Civil Law - Partition – Claim as Coparcener – Proof of Paternity – Plaintiff claimed to be son of late Hanuma Reddy through alleged second wife – Defendants denied marriage and paternity – No pleading as to date, month and place of alleged second marriage – Mother (PW2) gave inconsistent version regarding year of marriage – No independent evidence of marriage or cohabitation produced – Held: Plaintiff failed to discharge burden of proving valid marriage and paternity – Not entitled to share in suit properties [Paras 13-16, 22, 31-32].

Documentary Evidence – Voter List – Affidavits – SSC Certificate with Corrections – Evidentiary Value – Voter list held to be self-serving and only corroborative – Affidavits (Ex.A6, A7) found self-serving and not proved through attestors – SSC certificate (Ex.A9) contained material corrections in name, father’s name and date of birth without proper authentication – Birth letter (Ex.A10) not proved as public document under Section 76 Evidence Act – Held: Documents insufficient to establish paternity [Paras 16-21, 31].

Prior Partition – Admissions – Land Reforms Proceedings – Plaintiff admitted registered partition dated 19.02.1971 between deceased and defendants – In 1975 land reforms proceedings deceased declared he had only wife and two daughters and no son – Held: Strong circumstance against plaintiff’s claim of paternity [Paras 23-24, 31].

Non-joinder of Necessary Parties – Partition Suit – Plaintiff admitted alienations of suit properties under registered sale deeds (Ex.A11 to A15) prior to suit – Alienees not impleaded – No pleading regarding alienations – Held: Suit defective for non-joinder of necessary parties – Relief of partition cannot be granted in absence of alienees [Paras 26-28].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Delay of 21 Years – Appellant sought to produce Gazette, service register extracts, transfer certificate and duplicate SSC certificate at appellate stage – No satisfactory explanation for non-production during trial – Documents not essential for pronouncing judgment – Attempt to fill lacunae – Held: Conditions under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC not satisfied – I.A.No.1 of 2024 dismissed [Paras 36-43].

DNA Test – Appellate Stage – Request after 21 Years – Plaintiff sought direction to respondents for DNA test to prove paternity – No foundational pleadings regarding marriage – Trial concluded long back – DNA test not to be ordered as matter of course – Relied on Goutam Kundu principles – Held: No strong prima facie case – Application belated and unwarranted – I.A.No.2 of 2024 dismissed [Paras 46-50].

Finality of Litigation – Clean Hands – Plaintiff suppressed material facts regarding alienations and possession of third parties – Held: Plaintiff approached Court without clean hands – Not entitled to equitable relief [Paras 26-27].

Decision: I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 dismissed – Appeal Suit No.4145 of 2003 dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 06.08.2003 in O.S.No.55 of 1996 confirmed – Each party to bear own costs – Miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce – Adultery, Cruelty and Desertion – Appeal against dismissal of divorce petition – Allegation that wife developed illicit relationship and fled with alleged paramour – No specific pleading or cogent evidence of voluntary sexual intercourse – Witnesses gave generalized statements based on suspicion – No proof of continuous desertion for statutory period – Held: Findings of Family Court well-reasoned and not perverse – Appeal dismissed [Paras 32-50, 63-67, 79-81, 82-85].

Adultery – Standard of Proof – Section 13(1)(i), Hindu Marriage Act – Though matrimonial proceedings governed by preponderance of probabilities, charge of adultery being grave requires high degree of probability – Bald and generalized allegations without specific instances or corroborative evidence insufficient – No proof of adulterous act or continuing adulterous relationship at time of petition – Allegations based on suspicion and surmises – Divorce rightly refused [Paras 35-42, 44-47].

Cruelty – Mental Cruelty – Section 13(1)(i-a), Hindu Marriage Act – Allegation that wife stopped physical relations and frequently left matrimonial home – No specific act of misconduct proved – Ordinary marital discord and quarrels do not amount to cruelty – No evidence that conduct was so grave and weighty as to render cohabitation unsafe or impossible – Finding of no cruelty upheld [Paras 51-62, 64-67].

