Civil Law – First appeal in Waqf title/possession suits – Additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 – Gazette Notification (30/11/1961) sought by Waqf Board and ryotwari patta/revenue proceedings and prior decree sought by defendants – Held: documents being crucial public documents, admissible as additional evidence – suits remanded for proof and fresh decision – trial court decree set aside [Paras 14-28, 29-32].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Scope – Though appellate court ordinarily does not travel beyond trial record, additional evidence may be permitted where required to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause – Court may allow evidence even if it can decide on existing record, if interests of justice require filling up obscurity or lacuna – requirement is of the court upon appreciation of the record – K. Venkataramiah principle applied [Paras 21-23].

Waqf Property – Gazette Notification – Public document – Waqf Board sought to file attested Gazette Notification dated 30/11/1961 showing suit land notified as Waqf – document pre-dated suits and was directly relevant to determination of character/title of property – receiving notification as additional evidence would not cause prejudice as opposite party gets opportunity to meet and cross-examine – delay not a ground to reject when crucial to settle dispute [Paras 18-25].

Defendants’ Additional Evidence – Ryotwari patta proceedings and related revenue/writ records – Defendants sought reception of copies of Settlement Officer proceedings dated 29/04/1981, Commissioner (Survey/Settlement/Land Records) proceedings dated 03/05/1982, W.P.No.13562/1990 order dated 19/09/1990, MRO proceedings Rc.No.371/1990 dated 08/10/1990 and letter dated 22/10/1991, and judgment/decree in O.S.No.114/1943 dated 21/07/1944 – held to be public documents, prior in time to suit, and crucial in possession/title dispute – allowed subject to proof and relevancy – parties must prove existence, authenticity, genuineness and contents in accordance with law [Paras 26-28].

Remand – Common judgment in three suits – Additional evidence crucial to real controversy – Since both sides allowed to adduce additional evidence, matter required fresh consideration by trial court after proof of documents – common decree dated 31/03/2001 set aside – O.S.Nos.75, 76 and 77 of 1995 restored and remanded – trial court directed to permit additional evidence, hear parties, and decide on merits uninfluenced by earlier findings – records to be transmitted – no costs [Paras 29-32].

Decision: A.S.Nos.1725, 1726 & 1727 of 2001 allowed – I.A.No.1 of 2025 (by Waqf Board) allowed – I.A.No.1 of 2023 (by defendants) allowed – Common judgment and decree dated 31/03/2001 set aside – Suits remanded to Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili for fresh disposal after proof of additional documents – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 31-32].

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Disproportionate Punishment – Doctrine of Proportionality – Article 14 – Petitioner, a Head Constable in CID, was punished with permanent forfeiture of two annual increments for not informing seniors promptly about the loss of a service animal – Inquiry established that petitioner was not responsible for the animal's disappearance – Held: There was only a minor lapse in timing of communication – The punishment was disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct – Modified from permanent to temporary forfeiture of two increments [Paras 6, 9-10].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Arbitrary and Excessive Penalty – Violation of Equality Clause – Citing Om Kumar v. Union of India and Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Court reiterated that excessive or mechanical punishment without commensurate misconduct is violative of Article 14 – Court observed that State authorities acted mechanically and without justification in inflicting harsh penalty [Paras 7-8].

Administrative Law – Avoidance of Remand – Delay and Lapse of Time – Judicial Economy – Though normally the matter would be remanded to reconsider the quantum of punishment, the Court exercised discretion to modify punishment directly given the lapse of over two decades – Remand would only prolong litigation unnecessarily [Para 10].

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Punishment of forfeiture of two increments with permanent effect modified to temporary effect – Respondents directed to pay arrears arising from modified punishment within six months, failing which interest @7.5% p.a. will apply – Petition disposed of [Paras 10, 12-13].

Hindu Law – Composite Family – Proof of – Mere living together and joint cultivation insufficient – Absence of express agreement or conduct incompatible with individual identity – Plaintiff's failure to prove composite family or that properties were purchased from composite family funds – Trial Court's finding of composite family based on mere cohabitation held perverse – High Court reversed the finding [Paras 29, 31, 32, 34, 40].

Property Law – Sale Deed – Validity and Title – Registered sale deed of 1906 for Rs.440/- held valid and not nominal – Plaintiff's contention of nominality and lack of solvency of vendee rejected as baseless for 1906 – Unchallenged old registered sale deeds (over 50 years) confer absolute right and title – Possession and revenue records supporting defendant's ownership – High Court upheld the validity of the sale deeds and defendant's title [Paras 14, 15, 21, 26, 37, 38, 39, 41].

