Criminal Law - Rape of Minor – Conviction – Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Sufficiency of Evidence – Appellant convicted under Section 376(2)(f)(i) IPC, Section 6 POCSO Act and Section 451 IPC – Victim aged about 9 years at time of incident – Victim categorically stated in cross-examination that appellant made full penetration – Held: Conviction can be sustained on sole testimony of prosecutrix if it inspires confidence – No rule of law requiring corroboration in every case [Paras 3.1–3.4, 4.2].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Injuries – Not Fatal to Prosecution – Doctor found no recent clinical signs of sexual intercourse and no injuries on victim – Held: Absence of medical corroboration does not discredit reliable ocular testimony of victim – Medical evidence is corroborative and not substantive – Where testimony of prosecutrix is trustworthy, conviction can be based thereon [Paras 2.5–2.7, 4.2].

Child Witness – Credibility – Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC consistent with FIR and deposition before Court – Victim stood firm during cross-examination – No material contradictions or infirmities found – Evidence inspires confidence [Paras 3, 4.2].

Rape Jurisprudence – Corroboration – Rule of Prudence Not of Law – Reiterated that corroboration of prosecutrix’s testimony is not a sine qua non – Minor discrepancies or absence of physical injuries do not negate prosecution case – Reliance placed on recent Supreme Court decisions affirming settled principles [Paras 3.2–3.3, 4.2].

Defence Plea – Prior Enmity – Not Substantiated – Suggestion of prior quarrel between families insufficient to discard victim’s evidence – No evidence of false implication established – Mere existence of past dispute does not demolish prosecution case [Paras 2.4, 4.2].

POCSO Act – Strict Liability – Protection of Child Victims – Victim being a minor, statutory presumption operates in favour of prosecution – Sexual assault on child proved beyond reasonable doubt through victim’s testimony – Conviction under Section 6 POCSO Act justified [Paras 3.4, 4.2].

Sentence – No Interference – Sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment under IPC and POCSO Act directed to run concurrently – Trial court judgment found to be legal and proper – No ground made out for appellate interference [Paras 1, 4.3].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence dated 30.11.2018 passed by Special Judge, Nuapada affirmed – Appellant to undergo sentence as awarded – No interference warranted [Para 4.3].

Civil Law  – Order 9 Rule 7 CPC – Nature of Relief – Discretionary and Equitable – Application for setting aside ex parte proceedings is not a matter of right – Applicant must establish “good cause” for non-appearance on date when proceeded ex parte – Unlike Order IX Rule 13, Rule 7 does not confer vested right to reopen proceedings – Discretion must be exercised on conduct of party and surrounding circumstances [Paras 10, 16].

Limitation – Article 137 Limitation Act – Applicability to Order IX Rule 7 CPC – Though CPC does not prescribe specific limitation, residuary Article 137 applies to all applications before civil courts unless expressly excluded – Period of three years cannot be rendered meaningless by prolonged inaction – Application filed after more than five years held barred by limitation and laches [Paras 11–14].

Service of Summons – Order V Rule 15 CPC – Validity of Service on Family Member – Summons served on petitioner’s father at correct address – Minor discrepancy in petitioner’s name not material where identity established – Process server reported prior conversation with petitioner and acceptance of summons by father at petitioner’s responsibility – Service held valid and in compliance with procedural requirements [Paras 7, 9].

Knowledge of Proceedings – Conduct of Party – Estoppel – Material on record showed petitioner’s prior knowledge of pendency of suit – Compromise entered before police authorities bearing petitioner’s signature acknowledging civil dispute and next date of hearing – Plea of lack of knowledge rejected as afterthought and attempt to mislead Court [Paras 8–9].

Delay and Laches – Equitable Relief Denied – Ex parte order passed on 10.01.2020 – Application under Order IX Rule 7 filed on 02.09.2025 without satisfactory explanation – Gross and unexplained delay destructive of equitable relief – Courts cannot reward deliberate inaction [Paras 14–15].