Desertion – Essential Ingredients – Factum of Separation and Animus Deserendi – Section 13(1)(i-b), Hindu Marriage Act – Petition filed within two months of alleged departure of wife – Statutory requirement of continuous desertion for not less than two years immediately preceding presentation of petition not satisfied – Desertion ground not maintainable [Paras 68-76, 79-81].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 19, Family Courts Act – High Court can reappreciate evidence both on facts and law – Interference warranted only if findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to law – No perversity found in appreciation of evidence by Family Court – Judgment affirmed [Paras 23-31, 49-50, 83-84].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and Decree dated 15.10.2022 and 03.11.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda in Original Suit No. 75 of 2021 affirmed – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Search Assessment – Abatement under Section 158BA(2) – Petitioner contended that assessment for A.Y. 2022-23 was pending on date of search under Section 132 and hence stood abated by operation of Section 158BA(2) – Held, abatement under Section 158BA(2) is attracted only in relation to assessment or reassessment pertaining to “any assessment year falling in the block period” and in context of total undisclosed income under Chapter XIV-B – Mere pendency of scrutiny assessment under Section 143 does not ipso facto result in abatement unless statutory conditions are satisfied [Paras 7, 7.10, 8.15].

Block Period – Interpretation of Section 158B – Court analysed definition of “block period” using the expression “means … includes” – Held, definition is exhaustive – Assessment Year 2022-23 falls within six assessment years preceding previous year of search – However, applicability of Chapter XIV-B depends upon assessment of “total undisclosed income” as a result of search – Not automatically attracted to scrutiny of disclosed income [Paras 7.2–7.5, 8.7, 8.10].

Search under Section 132 – Scope vis-à-vis Assessee – Panchnama revealed that search was conducted in respect of certain corporate entities and not specifically against petitioner in his individual capacity – Impugned assessment was based on CASS scrutiny of return filed by petitioner in individual status – No material placed to show that search yielded incriminating material relating to petitioner’s undisclosed income for relevant assessment year – Held, factual foundation for invoking Section 158BA(2) not established [Paras 8.16–8.24, 8.28].

Writ Jurisdiction – Alternate Remedy – Entertaining Disputed Questions of Fact – Court reiterated principles in Radha Krishan Industries and Chhabil Dass Agarwal – Held, disputed factual issues regarding existence of undisclosed income, linkage of search material and applicability of Chapter XIV-B cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction – Petitioner failed to demonstrate jurisdictional error apparent on face of record – Writ petition not maintainable [Paras 8.29–8.31, 9.2].

Statutory Interpretation – Taxing Statute – Court reiterated settled principles that taxing statutes must be construed strictly – Nothing can be read into statute nor implied – Abatement provision cannot be invoked dehors entire scheme of Chapter XIV-B – Legal fiction under Section 158BA must be applied within its statutory contours [Paras 8.13, 8.25–8.27].

Distinction between Section 153A and Section 158BA – Petitioner relied on Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., (2024) 2 SCC 433 – Held, Section 153A (assessment of total income) operates in distinct field from Section 158BA (assessment of total undisclosed income of block period) – Ratio of Abhisar Buildwell cannot be mechanically applied without examining statutory scheme of Chapter XIV-B and factual matrix [Paras 8.5–8.7].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Court declined to interfere with Assessment Order dated 17.03.2025 passed under Section 143(3) read with Sections 260 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2022-23 – Petitioner relegated to avail statutory remedies – No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Transfer of Property Act – Section 58(c) – Mortgage by Conditional Sale – Distinction from Sale with Condition to Repurchase – Interpretation of registered deed dated 24.09.1979 – Plaintiffs received Rs.13,000/- for household and agricultural expenses – Condition to reconvey property on repayment within 7 years – Restrictions imposed on enjoyment of property by defendant – Debtor–creditor relationship established – Held: Transaction constituted mortgage by conditional sale and not outright sale or independent agreement to repurchase [Paras 9-14, 16, 18].

