [Paras 15–20].

Evidence – Pariwar Register – Evidentiary value – Family register relied upon to prove date of death of landowner – Held: Pariwar register is not a statutory register under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act – Only entries in birth and death register constitute best evidence – Pariwar register insufficient to prove date of death [Paras 17–19].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court upheld – Mutation based on Will declared illegal – Plaintiffs entitled to succeed to tenancy rights.

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Abuse of Writ Jurisdiction – Collateral Challenge to Contempt Proceedings – Petitioners challenged spot verification reports and sought to render contempt court order directing payment of compensation infructuous – Judgment dated 19.03.2015 directing joint verification and payment of rent had already attained finality – Verification completed and compensation assessed and forwarded to Ministry of Defence – Writ petition filed only after contempt court directed compliance – Held: Petition is a belated attempt to circumvent and frustrate binding judicial orders and is not maintainable under Article 226 [Paras 14–16, 26–28].

Finality of Litigation – Judicial Orders Attaining Finality – Once judgment directing joint verification and compensation attained finality and was not challenged, issues concluded therein cannot be reopened through subsequent writ proceedings – Permitting collateral challenge would defeat doctrine of finality and render judicial determinations uncertain – Held: Parties cannot reopen concluded issues after several years, especially after contempt proceedings are initiated for enforcement [Paras 22–23].

Contempt Proceedings – Attempt to Avoid Compliance – Petitioners filed writ petition after contempt court ordered deposit of ₹2,16,81,261/- as assessed rental compensation for landowners whose lands were occupied by security forces between 01.09.1986 and 09.09.2008 – Court held filing of writ petition at this stage clearly intended to delay and defeat compliance with earlier judicial orders – Such conduct undermines authority of courts and administration of justice [Paras 16, 24–25, 31].

Writ Jurisdiction – Clean Hands Doctrine – Litigant invoking equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 must approach court with clean hands, clean mind and full disclosure of facts – Courts must refuse relief where proceedings are initiated to abuse judicial process or mislead the court – Suppression of material facts or filing misconceived petitions amounts to abuse of process [Paras 17–21, 29].

Costs – Abuse of Judicial Process by State Authorities – Petition filed by government authorities long after finalization of verification and assessment, and only after contempt directions – Such conduct caused prolonged deprivation of compensation to landowners and unnecessary litigation – Held: Exemplary costs justified to deter misuse of judicial process [Paras 27, 32].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed at motion stage – Court held petition to be frivolous and an abuse of judicial process – Petitioners directed to deposit costs of ₹50,000 with the High Court Legal Services Committee within 10 days – Amount to be reimbursed from salary of erring official (Defence Estates Officer, Guwahati Circle).

Civil Law – Declaration of Title and Possession – Proof of Will – Plaintiff claimed title on basis of registered Will dated 28.03.1990 allegedly executed by testatrix Anasuyamma – Evidence of attesting witnesses contained serious inconsistencies regarding execution, presence of witnesses and circumstances of registration – Testatrix in earlier litigation failed to mention such Will though examined as witness – Held: Registered Will surrounded by several suspicious circumstances and not proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act read with Section 63 of the Succession Act – Plaintiff failed to establish title to the suit property [Paras 21–24, 33].

Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Duty of Propounder – Court reiterated that when suspicious circumstances surround execution of a Will, the burden lies heavily on the propounder to remove such suspicions before the document can be accepted as genuine – Mere registration of a Will does not dispel suspicious circumstances – Discrepancies in testimonies of attesting witnesses and conduct of the testatrix created serious doubt regarding genuineness of the Will relied upon by the plaintiff [Paras 17, 21, 31–33].

Will – Subsequent Testament – Defendants relied upon later unregistered Will dated 10.08.1997 executed shortly before death of testatrix – All attesting witnesses examined and their evidence remained unshaken in cross-examination – Held: Unregistered Will proved in accordance with law and being the last testament of the testatrix prevails over earlier disputed Will [Paras 34–38].

Civil Law – Declaration Suit – Plaintiff must succeed on strength of own title – Plaintiff, being not a natural heir, failed to prove the Will forming basis of title – Defendants proved later Will and were also Class-II heirs under the Succession Act – Held: Plaintiff not entitled to declaration of title or recovery of possession – Trial Court erred in partly decreeing the suit [Paras 15, 39–40].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 27.03.2006 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Guntur set aside – Suit in O.S.No.03 of 1998 dismissed – Parties directed to bear their own costs.

