Property Law – Partition Suit – Effect of Previous Litigation – Interpretation of Decree – Appellants (Plaintiffs) sought partition of joint property claiming half share – Respondent (Defendant) contended that Appellants lost rights due to failure to pay Rs. 5,300/- as ordered in a previous Second Appeal (S.A. No. 641 of 1988) – First Appellate Court dismissed the partition suit on grounds of non-compliance with the previous decree – High Court held that the previous decree only created a charge on the property for the amount due and did not extinguish the Appellants' title – The previous judgment clarified that title would not pass without a registered relinquishment deed, which was never executed – Held: First Appellate Court misconstrued the clauses of the earlier decree; the remedy for Respondent was execution/auction, not denial of partition – Plaintiffs entitled to partition [Paras 15-18, 20].

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Oral Agreement – Respondent claimed an oral agreement existed wherein Appellants agreed to sell their share for Rs. 1,00,000/- – No evidence produced to substantiate the oral agreement – High Court found that the First Appellate Court erred by reversing the Trial Court’s decree without proper appreciation of evidence – High Court noted that Appellants had eventually deposited the requisite amount with the Trial Court – Findings of the First Appellate Court were vitiated by misinterpretation of documentary evidence (Ex. A-1) – Interference under Section 100 CPC justified when findings are perverse or based on misconstruction of documents [Paras 14, 19-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court set aside – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court (decreeing the suit for partition) restored – Each party to bear their own costs.

Service Law – Recruitment – LT Grade Assistant Teachers – Waiting List – Rule 12(8) of 1998 Rules – Discretion of Board – “Not larger than 25%” is a ceiling and not a mandate – No right to insist that waiting list must be 25% of vacancies – Recruitment cannot be prolonged indefinitely – No arbitrariness shown in criteria adopted by Board – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 14-21].

Recruitment Process – LT Grade Assistant Teachers – Advertisement No. 01/2016 – Completion of Selection – Petitioners, who were unsuccessful candidates not included in merit list or initial waiting list, sought preparation of a fresh enlarged waiting list claiming vacancies still existed and process for Supplementary Panels should continue – Prior directions in Writ A No. 14121/2022 and Special Appeal No. 679/2022 were relied upon – Held: Process for counselling and preparation of waiting list concluded; recruitment cannot be kept alive indefinitely [Paras 1-8, 12, 18].

Waiting List – Interpretation of Rule 12(8), 1998 Rules – Rule provides list “not larger than twenty-five percent” of vacancies – Held: Phrase imposes only a maximum ceiling; no mandate that waiting list must necessarily be 25% of vacancies – Discretion lies with Board/Commission to decide appropriate percentage depending upon circumstances – Petitioners’ argument that full 25% is mandatory rejected [Paras 14-17].

Administrative Discretion – Criteria for Waiting List – Challenge raised against non-uniform application of percentage criteria for different subjects; petitioners contended arbitrariness – Held: While uniform criteria may be ideal, mere lack of uniformity does not ipso facto render decision arbitrary absent violation of statutory rules – No mala fides or illegality established [Paras 17, 19-20].

Right of Candidates in Waiting List – No Indefeasible Right – Court reiterated settled law that candidates in waiting list (or even select list) have no absolute right to appointment; waiting lists cannot survive indefinitely – Recruitment begun in 2016 cannot be prolonged further – Reliance placed on Supreme Court judgment Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana (2023) 10 SCC 54; applied by this Court in earlier cases – Held: No right is created in favour of petitioners merely because some vacancies may have subsequently arisen [Paras 15-18].

Precedents – Gaurav Kumar (2025) and Ambrish Kumar (2021) – Both judgments categorically hold that Rule 12(8) only prescribes a maximum limit, not a mandatory minimum; Board is not required to draw waiting list equal to 25% of vacancies – These precedents directly apply and operate against petitioners’ claim – Writ petition must fail [Paras 15-17, 20].

