Hindu Law – Inheritance – Applicability of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Married Daughter’s Right – Plaintiff sought declaration of title and partition of ancestral property inherited by her brother after their father's death – Both Courts below found that father died in 1950-51, prior to enactment of 1956 Act – Held: Succession opened under pre-1956 Mitakshara law which excluded daughters when a male heir existed – Plaintiff had no enforceable right under prevailing law at the time – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12, 19-21, 26, 30-31]

Hindu Law – Mitakshara Succession – Male Lineal Descent – Property inherited from paternal ancestors treated as coparcenary property under Mitakshara law – Sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons acquire rights by birth – Female heirs could inherit only in absence of male issue – Defendant’s succession to entire estate held valid – Plaintiff’s claim without merit [Paras 19, 26-30]

Statutory Interpretation – Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 – Limited Scope – Act merely ranked certain female heirs in succession after paternal grandfather and before paternal uncle – Did not override Mitakshara principles or grant equal rights to daughters where male heirs existed – Plaintiff not entitled under 1929 Act either [Paras 23-25, 27-28]

Widow’s Possession – Section 14, Hindu Succession Act – No evidence led to show possession of property by widow after husband’s death – In absence of possession, limited estate could not convert into absolute right – Plaintiff failed to establish succession through mother – Mutation in favour of defendants upheld [Para 14, 30]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No right of inheritance accrued to plaintiff under Mitakshara law – Hindu Succession Act, 1956 not applicable due to ancestor’s death prior to its commencement – Property validly devolved upon male heir – No error in concurrent findings of lower courts – No costs awarded.

Motor Accident – Head-on Collision – Negligence – Apportionment of Liability – Accident on 28.11.2017 between WagonR (DL-03CR-6768) and Truck (AS-14C-0806) resulting in death of Om Prakash Sah – Tribunal held WagonR driver negligent based on MVI reports and directed United India Insurance Co. (insurer of WagonR) to pay compensation of ₹10,00,150/- – Held: Tribunal erred in relying solely on unproved MVI reports and hearsay evidence without examining MVI or investigator – Charge sheet filed against Truck driver and eye-witness (CW-2) supported negligence of Truck – Liability to be apportioned between both insurers [Paras 8–16, 28].

Evidence – Proof of Negligence – Standard of Proof – Tribunal misread evidence and ignored charge sheet and eye-witness testimony – Strict rules of evidence not applicable in motor accident cases – Negligence to be determined on preponderance of probabilities – Reference made to Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corp., (2009) 13 SCC 530; Kaushnumma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2001 ACJ 421 (SC); Rajwati v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1699 [Paras 12–14].

Procedure – Remand – Power under Order XLI Rules 23 & 23A CPC – Appellant sought remand to Tribunal – Court held no condition for remand satisfied; relied on P. Purushottam Reddy v. Pratap Steels Ltd., (2002) SC – Decided matter on merits to avoid prolonging litigation [Paras 17–18].

Compensation – Determination and Enhancement – Deceased aged 48 years, income ₹7,950/- per month (minimum wage) – Tribunal failed to add future prospects – High Court recalculated applying Pranay Sethi (25% addition for self-employed aged 40–50) and Sarla Verma (multiplier 13, ¼ deduction) – Also applied Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 to award ₹48,000/- each for five dependants as filial consortium, ₹18,000/- each for funeral expenses and loss of estate (10% enhancement twice) – Total compensation ₹14,56,216/- with 9% interest p.a. [Paras 20–26, 29].

Interest and Deposit Directions – Respondents directed to deposit respective shares of compensation before Tribunal within 30 days – ₹10,00,000/- to be kept in fixed deposit for 5 years in claimant’s name; withdrawal only with leave of Tribunal – Interest @9% per annum from date of filing claim till realization, following Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association, (2011) 14 SCC 481 [Paras 29–31].

Decision – Appeal dismissed on merits but award modified – Compensation enhanced from ₹10,00,150/- to ₹14,56,216/- with interest @9% p.a. – Liability apportioned between both insurers (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) equally – No costs [Paras 27–32].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Dismissal in Default – Right to Appeal – Complainant's cheque dishonour complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution – High Court held that such dismissal amounts to acquittal – In light of Supreme Court ruling in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, a complainant in a private complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act qualifies as a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. – Such a victim has the right to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. without seeking special leave under Section 378(4) – High Court directed that the application be treated as an appeal under Section 372 and sent to the Sessions Court for adjudication [Paras 1–5]

Criminal Procedure – Right of Victim to Appeal – Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial clarified that complainants in Section 138 cases are entitled to file appeals as victims without procedural barriers applicable to the State or complainants under Section 378 – The distinction is rooted in the nature of the victim's harm and absence of State involvement in such prosecutions – High Court accepted this rationale and followed precedent [Paras 2–5]

Procedural Law – Appeal Transfer – High Court did not examine the merits of the appeal – Directed the Registry to transmit records to the Sessions Court – Applicant to appear before Sessions Court for further proceedings – Petition disposed accordingly [Paras 6–9]

Decision: Application disposed – Treated as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. – Transferred to Sessions Judge, Panipat for appropriate disposal.