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for strangulating his wife with a towel and assaulting her with a kitchen cutting tool on 20.11.2017 – Trial Court sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- – Prosecution sought to establish guilt through circumstances of motive, recovery of MOs 1 and 3, conduct after incident and medical evidence – Held: Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted [Paras 15-28].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Non-Examination of Key Witness – Son of deceased and accused (Kavin Prasad) was the person who first informed PW4 about the incident and was likely the only person who witnessed or saw the accused at the scene – Prosecution failed to examine Kavin Prasad either during investigation or before the Court – Investigation Officer neither recorded his statement nor included him in the list of witnesses – In the absence of any witness to establish the last seen theory, no material existed to link the accused to the incident – Serious lapse on the part of the Investigation Officer condemned – Motive and strained relationship alone cannot lead to a presumption of guilt [Paras 21-26].

Hostile Witnesses – Evidence of No Value – PW4, brother of the accused, and PW5, a neighbour, both turned hostile – Nothing emerged from their evidence to assist the prosecution's case [Paras 18-19].

Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof – Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution must prove each circumstance forming a chain so as to completely exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused – When chain of circumstances is snapped and two views are possible, the accused is entitled to the view favourable to him – Strong suspicion cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 24-27].

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges and directed to be set at liberty.

Civil Law – Suit for Declaration and Recovery of Possession – Maintainability – Mahanta Suing in Personal Capacity – Suit properties claimed to belong to Emar Math, Puri, but suit filed by Mahanta in his personal name praying for declaration of his own title without impleading Emar Math as a party or praying for declaration of Math's title – A Math is a juristic person capable of holding and vindicating legal rights through human agency – Mahanta acts as marfatdar of the Math – Held: Suit for declaration of Mahanta's own title over properties belonging to the Math is not maintainable under law [Paras 13-14].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Proof Essential for Eviction – Section 106, Transfer of Property Act – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently found that plaintiff failed to establish monthly tenancy of defendant No.2 – Plaintiff issued notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act seeking eviction on ground of non-payment of rent – No cross-objection filed by plaintiff challenging concurrent finding of failure to prove tenancy – Held: Concurrent finding attained finality; plaintiff not entitled to decree for eviction without proof of landlord-tenant relationship [Paras 15-16].

Title – Failure to Prove Ekpadiya and Jamabandi – Onus on Plaintiff – Plaintiff based title over suit properties on Ekpadiya submitted by ex-landlord Susilabala Dasi and Jamabandi created in his favour – Defendants denied issuance of any Ekpadiya in favour of plaintiff and corroborated claim of defendant No.1 – State also denied existence of Ekpadiya in favour of plaintiff – Plaintiff neither filed nor proved any Ekpadiya or Jamabandi at any stage – No explanation offered for non-production – Held: Plaintiff failed to discharge the onus to prove title and possession; suit for declaration and eviction not maintainable [Paras 17-19].

Limitation – Suit for Declaration – Article 58, Limitation Act, 1963 – Three-Year Period from Date of First Accrual of Cause of Action – Plaintiff's first cause of action arose on 15.05.1992; suit filed on 21.06.1999, i.e., seven years after the first cause of action – Prescribed period under Article 58 is three years from date of first accrual of right to sue – Multiple causes of action do not give rise to fresh periods of limitation; clock runs from the date when right to sue first accrued – Held: Suit barred by limitation; finding of First Appellate Court that suit was within limitation not sustainable [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Second appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and decree of First Appellate Court in R.F.A. No. 50/2010 set aside – Judgment and decree of Trial Court dismissing the suit vide T.S. No. 189 of 1999 confirmed [Paras 22-25].

Insurance Law – Shopkeepers Policy – Repudiation of Claim – Theft/Burglary – Plaintiff running cloth shop under name "Monalisa Emporium" insured stocks with defendant No.1 for Rs.2,25,000/- under cover note dated 27.11.1990 – Plaintiff alleged that on 26.10.1991 two known persons forcibly lifted stock worth Rs.1,25,000/- from shop in his absence – Trial court decreed suit for Rs.1,72,650/- with interest and costs against insurer – High Court on appeal holds the incident does not constitute theft or burglary within scope of policy coverage – Plaintiff failed to prove loss by adequate evidence and violated policy conditions – Appeal allowed – Trial court decree set aside – Suit dismissed [Paras 1–30].