Decision – Impugned order dated 16.05.2025 upholding earlier waiting list found lawful – No statutory violation demonstrated – Recruitment process concluded – Writ petitions dismissed [Paras 20-21].

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Attempt to Commit – Section 308 IPC – Appellant convicted for assaulting victim with blunt weapons along with others, causing grievous injuries – Conviction upheld based on testimony of injured eyewitness and corroborative medical evidence – Appellant did not challenge conviction on merits – Appeal limited to sentence modification [Paras 3, 7–8].

Probation – Release on Good Conduct – Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act – Appellant aged 50 years, employed as a security guard, with peaceful conduct and no criminal history – Social Investigation Report found favourable – Incident occurred 24 years ago and sentence served partially – Held: Appellant deserves benefit of probation – Substantive sentence modified – Appellant directed to furnish bond for one year with conditions of good behaviour [Paras 9–13].

Judicial Discretion – Sentencing – Court emphasised reformative approach – Referenced Supreme Court precedents in Lakhvir Singh v. State of Punjab and Chellammal v. State, reiterating duty of courts to consider probation where conditions under Section 4(1) are met – Held: Courts must balance nature of offence with potential for reformation [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Conviction maintained – Sentence of imprisonment set aside – Appellant released on probation for one year with surety and bond of ₹10,000 – Fine maintained – Appeal partly allowed [Para 13].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Acquittal – Accused admitted signature on cheque but denied liability – Complainant presented sufficient documents including return memo, legal notice, postal proof, and reply – Trial Court acquitted the accused citing discrepancies and held complainant acted without reasonable cause – Held: Acquittal alone insufficient to invoke Section 250 CrPC – No finding of malicious prosecution – Direction to pay compensation unsustainable [Paras 10–15]

Criminal Law – Compensation to Accused under Section 250 CrPC – Setting Aside – Appellant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 alleging that the respondent issued a cheque for ₹3,00,000/- towards repayment of a hand loan, which was dishonoured for “Insufficient Funds” – Trial Court acquitted the accused but awarded compensation of ₹25,000/- under Section 250 CrPC to the accused, holding that the complaint was filed without reasonable cause – High Court held that although the complainant failed to prove his case, the essential requirements to invoke Section 250 CrPC were not satisfied – No material to show malafide, malicious prosecution, or that the complaint was frivolous – Acquittal alone is insufficient ground for awarding compensation under Section 250 CrPC [Paras 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15]

Compensation – Malicious Prosecution – Scope of Section 250 CrPC – High Court analyzed precedents including State of Rajasthan v. Jainudeen Shekh (2016) 1 SCC 514 and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736 – Reiterated that compensation under Section 250 CrPC can only be awarded if prosecution was without reasonable cause, was malicious or actuated by ulterior motives – Findings of the Trial Court based on presumption, not on cogent evidence of malice – Held: Procedural lapses or acquittal do not justify invoking Section 250 CrPC unless malicious prosecution is established [Paras 9, 13, 14, 15]

Cheque Dishonour – Existence of Reasonable Grounds – Cheque admitted by accused to bear his signature – Dishonour proven by return memo from SBI – Legal notice issued and duly served – Evidence such as postal acknowledgment, receipts, and reply to notice placed on record – High Court found that these materials constituted reasonable grounds to file complaint under Section 138 NI Act – Absence of memo from payee’s bank or discrepancies in endorsement do not amount to frivolous or malicious prosecution [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13]

Trial Court Findings – Held Perverse – Trial Court placed undue emphasis on evidentiary gaps like lack of bank memo from Nishant Society and endorsement by third-party bank – Found complainant had misused cheque without concrete evidence – High Court noted such findings were based on surmises – Witness from credit society admitted blank cheques are not permitted, contradicting respondent’s defence – No finding of malice or ill-intent against complainant – Invoking Section 250 CrPC unjustified [Paras 11, 13, 14, 15]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Trial Court’s order dated 16/03/2017 awarding compensation of ₹25,000/- under Section 250 CrPC quashed and set aside – Acquittal of respondent under Section 138 NI Act remains undisturbed – No compensation payable to respondent – Appeal disposed accordingly [Para 15, Final Order]