Specific Relief – Decree for Reconveyance – Readiness and Willingness – Appellant contended that plaintiffs failed to prove readiness and willingness for specific performance – Court held that once transaction is mortgage by conditional sale, right of redemption subsists – Plaintiffs were ready to repay mortgage amount within stipulated time – Decree for reconveyance and possession justified [Paras 4, 6.1, 14, 18].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – Appellate Court’s findings on nature of transaction based on interpretation of document and settled principles – Questions framed at admission held not to constitute substantial questions of law – Limited scope of interference reiterated – Second Appeal dismissed [Paras 18-20].

Interpretation of Documents – Literal Rule – Document to be read as a whole – Intention of parties to be gathered from terms of deed – Clear and unambiguous language to be given natural meaning – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents explaining distinction between mortgage by conditional sale and sale with option to repurchase [Paras 10-16].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court decreeing suit for redemption and directing reconveyance of property on deposit of Rs.14,610/- upheld – Interim relief vacated – Record and Proceedings directed to be sent back.

Writ Jurisdiction – Disputed Questions of Fact – Fixed Deposits – Claim for maturity proceeds of deposits allegedly made in 1995–1996 in erstwhile Nedungadi Bank and Bank of Baroda – Banks contended that no such deposits were reflected in takeover records and accounts – Petitioners relied on original/photostat fixed deposit receipts retrieved from locker – Held, dispute requires adducing of evidence and detailed examination of records – Such issues cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings under Article 226 – Proper remedy is civil suit – Impugned judgment directing disbursement set aside [Paras 11, 12].

Bank Amalgamation – Liability of Transferee Bank – Punjab National Bank took over Nedungadi Bank in 2003 – Stand of Bank that alleged deposits, said to have matured in 1997, were not part of asset-liability schedule at time of takeover – Whether deposits existed and were carried forward is a matter requiring evidence – Cannot be conclusively determined in writ proceedings [Paras 2.1, 3.3, 12].

Delay and Limitation – Claim Raised After More Than Two Decades – Petitioners approached Banks in 2018–2019 for deposits allegedly matured in 1997 – Banks raised plea of delay and limitation – Learned Single Judge rejected plea considering retrieval of receipts from locker in 2018 – Division Bench held that limitation and related factual aspects are matters to be adjudicated by civil court – Petitioners contended applicability of Section 10 of Limitation Act on fiduciary relationship – No opinion expressed – Issue left open [Paras 13, 14].

Scope of Article 226 – Enforcement Not Establishment of Rights – Where foundational facts are seriously disputed and rival claims depend on documentary and oral evidence, writ court ought not to undertake fact-finding exercise – Reliance placed on settled principles that merits of rival claims to property and money are to be decided in properly constituted civil suit – Discretion under Article 226 not to be exercised in such circumstances [Para 11].

Interim Deposit and Withdrawal – Amount deposited by Bank pursuant to interim order and withdrawn by petitioners under protest – Held, such withdrawal subject to final decision of civil court – Rights of parties preserved [Paras 6, 7, 14].

Decision: Writ Appeals allowed – Common judgment dated 20.12.2024 in W.P.(C) Nos.1304 of 2019 and 19940 of 2019 set aside – Parties relegated to competent Civil Court – Liberty granted to petitioners to institute suit within 15 days – Amount withdrawn pursuant to interim orders subject to outcome of civil proceedings.

RERA - Maintainability – Special Appeal – Chapter VIII Rule 5, Allahabad High Court Rules – Appeal against order of Single Judge passed under Section 58 of RERA Act – Objection raised that appeal barred by Section 100-A CPC – Held: Where Single Judge decides appeal from original order of Tribunal having trappings of court, no further intra-court appeal lies – Special appeal not maintainable [Paras 14-15, 27, 31].

