Hindu Succession Act – Section 22 – Preferential Right of Pre-emption – Co-heirs – Testamentary Succession – Property originally owned by Tula Ram and bequeathed to his wife Purni Devi by a valid Will – Upon death of Purni Devi, property devolved by succession on her Class-I heirs including plaintiff and vendors – Vendors sold their share to defendant without notice to plaintiff – Held: Vendors inherited property by succession and not by survivorship – Plaintiff being a co-heir had a statutory preferential right under Section 22 – Courts below rightly decreed suit for pre-emption [Paras 11–12, 25–26].

Survivorship vs Succession – Female Owner – Inapplicability of Survivorship – Once property vested absolutely in a female owner under a Will, succession opens only after her death – Concept of survivorship has no application thereafter – Vendors could not claim inheritance by survivorship to defeat Section 22 – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras 11, 25].

Pre-emption – Notice of Intended Sale – Burden of Proof – Plea that plaintiff had notice of intended sale and refused to purchase – Burden lies on vendee/defendant to prove notice and refusal – Mere oral assertion of vendor without documentary or independent corroboration insufficient – Absence of notice preserves statutory right of co-heir [Paras 12, 22, 27].

Waiver of Statutory Right – Requirement of Clear and Unequivocal Conduct – Waiver of a statutory preferential right cannot be inferred lightly – Must be intentional, conscious and unequivocal – Continued joint ownership and absence of proof of notice negates plea of waiver – No abandonment of right established [Paras 13, 28].

Urban Property – Section 22 HSA – Independent of Customary Pre-emption – Statutory right under Section 22 operates irrespective of customary or relationship-based pre-emption – Decision in Atam Parkash v. State of Haryana does not dilute statutory preferential right of co-heirs – Correctly distinguished by Courts below [Paras 15, 26].

Regular Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Findings regarding validity of Will, nature of succession, co-heirship, absence of notice and non-waiver based on proper appreciation of evidence – No perversity or substantial question of law made out – Interference in second appeal declined [Paras 23, 29–30].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court decreeing suit for possession by way of pre-emption under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act affirmed – No substantial question of law arises.

Transfer of Property – Settlement Deed – Unilateral Cancellation – Invalidity – Registered settlement deed executed by the settlor in favour of grandson – Subsequent unilateral cancellation deed executed by settlor without consent of settlee – Held, once settlement deed is executed and registered, vesting rights in favour of settlee, it cannot be unilaterally cancelled unless a specific right of revocation is reserved in the deed or conditions are violated – Cancellation deed held void and inoperative [Paras 7–9].

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 122 – Acceptance of Gift – Delivery of Possession – Not Sine Qua Non – Acceptance of settlement deed can be inferred from conduct of parties – Possession of original title deed with plaintiff and registration of settlement deed sufficient to establish acceptance – Settlement deed held duly acted upon during lifetime of executant [Paras 9].

Fraud, Coercion and Undue Influence – Burden of Proof – Mere allegation by settlor that deed was executed without knowledge or under pressure insufficient – No plea or proof of fraud or coercion raised contemporaneously in cancellation deed or subsequent settlement deed – Failure to establish grounds for invalidating the original settlement deed [Paras 4, 9].

Subsequent Settlement and Mortgage Deeds – Validity – Once original settlement deed stood valid and irrevocable, settlor ceased to have any right, title or interest in property – Subsequent settlement deed executed in favour of daughters and mortgage deed executed thereafter declared null and void [Paras 7–9].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Concurrent findings of fact by Trial Court and First Appellate Court – No perversity or substantial question of law made out – High Court declined to interfere with concurrent judgments [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld – Unilateral cancellation of settlement deed declared void – Subsequent settlement and mortgage deeds held invalid – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Registration Act – Section 22-A – Government Land – Mandatory Refusal of Registration – Deed of Transfer executed pursuant to BIFR scheme sought to be registered after payment of stamp duty – Registering Authority refused registration holding that instrument involved transfer of more than 1700 acres of Government leased land without sanction – Held: Section 22-A casts a mandatory duty on Registering Officer to refuse registration of instruments relating to transfer of immovable property belonging to State Government unless prior sanction of competent authority is produced – Provision has overriding effect and is attracted irrespective of parties executing the instrument [Paras 7–7.2].

Scope of Enquiry by Registering Authority – K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar Distinguished – Reliance placed on K. Gopi to contend that Registrar cannot enquire into title – Held: K. Gopi dealt with private sale transactions and validity of Rule 55-A, not with Section 22-A or Government land – Registrar is not adjudicating title but discharging statutory obligation to verify compliance with Section 22-A – Incidental power to call for documents upheld [Paras 7.3–7.3.2].