Evidence Act – Agreement to Partition (Ex.X-1) – Admissibility and Conclusiveness – Mere admission of signature on an agreement to partition properties in future is not conclusive proof of title – Such an agreement, without mentioning specific properties or survey numbers, is unknown to law and does not accrue rights – Admission of parties does not confer title in immovable property without a registered document – Ex.X-1 held not binding on defendants [Paras 26, 28, 30, 39, 40, 41].

Civil Procedure Code – Partition Suit – Entitlement to Relief – Plaintiff's failure to prove composite family, nominality of sale deeds, or purchase from composite family funds – Defendant's established title and exclusive possession through registered sale deeds and revenue records – Plaintiff not a coparcener or joint owner – High Court concluded plaintiff not entitled to partition [Paras 22, 23, 26, 38, 41, 42].

Civil Procedure Code – Permanent Injunction Suit – Entitlement to Relief – Defendant (plaintiff in injunction suit) proved settled and exclusive possession of plaint schedule properties through registered sale deeds and payment of Cist – Entitled to permanent injunction against interference – High Court decreed the suit for permanent injunction [Paras 42, 43].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Suit for partition dismissed – Suit for permanent injunction decreed – Paras 44, 45.

Public Trust – Change Reports – Sequential Change Reports – Cascading Effect – Multiple writ petitions arising from rejection of sequential change reports under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act – Acceptance or rejection of one change report having direct bearing on subsequent change reports – Held: If the foundational change report is invalid, all consequential change reports necessarily fail [Paras 2–3, 27–31].

Permanent / Hereditary Trustee – Interpretation of Trust Deed – Trust instrument provided for appointment of one permanent trustee from the family of the settler (Param Pujya Shri Kshirsagar Maharaj) under Clause 10 – Clause 14 providing retirement of 1/3rd trustees every three years not applicable to permanent trustee – Permanent trustee’s tenure not limited by rotation clause – Held: Appointment of Milind Govind Kshirsagar was permanent and continuous [Paras 10–14].

Power of Removal of Trustee – Trust Instrument – Clause 11 of trust deed enumerates contingencies for reduction of trusteeship but does not confer power on remaining trustees to remove a trustee – Mere power of appointment does not imply power of removal – Held: Remaining trustees have no authority under trust deed to remove even a defaulting trustee [Paras 14–15].

Removal of Trustee – Statutory Scheme – Maharashtra Public Trusts Act – Removal, suspension or dismissal of a trustee can only be effected by Charity Commissioner / Joint Charity Commissioner under Section 41D – Assistant Charity Commissioner has no power to direct trustees to remove a trustee – Trustees cannot usurp statutory powers vested exclusively in Charity Commissioner [Paras 15–17].

Inspector’s Inquiry Report – Scope and Effect – Inquiry report under Sections 37–41B can at best form basis for further statutory action – Report cannot be acted upon by trustees to remove trustee – Proper course is submission of report to Charity Commissioner for action under Section 41D [Paras 17–18].

Natural Justice – Removal Resolution – Validity – No specific agenda for removal mentioned in notice of meeting dated 05.03.2003 – Removal resolution sprung without prior notice – Reporting trustee himself contradicted trust’s case – Affidavits of other trustees lacking credibility – Held: Meeting dated 13.03.2003 was orchestrated and removal was vitiated [Paras 19–24].

Change Report No.557/2003 – Removal of Milind Kshirsagar – Removal of permanent trustee by trustees held illegal – Concurrent findings of Assistant Charity Commissioner and Joint Charity Commissioner upheld – Writ Petition No.9544 of 2025 dismissed [Paras 24].

Appointment in Absence of Vacancy – Invalid – Since permanent trustee was never lawfully removed, no vacancy arose – Appointment of Sudhir Kshirsagar and other trustees invalid ab initio – Consent of appointee not proved – Subsequent change reports rightly rejected [Paras 25–28].

Procedural Irregularities – Meetings and Appointments – Failure to comply with notice period, quorum requirements and proof of consent – Inconsistent minutes and affidavits not tested by cross-examination – Concurrent factual findings not perverse – Writ court will not interfere [Paras 28–29].

Scope of Writ Jurisdiction – Concurrent Findings – High Court will not reappreciate evidence where findings of Charity Authorities are based on material and are not perverse – All writ petitions challenging rejection of change reports dismissed [Paras 29–30].

Trust Administration – Structural Deadlock – Judicial Intervention – Continuous rejection of change reports resulted in governance vacuum – No general body of voters – Trustees holding office without lawful basis – Court invoked powers to protect trust and its objects [Paras 31–33].

Directions under Section 50A – Reconstitution of Trust – Assistant Charity Commissioner directed to amend trust constitution by inducting devotees/worshippers as members – Provision for enrollment of members – Trustees to be elected with fixed terms – Permanent trustee from settler’s family to be retained as per settler’s intention – Timeline of 18 months prescribed for implementation [Paras 33].