"Incident at Broad Daylight by Known Persons Without Resistance – Does Not Constitute Theft or Burglary Under Insurance Policy"

Insurance Claim – Theft – Burden of Proof – Alleged incident occurred at 12.30 noon in a prime locality at broad daylight – Wife of plaintiff (P.W.2) and worker present in shop made no minimum resistance, raised no cries and did not call neighbouring shopkeepers – Persons who took away stock (M.S.R. Anjaneyulu and Subramanyam) were known cloth merchants to whom plaintiff owed debt – Complaint lodged before police was referred as false after investigation – Held: The conduct of P.W.2 and the worker indicates consent rather than theft – Acts of said two persons do not form part of an act of burglary or theft and do not come within scope of coverage of insurance policy – Insurer rightly repudiated the claim [Paras 18–28].

"Failure to Examine Material Witnesses – Adverse Inference Against Plaintiff"

Evidence – Material Witnesses Not Examined – Plaintiff failed to examine worker Siva Narayana who was present in the shop at the time of the alleged incident – Neighbouring shopkeepers also not examined despite incident occurring at a busy main road locality during business hours – No stock inventory or list of cloth lost with price list filed before trial court – Held: Plaintiff failed to prove the alleged theft by reliable evidence – Oral testimony of wife alone insufficient to establish claim [Paras 20–22].

"Violation of Policy Condition No. 5 – Delay in Lodging Complaint and Notice to Insurer"

Insurance Policy – Condition No. 5 – Compliance – Policy required insured to forthwith lodge police complaint and intimate insurer within 14 days of theft – FIR (Ex.A-4) shows police received complaint only on 21.08.1992, nearly ten months after alleged incident of 26.10.1991 – No evidence produced by plaintiff of complaint lodged on 27.10.1991 as claimed – Police referred case as false and plaintiff filed no protest petition – Held: Plaintiff failed to comply with Condition No. 5(1)(a) of the insurance policy by not taking all practicable steps to apprehend the guilty persons or recover the lost property [Paras 25–27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 23.11.2005 in O.S. No. 482 of 1996 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur set aside – Suit dismissed – Each party to bear own costs.

Criminal Law – Human Trafficking – Immoral Traffic – Quashing of Charge – Sections 370, 370-A(2) IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 – Petitioner, owner-cum-manager of a Spa at Mapusa, sought quashing of order framing charges arising from a police trap operation in which a decoy customer paid marked currency notes for massage services, a victim girl accepted additional payment for extra/special massage, and marked notes were recovered both from the victim and the cash counter held by the Petitioner – Co-accused (customers and other named accused) had earlier been discharged by the Court – Held: Sufficient prima facie material exists on record to frame charge against the Petitioner and the challenge to the order framing charge fails – Petition dismissed [Paras 1, 20, 21].

"Owner-Cum-Manager Personally Implicated — Decoy Statement Establishes Direct Role"

Framing of Charge – Prima Facie Material – Role of Petitioner – The statement of the decoy customer disclosed that the Petitioner, seated at the counter, personally informed him of the massage charges, assured provision of female masseurs in closed-door rooms, received payment of Rs.1,500/- in marked currency, and arranged a victim girl for massage – Marked notes of Rs.1,500/- were recovered from the cash counter in the Petitioner's possession during the raid – Prima facie material clearly implicates the Petitioner in active management and facilitation of the alleged activities [Paras 10, 15].

"Victim Statements Alone Not Determinative — Context of Trap Raid Governs at Charge Stage"

Victim Statements – Stereotypical Nature – Insufficient to Negate Charge – The statements of the rescued victim girls were stereotypical, denying forced exploitation, but when read conjunctively with the complaint, decoy statement and scene of offence panchanama, prima facie material emerged showing one victim accepted Rs.500/- for extra/special/hand massage, which sum was recovered from her personal search – A packet of condoms was also recovered from the same room – The nature of the extra massage is a matter to be determined upon trial, not at the charge stage [Paras 12, 14, 15].