Lease vs. Assignment of Leasehold Rights – Mining Lease – Contention that Section 22-A applies only to lease and not assignment of leasehold rights rejected – Held: Lease is the instrument; leasehold rights are the interest conveyed – Assignment of leasehold rights is in substance transfer of lease – Expression “by way of” in Section 22-A is illustrative, not exhaustive – Assignment of mining lease over Government land squarely attracts Section 22-A [Paras 8–8.8].

Mining Law – Prior Consent of State Government – Mandatory Requirement – Assignment of mining lease without previous consent in writing of State Government prohibited under Section 12-A MMDR Act, Rule 37 of 1960 Rules and lease deed conditions – Such transfer is void and unenforceable – Requirement of prior consent cannot be cured by subsequent ratification [Paras 9–10].

Section 22-B Registration Act – Transactions Prohibited by Law – Assignment of mining lease in contravention of MMDR Act and Rules amounts to transaction prohibited by law – Registering Authority bound to refuse registration under Section 22-B as well [Paras 11–11.1].

Public Trust Doctrine – Minerals as National Assets – State holds minerals as trustee for present and future generations – Strict compliance with statutory regime governing mining essential – Assignment of mining rights must conform to MMDR Act to subserve public interest and intergenerational equity [Paras 11.2–11.4].

BIFR Scheme – No Immunity from Statutory Mandates – Transfer under BIFR sanctioned scheme does not override MMDR Act or requirement of prior State consent – Courts cannot interpret schemes or judicial orders as permitting acts contrary to statute – No exemption expressly granted under the scheme [Paras 12–12.4].

Acceptance of Royalty/Dead Rent – No Deemed Consent – Acceptance of dead rent or royalty by State does not amount to consent for renewal or assignment of mining lease – Mere payment and acceptance of rent insufficient to infer assent [Paras 13–13.1].

Judicial Review – Remand for Fresh Consideration – Impugned refusal order set aside for failure to conduct proper enquiry on requirement of prior State consent and applicability of Sections 22-A and 22-B – Matter remanded to Registering Authority to pass fresh order after detailed enquiry – Court acting as sentinel on the qui vive to protect public resources [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Impugned refusal order dated 21.04.2025 set aside – Matter remanded to respondent authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law – Writ Petition disposed of – No costs.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 – Pre-cognizance Stage – Section 223 BNSS – Magistrate directed issuance of notice to accused before taking cognizance – Held impermissible in complaints under Section 138 N.I. Act, which is a special enactment – No requirement of issuing notice or summons to accused prior to taking cognizance [Paras 5–10].

Criminal Procedure – BNSS, 2023 – Section 223 – Interpretation of First Proviso – Opportunity of Hearing to Accused – Supreme Court clarified that proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS does not mandate pre-cognizance notice in cheque dishonour cases – Trial Court erred in applying proviso mechanically at pre-cognizance stage [Paras 6–10].

Precedent – Binding Nature – Supreme Court Decision – Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar – Law declared that issuance of notice to accused prior to cognizance is not required in N.I. Act cases – Held: Trial Court order contrary to binding precedent suffers from legal infirmity [Paras 8–10].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Motion Stage Disposal – Pure Question of Law – In view of settled legal position, criminal revision taken up and decided at motion stage – Issuance of notice to private respondents dispensed with [Paras 11].

Remand – Cognizance and Issuance of Process – Trial Court directed to reconsider matter afresh in accordance with law and Supreme Court ruling – Impugned order quashed to the extent of issuing pre-cognizance notice [Paras 10, 12–14].

Decision: Criminal revision allowed – Impugned order dated 25.09.2025 quashed to the extent it directed issuance of notice to accused at pre-cognizance stage – Trial Court directed to take fresh decision on cognizance and issuance of process in accordance with law.

Criminal Law – Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of Proceedings – Mechanical Cognizance on Protest Complaint – Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC on a protest complaint after police filed refer report finding allegations false – Order merely recorded “prima facie case made out” without reasons – No discussion of evidence recorded under Section 200 CrPC – No reasons for disagreeing with police refer report – Held: Such casual and mechanical order reflects non-application of mind and vitiates cognizance – Proceedings liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of process [Paras 5–6].