Criminal Law – Rape and Murder – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Death Penalty Commuted – Five-month-old infant abducted by maternal cousin from a marriage function – Later found severely injured and unconscious in a nearby vacant plot – Died during treatment – Convict last seen with victim – Recovery of victim and circumstantial evidence including forensic analysis supported prosecution – Conviction upheld but death sentence commuted to life imprisonment till natural life without remission – Held: Brutality alone cannot justify capital punishment in absence of premeditation or ruling out reform [Paras 1, 4, 35–39, 47–48, 57–58, 62, 63–72].

Evidence Act – Last Seen Theory – Circumstantial Evidence – Forensic Linkage – Accused seen taking child from mother at 7 p.m. – Found hours later with injuries consistent with sexual assault and blunt force trauma – Biological fluid of female origin found on accused’s clothing – No credible alternative hypothesis – Chain of circumstances complete – Theory of enmity rebutted – Held: Conviction sustainable even without DNA match where other links are firmly established [Paras 39, 48–50, 57–58, 60, 62].

Criminal Procedure – Capital Punishment – Rarest of Rare Doctrine – Commutation to Life Imprisonment Without Remission – Though trial court imposed death penalty, High Court held that since conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, and there was no premeditated intent, past criminal record, or evaluation from Probation Officer or psychologists, death penalty not justified – Reformation potential not ruled out – Life imprisonment without remission ordered [Paras 63–72].

Criminal Law – Investigation Lapses – Non-Fatal to Prosecution Case – CCTV footage procured but not produced in original Pen Drive – Compact Disc version unavailable – However, oral testimony of Investigating Officer and other witnesses, along with physical and forensic evidence, sufficient to prove guilt – Held: Investigation lapses alone cannot override substantive evidence [Paras 31–32, 60–61].

Constitutional Law – Sentencing – Consideration of Mitigating Factors Mandatory Before Awarding Death Penalty – Trial court did not obtain reports from Jail Administration, Probation Officer, or psychologist – Convict was 27 years old with no criminal antecedents – Death penalty must only be imposed when reform is unquestionably ruled out – Commutation appropriate in absence of full inquiry [Paras 63–71].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction upheld – Death penalty under Sections 302 and 376(Ka)(Kha) IPC read with Section 6 POCSO Act commuted to life imprisonment for natural life without remission – Sentence under Section 364 IPC and fines confirmed – Reference in Capital Case No. 4 of 2021 not confirmed.

Extradition Law – Dual Criminality – India-Canada Treaty – Prima Facie Satisfaction for Magisterial Inquiry – Validity of MEA’s Decision – Petitioner challenged MEA’s direction under Section 5 of Extradition Act initiating magisterial inquiry into Canadian extradition request for offence under Section 320.16(3) of Canadian Criminal Code – Held: The alleged conduct, if committed in India, would amount to causing death by rash or negligent act punishable under Section 304A IPC – Requirement of dual criminality under Article 3 of India-Canada Extradition Treaty satisfied – Ministry's decision found legally tenable – Petition dismissed [Paras 1, 4, 10–18].

Extradition Treaty – Interpretation of Dual Criminality – Emphasis on Underlying Conduct Not Textual Similarity – Petitioner argued that the Canadian offence of failing to stop after accident resulting in death has no equivalent under Indian law – Court held: Extradition offence under Article 3 requires similarity in punishable conduct, not identical statutory language – Conduct alleged involves death by driving and failure to assist, which is punishable under Indian law – Principle of dual criminality met [Paras 13–16].

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Judicial Review – Extradition Process – Ministerial Satisfaction for Inquiry Stage Not Subject to Extensive Scrutiny – Held: At Section 5 stage, MEA only examines whether a prima facie case is made out and if dual criminality is met – Detailed examination of culpability or fairness of prosecution is premature – Interference by High Court unwarranted at pre-inquiry stage [Paras 8, 9, 17].