Criminal Law – Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act - Acquittal – Illegal Possession of Liquor – Compliance with Procedural Safeguards – Accused was acquitted by Trial Court in a case under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act for alleged illegal possession and sale of country liquor – Trial Court found that the prosecution failed to comply with mandatory provisions under Sections 100 and 165 of CrPC – Independent witnesses (PW-1 and PW-4) turned hostile and denied witnessing the recovery – Prosecution could not explain production of half-filled and unsealed bottles in Court [Paras 6, 15-22]

Search and Seizure – Section 165 CrPC – Validity of Search – IO did not reduce secret information into writing nor sent it to Magistrate as required under Section 165 CrPC – Supreme Court precedents mandate strict compliance in cases of warrantless search – Held: Search and seizure vitiated due to procedural lapses [Paras 15-18]

Evidence – Non-Production of Case Property – No explanation provided for half-filled and empty bottles – Seizure not proved through credible testimony – No supporting entry in daily diary about leakage of liquor – Held: Non-production of intact case property creates serious doubt about prosecution’s case [Paras 22-23]

Witness Testimony – Hostile Independent Witnesses – Panchayat members turned hostile during trial and denied witnessing search or seizure – Admission of signatures on seizure memo held insufficient to prove recovery – Held: Trial Court rightly did not rely on uncorroborated official testimonies [Paras 19-21]

Appellate Interference in Acquittal – Scope – High Court reaffirmed that acquittal can only be reversed if findings are perverse or no other reasonable view is possible – Since Trial Court’s view was plausible based on record, appeal dismissed – Presumption of innocence reaffirmed [Paras 12-14, 26]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent upheld – Bail bond to be furnished as per Section 437-A CrPC [Paras 27-28]

Criminal Law – Assault on Child – Section 323 IPC – Conviction Upheld – Section 8(2) Goa Children’s Act – Set Aside – Evidence of PW1 (injured child) found wholly reliable – Ocular testimony consistent and unshaken – Medical certificate not proved but ocular evidence given primacy – Incident held isolated and lacking ingredients of “child abuse” under Section 2(m); no deliberate cruelty or sustained maltreatment – Held: Conviction under Section 323 IPC sustainable; conviction under Section 8(2) Goa Children’s Act unsustainable [Paras 18-25, 29, 38-40].

Evidence Law – Injured Witness – High Evidentiary Value – PW1’s testimony inspires confidence – No material contradictions – Defence plea of enmity rejected – Law reiterated that injured witness has inbuilt guarantee of presence; cannot be disbelieved without compelling reasons [Paras 20, 24, 27].

Ocular vs. Medical Evidence – Primacy of Ocular Testimony – Medical certificate not proved as doctor not examined – However, ocular version corroborated by PW2 and not challenged in cross-examination – Medical evidence need not prevail unless it rules out prosecution case entirely – Conviction can rest on reliable ocular testimony [Paras 25-26].

Investigation – Panchanama – Non-examination of Panch Witness Not Fatal – Scene of offence panchanama proved through Investigating Officer – Law reiterated that recovery/panchanama can be proved by IO even if pancha turns hostile or is not examined [Paras 30-32].

Criminal Law – Goa Children’s Act – Scope of “Child Abuse” – Isolated Incident – Not Every Assault Amounts to Child Abuse – Supreme Court in Santosh Khajnekar followed – Abuse must involve cruelty, exploitation, deliberate ill-treatment or intent to cause serious harm – Mere assault during quarrel does not constitute child abuse under Section 8(2) – Conviction under Goa Children’s Act set aside [Paras 37-39].

Probation of Offenders Act – Applicability Mandatory for Offence under Section 323 IPC – Court must consider probation for offences punishable with less than life imprisonment – Matter remanded to Trial Court for determining grant of probation after obtaining Probation Officer’s report – Law reiterated that courts must assess probation for first-time offenders unless excluded by statute [Paras 41-46].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction under Section 323 IPC Confirmed – Conviction under Section 8(2) Goa Children’s Act Set Aside – Matter Remanded on Probation Issue – Fine to be refunded [Para 47].

Criminal Law - SC/ST Act – Recommendation for FIR – Jurisdiction of Commission – Order dated 05.01.2018 passed by Member of National Commission for Scheduled Castes recommending registration of FIR under SC/ST Act against DDA official (Karamvir Narwal) and restoring vendor’s permission challenged – Held: NCSC is empowered to recommend enquiry but cannot direct FIR registration – The impugned order is merely recommendatory and not binding – No mandatory direction for FIR found [Paras 33-36].

Street Vendors Act – Right to Vend – Respondent street vendor had valid permission which was later withdrawn by DDA – Subsequent Writ Petition quashed revocation order – Vendor allegedly harassed and caste-abused by DDA official – Held: Grievance essentially related to vending rights and withdrawal of permission – No evidence of specific incident of caste abuse noted – Omnibus allegations insufficient to justify FIR [Paras 32-34].

