Partition – Joint Family Property vs Self-Acquired Property – Common Judgment in Connected Suits – Father-in-law filed suit for declaration of absolute title (O.S. No.35 of 1999) and daughter-in-law filed suit for partition (O.S. No.34 of 1999) – Both suits decided by common judgment holding property to be joint family property – Declaration suit dismissed and no appeal preferred – Held: Finding that property is joint family property attained finality – Appellant precluded from re-agitating absolute ownership in present appeal – Principle akin to finality of findings applies [Paras 18–20, 24, 27].

Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 – Rights of Daughters – Coparcenary by Birth – Trial Court granted 1/3rd share to widow and children of predeceased son – Evidence on record showed existence of three daughters – Daughters not impleaded but entitled as coparceners under Section 6 as amended – Held: Plaintiffs (widow and children of deceased son) entitled only to 1/6th share – Each daughter entitled to 1/6th share – Preliminary decree modified accordingly [Paras 29–34].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Alienation During Pendency of Suit – Sale deed executed by father in favour of daughter during pendency of partition suit – Held: Transfer hit by Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act – At best, transferor could alienate his own undivided share, not entire portion – Sale subject to outcome of partition [Paras 24, 29, 34].

Non-joinder in Partition Suit – Non-impleadment of Daughters – Though daughters were not made parties, non-joinder not fatal to maintainability – Shares of all coparceners can be worked out at stage of final decree – However, preliminary decree must reflect correct quantum of shares in accordance with law [Paras 31–32].

Additional Evidence in Appeal – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Documents relating to subsequent sale deed, settlement deed, tax receipts and electricity bills sought to be produced – Held: Appellate Court cannot travel beyond record except in exceptional circumstances – Documents relate to events subsequent to suit and not necessary for adjudication of core issue – Applications dismissed [Paras 41–42].

Res Judicata – Common Judgment in Connected Suits – Though reliefs in two suits were distinct, finding regarding nature of property in declaration suit attained finality due to absence of appeal – Appellant cannot reopen same issue in appeal against partition decree [Paras 26–27].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Preliminary decree modified – Plaintiffs in O.S. No.34 of 1999 entitled to 1/6th share instead of 1/3rd – Property to be divided into six equal shares – Applications for additional evidence dismissed – Parties to bear their own costs.

Anticipatory Bail – Land Grabbing and Forgery Allegations – Missing Revenue Records – Parity with Co-Accused – Petitioner (Deputy Tahsildar) sought anticipatory bail in Crime No.379/2025 alleging creation of forged documents and missing of land records to aid land grabbers – Co-accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 7, 13 and 15 already granted anticipatory bail – Offences not punishable with death or life imprisonment – No criminal antecedents – Held: On ground of parity and absence of serious penal consequences, petitioner entitled to anticipatory bail with conditions [Paras 6–8, 10 of earlier order extracted].

Criminal Procedure – Section 438 Cr.P.C. / Section 482 BNSS – Considerations for Grant of Pre-Arrest Bail – FIR registered for offences punishable up to seven years – Allegations relate to missing documents and creation of records – Question as to custody of documents a matter of record to be established during investigation – Petitioner undertook to cooperate – Investigation in progress – Held: Where allegations require investigation and do not attract death or life imprisonment and accused undertakes cooperation, custodial interrogation not warranted at this stage [Paras 5–8, Extracted Para 10].

Parity Principle – Co-Accused Granted Anticipatory Bail – Similarly Placed Accused – Petitioner working as Deputy Tahsildar claimed no role in missing documents and not custodian of records – Court noted that similarly placed co-accused already granted relief in connected petitions – Held: In absence of distinguishing circumstances and in view of parity, relief extended to petitioner subject to stringent conditions [Paras 3, 6–8].

Conditions Imposed – Safeguards to Ensure Fair Investigation – Petitioner directed to appear before Investigating Officer within 15 days and execute bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety – Mandatory cooperation with investigation – Prohibition against tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses – Regular appearance on first and third Sunday of every month for two months or till filing of final report – Held: Conditions sufficient to safeguard prosecution interest [Order].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.379/2025 of Anekal Police Station – To be released in the event of arrest subject to specified conditions.

Criminal Law – Acid Attack – Double Death – Conviction under Sections 304, 326-A and 452 IPC – Appellant poured sulphuric acid on mother and daughter-in-law at 2:00 AM causing extensive ante-mortem deep burn injuries – Both victims died due to septicaemic shock resulting from acid burns – Ocular testimony of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 found natural and trustworthy – Medical and FSL evidence corroborated presence of sulphuric acid – Delay in lodging FIR explained due to immediate medical treatment – Conviction upheld – Sentence of life imprisonment modified to fixed term of 14 years RI in exercise of appellate powers [Paras 16–18, 25, 34, 39].