Stage of Proceedings – Prejudice to Opposite Party – Suit had progressed to stage of defendants’ evidence – Allowing belated application would unsettle concluded proceedings – Procedural discipline must be maintained to ensure certainty in civil trials [Para 15].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – No Interference with Discretionary Orders – High Court’s revisional power limited to correcting jurisdictional error, perversity or material illegality – Trial Court exercised discretion on cogent material and settled principles – Mere possibility of different view no ground for interference [Paras 16–17].

Balancing Natural Justice – Limited Participation Permitted – Though revision dismissed, petitioner permitted to participate in further proceedings – Such participation not to reopen concluded stages – Petitioner barred from filing written statement or leading evidence [Para 18].

Decision – Civil revision dismissed – Order rejecting application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC upheld – No perversity or illegality found – Limited participation allowed in interest of natural justice without reopening proceedings [Paras 17–18].

Land Acquisition – Negotiated Compensation – Section 29(2) KIAD Act – Finality of Settlement – Petitioner accepted compensation through negotiation and executed agreement and indemnity bond under Section 29(2) KIAD Act – Compensation included market value, solatium, additional market value and interest – Held: Once compensation accepted in full and final settlement, claimant estopped from seeking further compensation or alternative reliefs such as allotment of sites [Paras 45–47].

Suppression of Material Facts – Acceptance of Compensation – Writ Jurisdiction – Petitioner failed to disclose receipt of ₹51,36,250/- towards compensation – Suppression of material facts disentitles petitioner from discretionary relief under Articles 226 and 227 – Writ petition liable to be dismissed on this ground alone [Paras 45–46].

Bangalore–Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project – Framework Agreement (FWA) – Binding Nature – FWA dated 03.04.1997 read with Project Technical Report (PTR) governs entire project – Project proponents entitled to develop only five demarcated self-sustaining townships – Any deviation impermissible without prior approval of State Government – Land acquired can be used only in conformity with FWA and PTR [Paras 56–62, 71–74].

Allotment of Sites to Land Losers – Contrary to FWA – Not Permissible – Claim for allotment of residential sites as compensation outside notified townships rejected – Such allotment would defeat integrated nature of infrastructure corridor and violate binding contractual framework – No enforceable promise shown for allotment of sites [Paras 68–74].

Effect of Supreme Court Judgment – BMICAP v. NICE (2021) 18 SCC 401 – Supreme Court authoritatively held that project proponents cannot develop land or layouts beyond five townships specified in FWA – Planning authorities lack jurisdiction to permit deviations without prior State approval – High Court bound by said declaration of law – Claims inconsistent with FWA/PTR not maintainable [Paras 56–62, 68–74].

Delay and Laches – Long Silence After Acquisition – Acquisition notifications issued in 1998 and 2003 – Compensation paid in 2007 – Writ petition pursued belatedly for additional benefits without explanation – Relief rightly declined on ground of delay and acquiescence [Paras 45–47].

Public Infrastructure Projects – Courts Not to Rewrite Contracts – Courts cannot compel State or project proponents to grant benefits not contemplated under statutory framework or binding agreements – Equity cannot override express contractual and statutory limitations governing large infrastructure projects [Paras 71–74].

Observations on BMIC Project – Public Interest – Court recorded serious concern over failure of BMIC Project to achieve objectives of decongestion and township development – Directed State Government to re-examine viability and future of project – However, such observations do not confer individual rights contrary to law [Paras 75–78].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Claim for allotment of sites and further compensation rejected – No relief granted – Pending applications disposed of [Para 79].

Domestic Violence Act – Section 2(f) – “Relationship in the Nature of Marriage” – Live-in Relationship with Married Man – Not Maintainable – Petitioner claimed reliefs under PWDVA alleging marriage and long-standing cohabitation with Respondent No.1 during subsistence of his first marriage – Evidence of joint property purchase, financial arrangements, IVF treatment, and birth of child relied upon – Sessions Court reversed reliefs granted by JMFC – Held: Relationship between an unmarried woman and a married man, entered into with knowledge of subsisting marriage, does not qualify as a “relationship in the nature of marriage” – Such relationship lacks legal sanctity and falls outside ambit of Section 2(f) PWDVA [Paras 24–28].