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Petition filed by DDA challenging recommendation of NCSC – Held: Petition maintainable to clarify that NCSC’s order was only advisory in nature – Police not bound to register FIR solely on Commission’s recommendation – Enquiry may be conducted in accordance with law [Paras 35-36].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Clarified that impugned order of NCSC dated 05.01.2018 is recommendatory and not mandatory – No direction to register FIR – Police free to proceed with enquiry under law [Paras 36-37].

Army Law – Disobedience of Lawful Command – Section 41(2) of the Army Act – Punishment of Severe Reprimand – Legality of Summary Trial – Judicial Review under Article 226 – Scope and Limitations – Petitioner, a Subedar in EME Corps, challenged disciplinary action and discharge alleging that Movement Order was never served and enquiry was held ex parte – Record revealed that Petitioner was ordered to report to HQ Technical Group, EME, Delhi Cantt., but refused to comply – Summary trial conducted under Army Rules 22–26 after due opportunity – Eight prosecution and eight defence witnesses examined – Petitioner cross-examined witnesses but refused to sign proceedings – Held: Proceedings conducted in accordance with Army Act and Rules – No violation of natural justice or procedural irregularity – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence under certiorari jurisdiction – Findings supported by rational evidence – Punishment of “Severe Reprimand” not disproportionate [Paras 25–31].

Army Law – Discharge from Service – Extension of Service – Effect of Punishment of Severe Reprimand – Annexure-I to Appendix “A” of Army HQ Letter dated 21.09.1998 – Held: Personnel punished under Section 41(1) or (2) of the Army Act ineligible for extension for three years – Discharge validly ordered on completion of terms of engagement – No infirmity in discharge order [Paras 13–14, 31].

Judicial Review – Certiorari – Limits of High Court Interference – Finding of Fact – Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 24 – Union of India v. Major A. Hussain, (1998) 1 SCC 357 – Court not to act as appellate forum in military discipline matters – Review limited to jurisdictional errors, perversity, or procedural unfairness [Paras 19–21].

Service Law – Pension – Right to Pension – Deferred Wages – Direction to Facilitate Pension Processing – Court observed that though punishment and discharge are valid, pension cannot be denied – Directed respondents to furnish pension papers to petitioner within six weeks and process pension from date of superannuation within four months thereafter [Para 32].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Punishment and discharge upheld – Respondents directed to process and release pension upon completion of formalities by petitioner [Paras 32–33].

Civil Law – Partition - Assigned Lands – Transfer Validity – Applicability of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 – Partition Suit – Adverse Possession – Limitation – Appeal Allowed – Sale of land in 1964 challenged by plaintiffs on ground it violated provisions of the 1977 Assigned Lands Act – Trial court held sale void under Section 3 of the Act – Held: As per G.O.Ms.No.1142 dated 18.06.1954 and G.O.Ms.No.575 dated 16.11.2018, lands assigned before 18.06.1954 are outside the scope of the 1977 Act – Sale deed executed in 1964 valid – Plaintiffs’ claim to title not proven – Suit for partition without seeking declaratory relief is not maintainable – Plaintiffs failed to implead legal representatives of deceased co-plaintiffs – Suit partly abated – Further, defendants had continuous possession for over 25 years – Plaintiffs’ claim barred by limitation and adverse possession established [Paras 19, 23-27, 28-32, 34].

Domestic Violence – Delay in Proceedings – Pendency of Case Since 2018 – Petitioner-wife filed complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act on 06.11.2018 – Despite service of notice on 28.05.2019, respondent failed to appear – Trial proceeded ex parte – Respondent appeared only in January 2021 – Interim maintenance of ₹15,000/month awarded but reduced to ₹10,000/month by revisional court – Maintenance never paid despite salary of ₹1.10 lakh/month – Total arrears of ₹4.55 lakh accrued – High Court observed inordinate delay and systemic apathy in enforcement of maintenance orders [Paras 2-6]

Non-Compliance with Judicial Directions – Supreme Court and High Court Precedents Ignored – Neither trial court nor revisional court directed respondent to file affidavit of assets and liabilities as mandated in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi, 2023 SCC OnLine All 2684 – Prior directive in Rajesh Babu Saxena v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 2260 for recovery from salary also disregarded – Court expressed concern over indifference by trial courts to binding precedents, warning of loss of public confidence [Paras 7-8]

Judicial Accountability – Explanations Called from Magistrate and Revisional Court – Magistrate directed to furnish explanation for failure to seek affidavit of assets/liabilities – Revisional Court to explain basis for reducing maintenance from ₹15,000 to ₹10,000/month – Failure to provide satisfactory reasons may invite administrative action – Registrar (Compliance) directed to communicate order – Registrar General to collect responses before next hearing [Paras 8-9]

Decision: Magistrate and Revisional Court directed to submit explanations through Registrar General – Next hearing fixed for 14.10.2025 – Warning issued that evasive replies may attract administrative action.