Decision: All Writ Petitions dismissed – Rule discharged – Directions issued for amendment of trust constitution under Section 50A – Civil Application disposed of.

Service Law – Conveyance Allowance – Orthopaedically Disabled Government Employee – Discriminatory Threshold – Petitioner challenged Clause (iii) of Rule 22(1) of the 2016 Rules prescribing 50% disability for orthopaedically handicapped persons with both upper and lower limb impairment to claim conveyance allowance – Court held that the classification lacked intelligible differentia and had no rational nexus with the object of the Act – Once benchmark disability of 40% is certified, no further sub-classification is permissible – Clause held to be ultra vires the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 8-20].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Hostile Discrimination – Benchmark Disability – Persons with 40% or more disability constitute a homogeneous class under the 2016 Act – State cannot create arbitrary distinctions within this group – Rejection of conveyance allowance to petitioner despite 40% certified disability held discriminatory and unconstitutional – Court read down the Rule to make all benchmark disabled employees eligible for the allowance [Paras 13, 15-20, 23].

Disability Rights – Rule Inconsistent with Central Legislation – Rule Subordinate to Statute – Clause (iii) of Rule 22(1) was found to be inconsistent with the definition of “person with benchmark disability” under the 2016 Act – No rationale shown by the State to fix a 50% threshold for grant of benefits – Rule read down to harmonize with Central enactment [Paras 13-20, 23].

Administrative Law – Medical Non-Recommendation Not Sustainable – Certificate Based on Invalid Rule – Medical authority’s rejection of claim was based solely on Rule 22(1)(iii), which has been declared unconstitutional – Thus, rejection of petitioner’s claim for allowance on its basis is unsustainable – Memo dated 30.04.2024 set aside [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed in part – Clause (iii) of Rule 22(1) read down – Petitioner held entitled to conveyance allowance under Rule 22 – Rejection Memo dated 30.04.2024 quashed – Respondents directed to pay allowance along with 8% interest within three months – Arrears restricted to 38 months prior to filing of petition [Paras 23-24].

Civil Law – Rejection of plaint – Bar under special statute – Respondent/plaintiff filed civil suit challenging SARFAESI proceedings and seeking declaratory and injunctive reliefs, primarily on the basis that the deceased borrower (plaintiff’s husband) had availed insurance – Defendant/petitioner financial institution filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint on ground of bar under Section 34 SARFAESI Act – Trial Court rejected the application – Held: Civil Court jurisdiction is barred when the grievance pertains to measures “taken or to be taken” under SARFAESI – Suit directed against loan recovery steps and post-loan default actions including notice under Section 13(2) – Insurance issue forms part of defence to SARFAESI and not a standalone cause of action – Trial Court erred in not rejecting plaint [Paras 1–2, 27–33].

SARFAESI Act – Section 34 – Civil Court jurisdiction – Bar – Allegations of fraud or deception – Held: Mere allegation of fraud without clear pleading of fraudulent creation of security interest is insufficient to override statutory bar – Civil suits disguising SARFAESI defences cannot be permitted to proceed – Jurisdiction of Debts Recovery Tribunal is exclusive for grievances against measures under Section 13(4) [Paras 23–26, 30–32].

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope – Rejection of plaint based on pleadings – Court must examine only plaint and documents filed therewith – Frivolous, illusory or cleverly drafted claims which are barred by law must be rejected – Held: Present suit an abuse of process as it seeks to circumvent DRT’s jurisdiction [Paras 17–19, 31].

Relief – Temporary protection – Although suit rejected, Court granted four-week status quo to enable plaintiff/respondent to seek remedy before DRT – Clarified that DRT shall consider interim relief independently [Paras 34–35].

Decision: Revision Petition allowed – Order of Trial Court set aside – Suit held barred under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act – Plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Status quo to continue for four weeks to permit plaintiff to seek DRT remedy.

Criminal Law – Further Investigation – Post Framing of Charge – Power of Magistrate – Magistrate ordered further investigation on complainant’s application after framing of charge in a private complaint alleging cheating and forgery – Accused challenged maintainability and legality of such order – Issue: Whether Magistrate can direct further investigation at complainant’s instance after charges are framed [Paras 1, 6, 10–11].

Section 173(8) CrPC – Scope and Interpretation – Section 173(8) preserves power of police to conduct further investigation after filing of charge-sheet – Provision does not expressly confer unfettered power on Magistrate to direct further investigation at all stages – Further investigation distinct from reinvestigation or de novo investigation – Investigation remains domain of police though Magistrate has supervisory role [Paras 8–9, 35–36].

Stage of Criminal Trial – Relevance – Trial commences upon framing of charge – Application for further investigation in present case filed after charge but before recording of evidence – Court analysed pre-charge, post-charge, and post-commencement-of-trial stages with reference to Supreme Court jurisprudence [Paras 9–11].