RERA – Nature of Appellate Tribunal – Trappings of Court – UP Real Estate Appellate Tribunal vested with powers of civil court under Section 53(4) – Proceedings deemed judicial proceedings – Tribunal deemed civil court for limited purposes – Orders executable as decree under Section 57 – Held: Tribunal has all essential trappings of court akin to Company Law Board considered in Kamal Kumar Dutta – Ratio of Supreme Court squarely applicable [Paras 17-20, 25-27].

Section 100-A CPC – Bar on Further Appeal – Supreme Court in Kamal Kumar Dutta held that after amendment of Section 100-A, Letters Patent appeal barred where Single Judge decides appeal from original order of quasi-judicial authority having trappings of court – Appeal under Section 58 RERA is appeal from original order of Appellate Tribunal – Therefore, no further special appeal lies before Division Bench [Paras 14-16, 27, 31].

Distinction Sought from Kamal Kumar Dutta – Reliance on Delhi High Court decision in Promoshirt SM SA – Division Bench distinguished on ground of statutory deeming provision – Held: RERA Act contains deeming provisions similar to Section 10E(4D) of Companies Act, 1956 – Hence distinction in Promoshirt inapplicable – View of Delhi High Court not applicable to present statutory scheme [Paras 28-29].

Tribunals vs Courts – Judicial Character – Reiterating principles in Kihoto Hollohan and Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Bar Association – Tribunal deciding lis under special statute with powers akin to civil court and whose proceedings are judicial in nature may be treated as having trappings of court – Functional similarity decisive factor [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 against order of learned Single Judge passed in appeal under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 held barred by Section 100-A CPC – Appeal dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 31-32].

Revenue Law – Mutation Entry – Fraudulent succession entry – Challenge to Entry No.760 mutated in revenue record in 1984 in favour of persons who were not direct lineal descendants of the original owner – Petitioner's father, owner of the land, had died abroad leaving legal heirs including petitioner – Taking advantage of absence of heirs in India, private respondents allegedly obtained mutation by suppressing material facts, showing incorrect place of death and using forged power of attorney – Held: Mutation entry obtained by fraud is void and liable to be quashed – Collector rightly cancelled the entry – Order of SSRD remanding matter set aside [Paras 14–16, 22].

Fraud – Effect on judicial or administrative orders – Court relied on Supreme Court decision in A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P. – Held: Any judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on court or authority is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law and can be challenged at any stage – Fraud vitiates all solemn acts [Paras 15–16].

Revenue Proceedings – Delay in challenging mutation entry – Entry challenged after nearly 29 years – Authorities rejected challenge solely on ground of delay – Held: Delay cannot defeat justice where entry was obtained by fraud and petitioner had no knowledge due to residence abroad – Cause of action arises from date of knowledge – Revenue authorities ought to examine merits instead of rejecting claim on technical ground of delay [Para 17].

Bombay Land Revenue Code – Section 135D – Requirement of notice before certification of mutation entry – Court held that mandatory procedure under Section 135D requiring notice to interested parties before certifying mutation entry was not followed – Failure to issue notice vitiates certification of mutation entry – Mutation entry certified without following statutory procedure is illegal [Paras 19–20].

Property Law – Rights of legal heirs – Self-acquired property – Land in question was self-acquired property of petitioner’s father – Only direct lineal descendants were entitled to succeed – Mutation in favour of relatives not forming part of direct lineal descent was illegal and contrary to revenue law principles [Paras 21–22].

Revenue Jurisdiction – Remand by SSRD – Improper remand – Where Collector had already examined entire material and passed a reasoned order cancelling fraudulent mutation entry, remanding the matter for fresh consideration was unnecessary and unjustified [Para 17].

Decision: Petitions allowed – Orders of Special Secretary, Revenue Department dated 19.07.2016 set aside – Order of Collector dated 28.01.2015 restored – Mutation Entry No.760 quashed – Revenue authorities directed to mutate petitioner’s name in accordance with law after following due procedure.