Live-in Relationship – Supreme Court Guidelines – Indra Sarma and D. Velusamy Applied – Court reiterated that all live-in relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage – Essential conditions include parties being legally eligible to marry – Respondent No.1, being married, failed to satisfy mandatory condition of legal eligibility – Ratio of Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma and D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal squarely applicable [Paras 22–27].

Knowledge of Existing Marriage – Effect – Petitioner admitted awareness of Respondent No.1’s marital status at inception of relationship – Even if induced by misrepresentation, such relationship cannot be elevated to marriage-like status under PWDVA – Relationship akin to concubinage or extra-marital affair, for which Act does not presently provide protection [Paras 25–26].

Joint Property, Financial Control, Childbirth – Not Conclusive – Factors such as joint ownership of property, handling of bank accounts, sexual relationship, IVF treatment, or birth of child, though relevant, are insufficient by themselves to establish relationship in the nature of marriage when core legal requirements are absent – Social projection as husband and wife and legal capacity to marry remain determinative [Paras 25–27].

PWDVA – Beneficial Legislation – Limits of Interpretation – While PWDVA is a beneficial statute intended to protect women from abuse, courts cannot extend its scope beyond statutory definition – Expansion of protection to relationships knowingly entered with married persons requires legislative intervention and not judicial enlargement [Paras 26–28].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Limited Interference – Sessions Court correctly applied settled law and reversed trial court’s findings – No perversity or jurisdictional error found warranting interference under Article 227 – Concurrent appreciation of law upheld [Para 28].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune upheld – Petitioner held not entitled to reliefs under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Hindu Succession Act – Section 22 – Preferential Right of Pre-emption – Co-heirs – Testamentary Succession – Property originally owned by Tula Ram and bequeathed to his wife Purni Devi by a valid Will – Upon death of Purni Devi, property devolved by succession on her Class-I heirs including plaintiff and vendors – Vendors sold their share to defendant without notice to plaintiff – Held: Vendors inherited property by succession and not by survivorship – Plaintiff being a co-heir had a statutory preferential right under Section 22 – Courts below rightly decreed suit for pre-emption [Paras 11–12, 25–26].

Survivorship vs Succession – Female Owner – Inapplicability of Survivorship – Once property vested absolutely in a female owner under a Will, succession opens only after her death – Concept of survivorship has no application thereafter – Vendors could not claim inheritance by survivorship to defeat Section 22 – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras 11, 25].

Pre-emption – Notice of Intended Sale – Burden of Proof – Plea that plaintiff had notice of intended sale and refused to purchase – Burden lies on vendee/defendant to prove notice and refusal – Mere oral assertion of vendor without documentary or independent corroboration insufficient – Absence of notice preserves statutory right of co-heir [Paras 12, 22, 27].

Waiver of Statutory Right – Requirement of Clear and Unequivocal Conduct – Waiver of a statutory preferential right cannot be inferred lightly – Must be intentional, conscious and unequivocal – Continued joint ownership and absence of proof of notice negates plea of waiver – No abandonment of right established [Paras 13, 28].

Urban Property – Section 22 HSA – Independent of Customary Pre-emption – Statutory right under Section 22 operates irrespective of customary or relationship-based pre-emption – Decision in Atam Parkash v. State of Haryana does not dilute statutory preferential right of co-heirs – Correctly distinguished by Courts below [Paras 15, 26].

Regular Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Findings regarding validity of Will, nature of succession, co-heirship, absence of notice and non-waiver based on proper appreciation of evidence – No perversity or substantial question of law made out – Interference in second appeal declined [Paras 23, 29–30].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court decreeing suit for possession by way of pre-emption under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act affirmed – No substantial question of law arises.

Transfer of Property – Settlement Deed – Unilateral Cancellation – Invalidity – Registered settlement deed executed by the settlor in favour of grandson – Subsequent unilateral cancellation deed executed by settlor without consent of settlee – Held, once settlement deed is executed and registered, vesting rights in favour of settlee, it cannot be unilaterally cancelled unless a specific right of revocation is reserved in the deed or conditions are violated – Cancellation deed held void and inoperative [Paras 7–9].