Evidence – Ocular Testimony of Related Witnesses – Reliability – Informant (son of deceased) witnessed accused pouring liquid substance on victims and identified him in torchlight – Minor discrepancies regarding source of light and address held immaterial – Evidence of related witness cannot be discarded solely on ground of relationship – Quality of evidence prevails over quantity – No material contradiction elicited in cross-examination – Held: Testimony credible and sufficient for conviction [Paras 28, 30, 32, 33].

FIR – Delay in Lodging – Effect – Incident occurred in intervening night of 07/08.05.2014 – FIR lodged on 09.05.2014 after shifting victims to multiple hospitals due to critical condition – Held: Delay sufficiently explained – Priority to medical treatment in acid attack cases is natural human conduct – Mere delay not fatal absent evidence of concoction [Paras 21–25].

Medical Jurisprudence – Septicaemia – Causation – Post-mortem reports indicated septicaemic shock due to ante-mortem deep burn injuries – Defence contention that death due to lack of proper treatment rejected – Septicaemia held direct consequence of acid burns – Acid attack immediate and proximate cause of death – Conviction under Section 304 IPC sustainable [Paras 16–17].

Defective Investigation – Impact – Alleged lapses such as non-preparation of torch report and non-recording of dying declaration – Held: Defective investigation does not enure to benefit of accused when ocular and medical evidence otherwise reliable – Accused cannot claim acquittal solely on ground of investigative lapses [Para 31].

Sentencing – Life Imprisonment – Power of High Court to Impose Fixed Term – Considering gravity of offence balanced with period of custody (about 13 years 9 months), absence of criminal history and family circumstances – In light of principles in V. Sriharan and Shiva Kumar – Life sentence modified to fixed term of 14 years RI – Fine and other sentences maintained [Paras 36–39].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 304, 326-A and 452 IPC upheld – Sentence of life imprisonment reduced to fixed term of 14 years rigorous imprisonment – Fine and other sentences affirmed – Appellant to be released after completion of 14 years RI subject to Sections 427 and 428 Cr.P.C., if not required in any other case.

Civil Suit – Challenge to OEA Order – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Bar under Section 39 OCH & PFL Act – Plaintiff sought declaration that order dated 05.04.1984 passed by Tahasildar in OEA Case No.1 of 1976 under Section 5(i) of OEA Act is void – Trial Court decreed suit holding no notice issued – First Appellate Court reversed – Held: Though Section 39 bars civil court’s jurisdiction in matters triable by consolidation authorities, civil court retains jurisdiction where statutory procedure or principles of natural justice are violated – Bar not absolute [Paras 15].

Consolidation Proceedings – Effect on Revenue Proceedings – Section 4(4) and Section 51 OCH & PFL Act – Whether consolidation notification abates proceedings before revenue authorities – Held: Act does not contemplate abatement of proceedings pending before revenue authorities – Jurisdiction of OEA Collector/Tahasildar not taken away by consolidation notification – First Appellate Court rightly upheld validity of OEA proceeding [Paras 13–14].

Lease by Ex-Intermediary – Minor Lessee – Validity of Unregistered Lease Deed – Plaintiff relied on unregistered lease deed dated 13.06.1943 – First Appellate Court found plaintiff aged about 13 years at relevant time – Document contained mutilations especially regarding age – Lease found to be created and antedated after 1946 – Plaintiff failed to adduce cogent evidence – Held: Lease deed not genuine – Plaintiff’s claim of title based on fabricated document liable to fail [Paras 16–17].

Consolidation ROR – Evidentiary Value – Whether Publication Confers Title – Consolidation ROR published in favour of plaintiff prior to OEA order – Plaintiff contended non-challenge by State renders it final and binding – Held: When foundational document of title (lease) is invalid and plaintiff failed to prove possession, mere publication of ROR does not confer title – Consolidation entry cannot override valid OEA order [Paras 18].

Necessary Parties – OEA Proceeding – Successors of Ex-Intermediary – In view of finding that lease deed itself was fabricated and plaintiff failed to establish valid right, question whether successors of ex-intermediary were necessary parties rendered academic – No interference warranted [Paras 16–17].

Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Concurrent Findings of Fact by First Appellate Court – High Court found no perversity in findings regarding fabricated lease, absence of possession, and validity of OEA proceeding – Held: No substantial question of law survives for interference – Appeal dismissed [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, Bhadrak in T.A. No.75/227 of 1986/87 affirmed – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Alteration of Conviction – Accused convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC for assault with axe and thenga causing multiple fractures – No eye-witness to occurrence – Prosecution relied on statement of deceased recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. treated as dying declaration and testimony of P.W.5 – Medical evidence indicated death due to fat embolism arising from multiple fractures and doctor opined that with proper treatment deceased could have survived – Held: Assault proved but intention to cause death not established – Death attributable to lack of timely medical care – Conviction under Section 304 Part-I altered to Section 325 IPC – Conviction under Section 452/34 IPC maintained [Paras 7–8].

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. – Statement of deceased recorded by police (Ext.21) before death relied upon as dying declaration – Court held recording by police officer not a nullity if voluntary and truthful – Statement corroborated FIR and medical evidence regarding injuries – However, same evidence insufficient to establish culpable homicide when medical testimony suggested possibility of survival with proper treatment [Paras 6–8].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Post-mortem revealed fourteen injuries including fractures – Cause of death opined as fat embolism due to multiple fractures – Doctor (P.W.11) stated that proper treatment could have saved deceased – Delay in medical treatment and inebriated condition of deceased relevant – Held: Chain of causation weakened for offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC [Paras 5, 7–8].

Sentencing – Long Pendency of Appeal – Incident of 1993 – Appellants aged above 65 years and undergone three months’ incarceration – Appeal pending for over three decades – Considering age, lapse of time and settled life, sentence reduced from five years R.I. to one year R.I. with enhanced fine of Rs.7,000/- each – Fine directed to be paid to informant or legal representatives under Section 357 Cr.P.C. – No separate sentence under Section 452/34 IPC – Period already undergone set off [Paras 9–11].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 304 Part-I IPC modified to Section 325 IPC – Conviction under Section 452/34 IPC affirmed – Sentence reduced to one year R.I. with fine of Rs.7,000/- each, in default three months R.I. – Fine to be disbursed to informant/L.Rs. – Set-off allowed.

Arbitration – Termination of Mandate vs Termination of Proceedings – Withdrawal of Sole Arbitrator due to ill-health – Mandate terminated under Section 14 – No final award or order under Section 32 – Held, mere termination of mandate does not result in termination of arbitral proceedings – Reference continues and vacancy in tribunal must be filled under Section 15(2) – Arbitration agreement subsists [Paras 21–24, 26].

Substitution of Arbitrator – Section 15(2) – Same Rules Applicable – Court held that expression “shall be appointed according to the rules applicable to the appointment of the arbitrator being replaced” means rigours of Section 11, including limitation, apply equally to appointment of substitute arbitrator – Application under Section 11 maintainable upon failure of agreed procedure through BCCI [Paras 25, 31, 34].

Limitation – Section 11(6) Petition – Applicability of Article 137 – Supreme Court in M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. held Article 137 (three years) applies to Section 11(6) petitions – Right to apply accrues upon failure of other party/institution after invocation – Limitation applies equally to substitute arbitrator appointment – Technical plea that no limitation applies rejected [Paras 28–33].

Exclusion and Condonation – COVID Extension – Section 14 and Section 5 Limitation Act – Period excluded pursuant to Supreme Court’s suo motu orders in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation – Further exclusion granted for bona fide prosecution of petitions under Sections 29A, 14 and 15 – Residual delay of 76 and 91 days – Held, delay condonable under Section 5 – Formal application not mandatory – Substantial justice requires continuation of arbitral reference [Paras 35–38].

Institutional Arbitration – Failure of Agreed Procedure – Applicants approached BCCI twice for substitution – No appointment made – Court observed that arbitration agreement does not come to an end due to expiry or withdrawal of arbitrator – In peculiar facts, technical objections cannot defeat adjudication of disputes on merits [Paras 25–27, 34].

Order:

(i) Delay in filing the Applications condoned –

(ii) Mr. Justice R. Y. Ganoo (Former Judge, Bombay High Court) appointed as substitute Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from Dealership Agreements dated 26 December 2012 and 9 July 2013 –

(iii) Directions issued regarding disclosure under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1), appearance before Arbitrator, fees as per Bombay High Court (Fee Payable to Arbitrators) Rules, 2018 –

(iv) All rights and contentions kept open – Applications allowed and disposed of [Para 40].