"Definition of 'Exploitation' Under Section 370 IPC is Inclusive, Not Exhaustive"

Trafficking Offence – Exploitation – Consent Immaterial – Section 370 IPC defines exploitation inclusively to cover any form of sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery – Second Explanation to Section 370 renders the consent of the victim immaterial in determining the offence of trafficking – Whether a particular act constitutes exploitation depends upon the facts of each case and is a matter for trial [Paras 12, 13, 14].

"Principle of Parity Not Applicable — Role of Petitioner Distinct from Discharged Co-Accused"

Parity – Discharge of Co-Accused – Inapplicability – Accused Nos. 7, 8 and 9 were discharged as no role was attributed to them in the complaint or charge-sheet – Accused Nos. 2 to 6 were discharged as they were merely customers of the Spa – The Petitioner, being the licensee and owner-cum-manager who personally received payment and facilitated the alleged prostitution, stands on an entirely different footing – Principle of parity cannot be invoked in favour of the Petitioner [Paras 4, 17].

"Standard at Charge Stage — Court Not to Weigh Pros and Cons but Only Assess Prima Facie Grounds"

Framing of Charge – Standard of Scrutiny – At the stage of framing charge, the Court is only required to sift the evidence to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the accused – The Court must assume the prosecution material to be true and assess whether the ingredients of the offence are prima facie disclosed – It is not the function of the Court at this stage to weigh the pros and cons of the evidence, which is the function reserved for the trial [Para 18].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Order dated 17.01.2024 of the Sessions Judge, North Goa, directing framing of charges against the Petitioner under Sections 370 and 370-A(2) IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 upheld – Rule discharged [Para 21].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Mental Cruelty – Unsubstantiated Allegations in Written Statement – Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act – Appellant-husband sought divorce on ground of mental cruelty – Trial Court dismissed the suit – On appeal, held: allegations levelled by the respondent-wife in her written statement, including attempt to kill their second daughter, illicit affair of the husband with another lady, and incitement of third parties to make immoral proposals to the wife, were wholly unsubstantiated – Allegation of attempt to kill daughter on February 15, 2019 demolished by wife's own admission in cross-examination that she had not returned to her matrimonial home after December 15, 2018, three months prior to such alleged incident – No corroborative evidence, oral or documentary, adduced for the alleged illicit affair – Testimony of wife (DW-1) and her mother (DW-2) stood in stark contradiction to each other – Reckless, defamatory and unsubstantiated allegations in pleadings against the spouse and his family, including jeopardising the husband's service in the CISF (a disciplined force), constitute mental cruelty – Trial Court erred in not taking this component of cruelty into account – Appellant entitled to decree of divorce on this ground alone [Paras 27–36].

Mental Cruelty – Plaint Allegations by Husband – Not Substantiated – Adverse Inference – Allegations by the appellant-husband of the wife refusing to do household work, ill-behaving with in-laws and perpetrating cruelty during her stay at the matrimonial home were vague and unaccompanied by specific dates or instances – PW-2, an acquaintance of the husband, admitted he learnt of the facts the day before deposing, relegating his testimony to hearsay – None of the family members of the husband, who would have been the best witnesses, were produced, warranting adverse inference against the appellant on the plaint case of cruelty during cohabitation – Trial Court justified in rejecting plaint allegations for want of independent corroboration [Paras 24–26].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Not a Prerequisite for Divorce – The learned Trial Judge erred in holding that non-filing of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was indicative of lack of bona fides on the part of the husband – Held: there is no requirement in law that a party must initiate restitution proceedings as a precondition for seeking divorce – No evidence of animus revertendi on the part of the respondent-wife during the entire period of separation since December 15, 2018 [Para 38].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Independent Ground for Divorce – Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act – Parties had been separated for over eight years since December 2018 – Both parties stated during arguments that they did not wish to resume conjugal life – No attempt made by either party to unite during this period – Held: a marital relationship that has only become bitter and acrimonious over the years inflicts cruelty on both sides; keeping the facade of such a broken marriage alive does injustice to both parties – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage itself spells cruelty to both parties and is a ground for dissolution under Section 13(1)(ia) – Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, (2023) 17 SCC 433, followed [Paras 39–41].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated December 6, 2023 of the Additional District Judge, Khatra, in Matrimonial Suit No. 07 of 2020 set aside – Suit decreed – Marriage between the parties dissolved by divorce – No order as to costs.