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 122 – Acceptance of Gift – Delivery of Possession – Not Sine Qua Non – Acceptance of settlement deed can be inferred from conduct of parties – Possession of original title deed with plaintiff and registration of settlement deed sufficient to establish acceptance – Settlement deed held duly acted upon during lifetime of executant [Paras 9].

Fraud, Coercion and Undue Influence – Burden of Proof – Mere allegation by settlor that deed was executed without knowledge or under pressure insufficient – No plea or proof of fraud or coercion raised contemporaneously in cancellation deed or subsequent settlement deed – Failure to establish grounds for invalidating the original settlement deed [Paras 4, 9].

Subsequent Settlement and Mortgage Deeds – Validity – Once original settlement deed stood valid and irrevocable, settlor ceased to have any right, title or interest in property – Subsequent settlement deed executed in favour of daughters and mortgage deed executed thereafter declared null and void [Paras 7–9].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Concurrent findings of fact by Trial Court and First Appellate Court – No perversity or substantial question of law made out – High Court declined to interfere with concurrent judgments [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld – Unilateral cancellation of settlement deed declared void – Subsequent settlement and mortgage deeds held invalid – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Family Law - Custody and Visitation – Paramount Consideration – Welfare of Child – Visitation rights of father modified by Family Court reducing frequency of physical meetings and introducing regulated video calls – Held: In matters of custody and visitation, welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration overriding rights and convenience of parents – Courts must ensure physical safety, emotional well-being and psychological stability of the child [Paras 11, 15–18].

Interim Visitation – Power to Modify – Change in Circumstances – Family Court modified earlier consensual interim visitation arrangement dated 14.11.2024 based on subsequent incidents including alleged altercations, registration of FIR and complaints under PWDV Act – Held: Interim visitation arrangements are always subject to modification if subsequent events demonstrate potential impact on child’s welfare – No vested right accrues to either parent [Paras 14–16].

Discretionary Jurisdiction – Limited Appellate Interference – Family Court exercised discretionary jurisdiction after considering relevant material – Appellate court cannot substitute its own view unless order is perverse, arbitrary or contrary to welfare of child – Mere reduction in visitation frequency does not amount to denial of parental contact [Paras 20–21].

Balancing Parental Contact with Child’s Safety and Stability – Modified arrangement permitted physical meetings twice a month at neutral public place and video calls twice a month – Held: Arrangement strikes balance between father’s right to meaningful contact and need to protect child from instability arising from inter se parental disputes – Modification protective rather than punitive [Paras 17–18].

Ongoing Parental Conflict – Impact on Child – Record reflected multiple litigations and acrimonious disputes between parties – Courts duty-bound to insulate child from parental conflict as far as possible – Stability, routine and academic needs of school-going child must be prioritised over frequent short-duration meetings [Paras 19–20].

Allegations Pending Investigation – No Final Adjudication Required at Interim Stage – While allegations against father disputed, Family Court not required to conclusively determine truth at interim stage – Existence of surrounding circumstances sufficient to warrant cautious approach in regulating visitation [Paras 16–18].

Visitation Rights – Not Absolute – Subject to Regulation – Right of a parent to visitation is not absolute and can be reasonably regulated in interest of child’s welfare – Interim arrangements remain open to future modification upon demonstrable change in circumstances [Paras 20–23].

Counselling and Mediation – Observations – Court emphasised shared parental responsibility to foster healthy environment for child – Family Court may explore counselling or mediation to evolve harmonious co-parenting framework [Para 24].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Impugned order dated 15.12.2025 upheld – Modified interim visitation arrangement to continue until further orders – Observations confined to interim visitation and not to affect merits of pending proceedings [Paras 21–25].

Tenancy Law - Cultivating Tenants Protection – Fixation of Arrears – Jurisdiction of Revenue Court – Tenant filed petition only seeking permission to deposit rent – Despite memo not pressing the petition, Revenue Court unilaterally determined arrears of Rs.93,418/- based on market value of paddy and revenue reports – Held, fixation of fair rent can be done only by the competent authority under the Puducherry Cultivating Tenants Payment of Fair Rent Act, 1970 – Revenue Court lacked jurisdiction – Order dated 08.09.1999 held a nullity [Paras 21–27].