Precedents – Amrutbhai, Vinubhai and Rampal Gautam – Harmonious Reading – Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel held that Magistrate cannot order further investigation at fag end of trial at complainant’s instance – Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya clarified Magistrate’s power up to pre-trial stage but reaffirmed that after framing of charge, investigation stage ends – Rampal Gautam reiterated that further investigation may be permissible to arrive at truth, but facts of each case decisive – Held: Ratio of Rampal Gautam not attracted on facts [Paras 15–25, 32–34].

Faulty Investigation – Threshold for Interference – Mere dissatisfaction of complainant or allegation of defective investigation insufficient – Two investigating agencies (Vakola Police Station and EOW) had already submitted negative reports – Magistrate had earlier disagreed and issued process – No compelling material shown to justify reopening investigation again [Paras 39–44].

Fair Trial – Balance of Rights – Fair investigation integral to Article 21 but does not permit endless investigation – If evidence during trial discloses involvement of additional accused or fresh material, remedies under Sections 216 and 319 CrPC available – Trial should proceed without undue delay [Paras 37–38, 45].

Decision – Order directing further investigation set aside – Application for further investigation dismissed – Trial Court directed to proceed with trial from appropriate stage – Criminal Application allowed [Paras 45–Order].

Civil Law – Appeal by Non-Party – Grant of Leave to Appeal – Section 96 CPC – Locus Standi – Application by a person who was not a party to the suit seeking leave to file first appeal against an ex parte decree for declaration of title and confirmation of possession – Held: Mere non-joinder as a party is not an absolute bar, but the applicant must establish that she is bound by or prejudicially affected by the decree – Non-party must show semblance of subsisting right over the suit property [Paras 5–6].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Interference with Discretionary Order – District Judge granted leave to appeal by a cryptic and non-speaking order without proper reasoning – High Court held that supervisory jurisdiction can be exercised where the subordinate court fails to consider relevant legal parameters while granting leave to appeal to a non-party [Paras 3, 6].

Ex Parte Decree – Declaration of Title and Possession – Encroacher’s Claim – First Appellate Court relied on Amin’s report showing encroachment by the applicant prior to filing of suit – Held: Encroachment or assertion of an independent claim does not ipso facto make such person “adversely affected” by the decree – Such person had remedy either to seek impleadment in the suit or to file an independent suit [Paras 6–8].

Fraud Allegation – Knowledge of Suit – Effect – Applicant seeking leave to appeal did not plead lack of knowledge of pendency of suit – Allegation of fraud simpliciter insufficient to confer right to appeal against decree – Held: Absence of pleading showing binding effect of decree disentitles non-party from maintaining appeal [Para 8].

Decision: CMP allowed – Order dated 28.01.2020 granting leave to appeal set aside – Non-party cannot challenge the decree by way of appeal – Liberty reserved to seek appropriate independent legal remedy, if so advised.

Tenancy Law - Lease Agreement – Genuineness – Burden of Proof – Lease agreement (Ext-1) produced by plaintiff was alleged to be forged by defendants – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court found Ext-1 to be genuine, notarized, and bearing signatures of defendants – Defendants failed to depose or challenge their signatures and withheld best evidence – Held: Agreement validly executed and trustworthy – Alternative version (Ext-B) filed before GST authority held to be inadmissible being self-serving admission under Section 21 of Evidence Act [Paras 10–11].

Arrear Rent – Quantum and Interest – Once Ext-1 held genuine, monthly rent of ₹4,00,000/- (excluding GST) accepted – Arrears correctly calculated from April 2020 to February 2021 – However, as lease agreement did not specify rate of interest for default, interest of 12% awarded by Trial Court reduced to 7.5% per annum by High Court as per prevailing bank rate [Paras 12–13, 19].

Damages – Unauthorized Occupation – Penal Clause in Lease – Clause 25 of lease allowed damages at double the rent upon breach – Trial Court awarded ₹27,000/- per day as damages relying on this clause – High Court held such penal clauses are subject to Section 74 of Indian Contract Act – Courts must award reasonable compensation, not necessarily the penalty – Damages revised to 10% of monthly rent per month from March 2021 to September 2024 [Paras 14–18].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Defendants challenged that additional documents filed in appeal were not considered – High Court noted that documents (Ext-B and Ext-C) were formally admitted during second appeal by separate order dated 05.12.2025 – Hence, substantial question of law on this count became academic [Paras 8–9].

Appeal Outcome – Second Appeal partly allowed – Eviction decree and arrear rent upheld – Interest rate modified to 7.5% per annum – Damages reduced to 10% of monthly rent per month for unauthorized occupation – No order as to costs [Paras 19–20].