Bail – UAPA – Long Incarceration – Appellant in custody for over 2 years and 6 months – Only 4 out of 21 prosecution witnesses examined – Cross-examination of 3 witnesses pending – Trial not likely to conclude in near future – Held: Prolonged incarceration violates Article 21 – Long custody by itself is a significant ground for grant of bail even in UAPA cases [Paras 3, 6, 11].

UAPA – Section 43-D(5) – Embargo on Bail – Statutory restrictions do not oust constitutional courts’ power to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights – Rigours of Section 43-D(5) melt down where trial is not likely to conclude within reasonable time and substantial incarceration already undergone – Held: Constitutional Courts can grant bail notwithstanding statutory restrictions where Article 21 is infringed [Para 6].

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 – Pre-trial detention must be reasonable and proportionate – Continued incarceration cannot become punishment before conviction – Courts must balance gravity of allegations with constitutional mandate of personal liberty – Held: Lengthy and arduous trial process cannot be allowed to become punishment in itself [Paras 6-7].

Serious Allegations – Not Sole Ground to Deny Bail – Allegations of being part of criminal gang with separatist ideology and conducting recce of Shiv Sena leader – No recovery of firearms, ammunition or incriminating material from appellant – Not involved in any other criminal case – Held: Seriousness of allegations alone cannot justify indefinite detention pending trial [Paras 5, 8].

Constitutional Supremacy – Penal Statutes – Even in stringent penal statutes like UAPA, courts must lean in favour of constitutionalism and rule of law – Liberty is intrinsic to Article 21 – Held: Restrictive provisions cannot override constitutional guarantees [Para 9].

Purpose of Bail – Bail is to secure presence of accused at trial and not to punish – Continued incarceration without timely trial unjustified – Held: Appellant entitled to regular bail subject to stringent conditions [Paras 10-11].

Conditions of Bail – Appellant directed to furnish bond of ₹1 lakh with two sureties – Surrender passport – Appear before Trial Court and Investigating Officer – Not influence witnesses – Not indulge in criminal activity – Periodic appearance before SHO – Liberty to prosecution to seek cancellation upon breach [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 22.11.2023 dismissing bail set aside – Appellant granted regular bail subject to conditions – Observations confined to bail and not to affect merits of trial [Paras 11-13].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Conviction and Sentence – Accused convicted by Trial Court and conviction confirmed in appeal – During pendency of criminal revision, parties filed joint application under Section 147 of the N.I. Act read with Section 359 BNSS seeking permission to compound offence – Held, Section 147 makes offence under Section 138 compoundable at any stage – Once parties voluntarily settle dispute and complainant acknowledges receipt of settled amount, Court can permit compounding even after conviction [Paras 3–6].

Compounding After Conviction – Settlement for Lesser Amount – Cheque amount Rs.3,00,000/- – Parties settled for Rs.2,25,000/- as full and final settlement – Respondent/complainant present in Court and acknowledged receipt in cash – Settlement found voluntary and without coercion – Prayer to compound allowed [Paras 3, 5, 6].

Effect of Compounding – Setting Aside Conviction – Upon allowing application under Section 147 N.I. Act, judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court and confirmed by Appellate Court liable to be set aside – Accused entitled to acquittal of offence under Section 138 N.I. Act – Direction issued to prison authorities to release petitioner forthwith [Order].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Power to Give Effect to Settlement – In exercise of powers under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. read with relevant provisions of BNSS, High Court can set aside concurrent findings of conviction in view of lawful compounding of offence [Paras 1, 6].

Decision: Application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act allowed – Parties permitted to compound offence – Judgments of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court in C.C. No.439/2023 and confirmed in Crl.A. No.7/2025 set aside – Petitioner acquitted of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act – Prison authorities directed to release petitioner forthwith.