Interpretation – Marginal Notes in Statutes – Limited Relevance – Petitioner relied on marginal note “Failure to stop after accident” in Canadian Code to argue that omission alone was criminalised – Court clarified: Marginal notes are not determinative – Full provision must be read to understand the offence – Allegation involves active culpability including knowledge or recklessness about accident resulting in death [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Writ Petition and accompanying application dismissed – MEA’s order dated 19/04/2023 upheld – Interim order dated 25/09/2023 vacated – Observations made in the judgment not to influence trial proceedings in CT No. 882/2023.

Criminal Law – Additional Evidence at Appellate Stage – Section 391 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Object – Appellate Court dismissed application for production of additional documents in appeal against conviction under Section 138 NI Act – Held: Power under Section 391 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised to secure ends of justice and where non-receipt of evidence may result in failure of justice – Additional evidence not confined to cases where judgment cannot be pronounced but where its absence may occasion miscarriage of justice – Impugned order set aside and petitioner permitted to adduce additional evidence [Paras 8, 12-14].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Conviction under Section 138 – Appeal Pending Since 2017 – Application for Production of Ledgers and Cheque Records – Appellate Court rejected plea treating it as dilatory tactic and holding that documents would not conclusively prove unlawful custody of cheques – High Court held that appellate court ought not to draw adverse inference on merits at stage of considering application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. and should examine necessity of evidence for just decision of appeal [Paras 10-11, 14].

Section 391 Cr.P.C. – Parameters for Exercise of Power – Additional evidence permissible where party was prevented from producing evidence despite due diligence or where facts came to light during pendency of appeal – Evidence must be necessary to avoid failure of justice – Reliance placed on Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat and Brig. Sukhjeet Singh (Retd.) MVC v. State of U.P. – Wide discretion vested in appellate court but to be exercised judiciously [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Order dated 25.07.2025 in Crl.M.P. No.22 of 2023 in Crl.A. No.859 of 2017 set aside – Application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. allowed – Petitioner permitted to adduce additional evidence – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 14-15].

Civil Law – Ownership Dispute – Relief of Mandatory Injunction – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff, sole owner of the property by virtue of registered gift deeds dated 6.7.2009 and 9.5.2014 executed by his mother Smt. Santosh Kumari, filed suit seeking possession from his brother (defendant) who was residing in a portion of the house as a licencee – Defendant contested, claiming co-ownership and challenged validity of gift deeds alleging fraud, coercion and undue influence – Trial court decreed the suit for mandatory injunction – Appeal by defendant dismissed – Held: Defendant failed to prove co-ownership or any title – Gift deeds validly executed – Suit for mandatory injunction maintainable post revocation of licence [Paras 1, 2, 5, 13, 14, 45, 49, 66, 73].

Transfer of Property – Valid Gift Deeds – Challenge to Gift by Sibling – Defendant claimed mother was not in sound mind and gift deeds were fraudulently executed – Plaintiff proved execution through attesting witness and documentary evidence – Both gift deeds executed in compliance with Section 123 of Transfer of Property Act – Gift valid even if possession not delivered at the time – Defendant’s allegations of fraud, coercion, and undue influence not proved – No specific pleadings or evidence to substantiate claim – Held: Gift deeds legally valid and enforceable [Paras 50–54, 58–66].

License – Nature of Possession – Permissive Possession of Defendant – Plaintiff’s brother allowed to stay as licencee – Relationship of licensor and licencee existed post-execution of gift deeds – Licence revoked via legal notice dated 4.8.2014 – Defendant failed to vacate – Held: Defendant's occupation was permissive and post-termination, plaintiff entitled to seek possession through mandatory injunction – Plaintiff rightly proceeded under Specific Relief Act and not for recovery of possession – Apex Court precedents relied upon [Paras 67–79].