Motor Vehicles Act – Insurer’s Liability – Cover Note vis-à-vis Insurance Policy – Tribunal exonerated Insurance Company holding vehicle insured for agricultural purpose and used for commercial transport of bricks – Cover note (Ex.R3) described vehicle as “Commercial Vehicle Only” whereas subsequent policy (Ex.R2) termed it “Agricultural Tractor” – No evidence of lawful cancellation of cover note prior to accident – Held: Cover note falls within definition of “certificate of insurance” under Section 145(b) and carries statutory sanctity – Remains valid and binding until cancelled in accordance with law – Insurer cannot unilaterally alter classification to prejudice insured or third party – Insurance Company solely liable to satisfy award [Paras 17-23, 25].

Evidence – FIR versus Oral Testimony – Tribunal relied upon contents of FIR to hold deceased was sitting on mudguard and that there was breach of policy – Eye-witness (PW2) examined before Tribunal supported version that deceased had alighted and was standing aside – Held: Evidence recorded before Tribunal carries greater evidentiary value than recitals in FIR – If oral evidence runs contrary to FIR, Tribunal must appreciate testimony independently – Non-consideration of eye-witness testimony amounts to misapplication of settled law – Reliance placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chamundeswari [Paras 14-15].

Breach of Policy – Burden of Proof – Allegation that tractor was used for commercial purpose beyond policy terms – Held: Burden to prove breach squarely lies on insurer – Must be established by cogent and admissible evidence – Bald assertion insufficient – In absence of proof of cancellation of cover note or established breach, insurer cannot avoid statutory liability under Section 147(5) MV Act [Paras 20-22].

Compensation – Quantum – Deceased aged about 30 years – Income assessed at Rs. 6,600 per month in absence of documentary proof – Multiplier of 16 applied – Total compensation assessed at Rs. 10,79,000/- with conventional heads – Quantum not interfered with – Only liability modified [Paras 15-16, 25].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award dated 10.02.2015 modified – Insurance Company held solely liable to satisfy compensation awarded to claimants – Pending applications disposed of.

Succession – Intestate Male Hindu – Cognate vs Agnate – Girdhari died issueless and intestate – Plaintiff admitted son of Mohra and uterine brother of Girdhari – Defendants failed to prove they were agnates – Held: In absence of Class I, Class II heirs and agnates, cognate entitled to inherit under Section 8(d) read with Section 3(1)(c) Hindu Succession Act – First Appellate Court erred in ignoring alternative plea based on admitted facts [Paras 20-23].

Pleadings – Grant of Relief on Admitted/Proved Facts – Plaintiff pleaded he was son of Mohra and Chunia – Maternity admitted – Even if paternity disputed, uterine relationship proved – Held: Court bound to grant relief flowing from admitted facts – Appellate Court wrongly rejected alternate claim as “not pleaded” – Finding illegal and perverse [Paras 21-23].

Legitimacy – Presumption – Mohra admittedly married to Chunia – Plaintiff born from Mohra – Defendants alleged kareva marriage with Kirpa but failed to prove same – No evidence of custom or valid remarriage – Held: Presumption of legitimacy operates in favour of plaintiff – Onus to rebut not discharged [Paras 24(ii)-(iii), 25].

Evidence – Failure to Prove Kareva Marriage – Defendants set up plea of kareva between Mohra and Kirpa – No cogent evidence led – Mutation of Kirpa’s estate (Ex.P11) showed inheritance only by widow Narayani and children – Plaintiff and Mohra excluded – Conduct inconsistent with defence case – Appellate Court’s rejection of mutation on conjectures unsustainable [Paras 24(iv)].

Appreciation of Evidence – Misreading by First Appellate Court – Trial Court relied on aged independent witnesses (PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-6) who had special knowledge of family – Evidence wrongly discarded on surmises – Documentary evidence including ration card (Ex.PW5/A) duly proved – No suggestion of fabrication – Held: Appellate Court’s findings perverse [Paras 17, 24(v)-(xiii)].

Voter Lists – Evidentiary Value – Entries in voter lists showing plaintiff as son of Kirpa relied upon by defendants – Held: Voter list not conclusive proof of parentage – At best corroborative – Cannot override consistent oral and documentary evidence and statutory presumptions [Paras 24(xiii)-(xiv), 25].

Lis Pendens – Subsequent Sale – Defendants No.2 to 5 sold suit property during pendency of suit to defendants No.9 and 10 – Held: Purchasers bound by doctrine of lis pendens – Sale deed does not defeat plaintiff’s title [Paras 12, 16].