Counsel’s Concession – Binding Nature – Alleged consent by tenant’s counsel to determination of arrears contrary to statute and contract – Held, counsel has no authority to surrender substantive rights or make concessions on questions of law – Such concession neither binds the client nor cures lack of jurisdiction – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedent [Paras 26–27].

Eviction for Non-Payment of Rent – Section 3(4)(b), Puducherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act – Mandatory Opportunity – Before ordering eviction, Revenue Court bound to grant reasonable time to tenant to deposit arrears – Tenant filed multiple applications expressing readiness to pay arrears – Applications kept pending for 20–28 years and dismissed mechanically along with eviction petition – Statutory mandate violated – Eviction order vitiated [Paras 28–30].

Abandonment of Cultivation – Pleadings and Proof – No plea by landlord alleging abandonment – Revenue Court suo motu relied on Tahsildar’s report and wrongly treated it as admission by tenant – Evidence without pleadings impermissible – Finding of abandonment held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 31–32, 38].

Beneficial Legislation – Interpretation – Puducherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act is a welfare statute intended to protect cultivating tenants from unjust eviction – Courts must adopt liberal and tenant-oriented interpretation – Revenue Court failed to keep in view objects of the Act and scheme for fixation of fair rent – Eviction order set aside [Paras 24, 29, 34–35].

Legal Representatives of Cultivating Tenant – Status – Landlord himself impleaded legal heirs of deceased cultivating tenant – Revenue records showed cultivation by deceased tenant and his son – Objection that legal representatives are not cultivating tenants rejected – Petitioners entitled to protection under the Act [Paras 33, 37].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – Order dated 29.11.2023 in PCTPA.No.1 of 2001 set aside – Petitioners directed to deposit entire arrears of rent payable strictly in terms of the contract within eight weeks – On such deposit, possession to be restored within one week – Liberty reserved to respondents to initiate fresh eviction proceedings in accordance with law – No costs – Connected CMP closed.

Employees’ Compensation – Insurer’s Liability – Interest on Compensation – Policy Exclusion Clause – Appeal by Insurance Company – Workman sustained permanent total disability due to fall from height during employment – Commissioner awarded compensation with 12% interest and imposed liability jointly on employer and insurer – Insurance policy produced at appellate stage showing specific exclusion of liability for interest and penalty – Held: Liability of insurer under Employees’ Compensation Act is purely contractual and governed by terms of insurance policy – In absence of statutory compulsion akin to Motor Vehicles Act, insurer cannot be fastened with liability beyond contract – Exclusion clause valid and enforceable – Insurer liable only to pay compensation amount – Employer liable to pay statutory interest [Paras 11–20].

Additional Evidence – Insurance Policy – Acceptance at Appellate Stage – Certified copy of full insurance policy not produced before Commissioner due to inadvertent omission – Policy certificate and premium receipts already on record – Additional document relevant for adjudication of substantial question of law – No dispute as to genuineness of document – Held: In the interest of justice, additional evidence permitted and relied upon [Paras 11–12].

Wages and Coverage – Employees’ Compensation Insurance – Insurer contended policy covered only seven welders drawing wages up to ₹4,000 per month whereas claimant alleged wages of ₹15,000 – Commissioner assessed wages at ₹4,000 per month – Held: Once Commissioner fixed wages within policy limit, insurer cannot deny coverage solely based on higher wage claim by workman [Para 10].

Substantial Question of Law – Direction to Pay Interest Contrary to Policy Terms – Whether Commissioner was justified in directing insurer to pay interest despite express exclusion in policy – Held: Issue involves interpretation of insurance contract and statutory scheme – Constitutes substantial question of law – Answered in favour of insurer [Paras 18–20].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Award modified – Insurer directed to pay only compensation amount – Employer directed to pay interest as awarded by Commissioner – No liability on insurer for interest or penalty.