Construction by Licencee – Irrevocability of Licence – Defendant alleged raising permanent structure in suit premises – No sanctioned plan or evidence produced – Plaintiff filed sanctioned plans in name of mother – Held: Defendant failed to prove that any construction raised by him – Licence not rendered irrevocable [Paras 80–81].

Registered Documents – Allegation of Interpolation – Defendant alleged manipulation in sale and gift deeds – Plaintiff produced originals – Every cutting signed – Held: No adverse inference – Registered documents carry presumption of genuineness – Defendant failed to rebut it [Paras 82–84].

Non-Exhibition of Documents – Procedural Lapse – Documents submitted in sealed cover for safe custody – Trial court failed to mark exhibits – Defendant did not object before trial court – Held: Procedural lapse by court – No prejudice caused – Plaintiff proved documents and execution through oral and documentary evidence – Decree not liable to be reversed merely for non-exhibition [Paras 85–95].

Mesne Profits – Appellate Court's Power Under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC – Trial court denied mesne profits @ ₹30,000/month for lack of proof – During appeal, stay granted on condition of ₹10,000/month deposit – Held: Appellate court can award mesne profits at ₹10,000/month as condition of stay – Defendant bound by the order – Plaintiff entitled to receive damages for use and occupation till actual handover of possession [Paras 96–100, 106].

Caretaker/Trespasser – No Title by Long Possession – Defendant residing gratuitously – No tenancy or lease established – Apex Court in Maria Margarida and Behram Tejani reiterated caretaker acquires no right – Held: Long possession does not confer any right – Defendant must vacate [Paras 101–103].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 01.07.2019 upheld – Plaintiff entitled to possession via mandatory injunction and damages @ ₹10,000/month from 01.07.2019 till delivery of possession – Interim orders vacated [Paras 104–109].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of trial court affirmed – Defendant to hand over vacant possession to plaintiff – Plaintiff entitled to ₹10,000 per month as damages from date of decree till possession is handed over.

Criminal Law – Robbery – Doubtful Identification – Nighttime Crime – Conviction Set Aside – Petitioners (A1 & A3) convicted for stabbing and robbing two employees carrying ₹16 lakhs – Conviction confirmed by appellate court – However, eye-witnesses (PW1 & PW2) admitted to contradictions regarding identity, absence of lighting, prior exposure to accused photographs, and conflicting testimonies on sequence of events – Test Identification Parade conducted 45 days post-arrest after exposure to accused undermined its probative value – Held: Identification highly doubtful – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 13-18, 22].

Evidence – Eye-Witness Testimony – Contradictions – Lack of Corroboration – Acquittal Justified – Evidence of PW1 and PW2 contradictory and unsupported by independent witnesses – Medical records silent on crucial aspects such as chilli powder allegedly used – Doctor did not confirm stated injuries or circumstances – PW3 and PW5 claimed to have transported victims to hospital but hospital registers mention different names – Place of occurrence itself in dispute – Held: Trial and appellate courts failed to appreciate contradictions – Evidence insufficient for conviction [Paras 12, 15-16, 18].

Criminal Trial – Parity Principle – Similar Role, Disparate Outcome – Conviction Discriminatory – Co-accused A2 and A4–A8 acquitted despite similar evidence – No weapon recovery traced to petitioners – No specific overt act attributed to them – Conviction based solely on disputed identification – Held: Principle of parity mandates that petitioners be given same benefit of doubt as others – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 23-26].

Investigation – Recovery and Confession – Procedural Irregularities – Witness Credibility Doubtful – Confession and recovery allegedly made in presence of PW7 (VAO) and PW8 (Village Assistant) who admitted to being stock witnesses – No independent witness or house owner (Rajendran) examined – Typed confessions using laptop and mobile printer at scene not supported by evidence – Held: Recovery procedure artificial and unsupported – Evidence unreliable [Paras 19-21].

Decision: Revision allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Petitioners acquitted – Fine, if paid, to be refunded – Petitioners to be released forthwith unless required in any other proceedings.