Regular Second Appeal – Scope under Section 41 Punjab Courts Act – Appeal maintainable on ground that decision contrary to law – First Appellate Court’s judgment contrary to settled principles of succession and evidence – Interference justified [Paras 28].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of First Appellate Court dated 21.08.1991 set aside – Trial Court decree dated 14.06.1988 restored – Plaintiff declared absolute owner in possession – Impugned mutation, mortgage and sale deed set aside – Pending applications disposed of.

Hindu Law – Ancestral Property – Pre-1956 Devolution by Survivorship – Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 inapplicable – Father of first defendant died intestate in the year 1954, prior to commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Property devolved upon the first defendant by survivorship under pre-1956 Mitakshara law and assumed ancestral character in his hands vis-à-vis his issue – Coparcenary came into existence upon birth of his son and subsisted on the date of commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 – Held: Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which applies only where devolution opens after 17.06.1956, has no application; succession governed by pre-1956 Mitakshara law; substantial questions of law premised on Section 8 answered against the appellant [Paras 33, 34, 35, 36, 53, 54].

Hindu Law – Daughter's Coparcenary Rights – Section 6 Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 – Plaintiff-daughter's entitlement to seek partition – Where coparcenary ancestral properties subsisted on the date of commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the plaintiff-daughter acquired coparcenary rights by operation of amended Section 6 and is entitled to claim partition – Held: Plaintiff entitled to seek partition of ancestral/coparcenary properties; share modified from 1/7th to 1/6th upon exclusion of the sister of the first defendant who is a non-coparcener [Paras 36, 42, 69, 70, 71].

Karta's Power of Alienation – Gift of Joint Family Property – Void – Settlement deed dated 26.04.2001 executed by first defendant/Karta conveying entire 2nd item of suit property in favour of one coparcener without consent of others – Under Mitakshara law, Karta has no authority to make gratuitous transfers of coparcenary property; his powers of alienation are confined to legal necessity, benefit of estate, and indispensable duties – A unilateral gift of an entire item of joint family property out of a limited corpus amounts to a virtual partition by gift, unknown to Hindu law, and falls wholly outside the Karta's competence – Held: Settlement deed is void ab initio and does not bind non-consenting coparceners [Paras 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49].

Proviso to Section 6, Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 – Protection Limited to Valid Alienations – The statutory protection under the proviso to Section 6 of the 2005 Amendment Act saves only those alienations which were valid in law at the time of execution prior to 20.12.2004 – The proviso does not cure or validate transactions which were void or beyond the competence of the executant on the date of execution – Held: Settlement deed being void ab initio for want of Karta's authority, proviso to Section 6 of the Amendment Act does not protect the alienation [Paras 50, 51, 52].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Inconsistency between Written Statement and Affidavit in Support – Impermissible Shift in Foundational Plea – Three sale deeds sought to be received as additional evidence at second appeal stage – In written statement, first defendant pleaded Item No.1 to be his self-acquired property purchased from his own earnings as a carpenter; in affidavit supporting the petition, he relied on inheritance from his father by succession – Plea of self-acquisition and plea of inheritance are conceptually and legally distinct and mutually destructive – Permitting additional documents on the basis of such a foundational shift in pleadings amounts to setting up a new case at appellate stage – Held: Applications under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC not maintainable; dismissed [Paras 27, 28, 29, 30, 31].

Survivorship – Death of Male Coparcener without Female Class I Heirs – Section 6 Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (pre-2005) – Where a male coparcener dies leaving no surviving female heir specified in Class I of the Schedule, his undivided interest does not devolve by succession under the Hindu Succession Act but merges with the coparcenary by survivorship to be enjoyed by surviving coparceners – First defendant's claim to succeed as Class II heir to the share of his deceased son who died a bachelor is legally unsustainable – Held: Third substantial question of law answered against the appellant [Paras 58, 59, 60, 61].

Non-Joinder / Misjoinder of Parties – Order I Rule 9 CPC – Sister of First Defendant – 5th Defendant – Sister of the first defendant, Palaniyammal, already arrayed as 5th Defendant; question of non-joinder does not arise – Under pre-1956 Mitakshara law, the sister is a non-coparcener entitled only to maintenance and marriage expenses, not to a share in coparcenary property – Contention of misjoinder raised for first time in second appeal is impermissible – Held: No suit shall be defeated for misjoinder unless a necessary party is absent; 5th Defendant is not entitled to any share; fourth substantial question of law answered against appellant [Paras 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed with costs – Judgment and decree of courts below modified to the extent that plaintiff/1st respondent is entitled to 1/6th share (enhanced from 1/7th) in the suit schedule properties upon exclusion of the 5th Defendant from the computation – All connected miscellaneous petitions dismissed [Paras 71, 72, 73].