Protest Complaint – Duty of Magistrate – When a refer report is filed, Magistrate must apply independent judicial mind, evaluate materials, record reasons for differing from investigation findings and indicate sufficient grounds to proceed – Failure to do so renders order unsustainable [Paras 6, 8].

Forgery of Will – Mere Clerical Error Not Sufficient – Allegation of forgery based solely on misdescription of name of one attesting witness in Will deed – Investigation revealed it to be a typographical error with same person having signed – Magistrate ignored investigation findings without justification – Criminal prosecution held unjustified [Paras 8–9].

Public Servant – Sub-Registrar – Acts Done in Official Capacity – Section 197 CrPC – Fourth accused was Sub-Registrar who registered Will deed in discharge of statutory duty – No allegation of independent role in conspiracy or forgery except official act of registration – Magistrate failed to consider requirement of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC – Proceedings against public servant without sanction held impermissible [Paras 7–8].

Abuse of Process of Law – Ends of Justice – Continuation of criminal proceedings against private parties and public servant despite false refer report and absence of prima facie material amounts to abuse of process – Inherent jurisdiction rightly invoked to secure ends of justice [Para 9].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Cases allowed – Proceedings in C.C. No. 93 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Piravom, against Accused Nos. 1 to 4 quashed – Impugned order taking cognizance set aside.

Employees’ Compensation – Insurer’s Liability – Interest on Compensation – Policy Exclusion Clause – Appeal by Insurance Company – Workman sustained permanent total disability due to fall from height during employment – Commissioner awarded compensation with 12% interest and imposed liability jointly on employer and insurer – Insurance policy produced at appellate stage showing specific exclusion of liability for interest and penalty – Held: Liability of insurer under Employees’ Compensation Act is purely contractual and governed by terms of insurance policy – In absence of statutory compulsion akin to Motor Vehicles Act, insurer cannot be fastened with liability beyond contract – Exclusion clause valid and enforceable – Insurer liable only to pay compensation amount – Employer liable to pay statutory interest [Paras 11–20].

Additional Evidence – Insurance Policy – Acceptance at Appellate Stage – Certified copy of full insurance policy not produced before Commissioner due to inadvertent omission – Policy certificate and premium receipts already on record – Additional document relevant for adjudication of substantial question of law – No dispute as to genuineness of document – Held: In the interest of justice, additional evidence permitted and relied upon [Paras 11–12].

Wages and Coverage – Employees’ Compensation Insurance – Insurer contended policy covered only seven welders drawing wages up to ₹4,000 per month whereas claimant alleged wages of ₹15,000 – Commissioner assessed wages at ₹4,000 per month – Held: Once Commissioner fixed wages within policy limit, insurer cannot deny coverage solely based on higher wage claim by workman [Para 10].

Substantial Question of Law – Direction to Pay Interest Contrary to Policy Terms – Whether Commissioner was justified in directing insurer to pay interest despite express exclusion in policy – Held: Issue involves interpretation of insurance contract and statutory scheme – Constitutes substantial question of law – Answered in favour of insurer [Paras 18–20].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Award modified – Insurer directed to pay only compensation amount – Employer directed to pay interest as awarded by Commissioner – No liability on insurer for interest or penalty.

Tenancy Law - Landlord–Tenant – Forfeiture of Tenancy – Denial of Title – Claim of Adverse Possession – Section 111(g) Transfer of Property Act – Tenant issued notice claiming ownership on basis of alleged oral gift and alternatively adverse possession – Tenant disputed title of landlord’s vendor and asserted that proposed sale would not confer title on purchaser – Held: Tenant not only disputed landlord’s title but claimed title in himself – Clear renunciation of character as tenant – Forfeiture of tenancy attracted [Paras 4, 11, 14].

Adverse Possession – Tenant Claiming Ownership – Effect on Tenancy – Tenant asserted long, peaceful possession as owner and payment of municipal taxes – Assertion of hostile title inconsistent with continuance of tenancy – Held: Claim of adverse possession by tenant amounts to disclaimer of landlord’s title and results in forfeiture [Paras 4, 14].

Notice of Forfeiture – Addressed to Vendor – Validity – Contention that notice disputing title was issued to landlord’s vendor and not landlord himself – Notice clearly indicated that purchaser would derive no title – Held: Dispute of vendor’s title directly affects title of purchaser-landlord – Forfeiture not avoided merely because notice was addressed to vendor [Paras 7, 11, 14].

Waiver of Forfeiture – Demand and Acceptance of Rent – Section 112 Transfer of Property Act – Landlord issued notice demanding rent after forfeiture but expressly stated demand was “without prejudice” to claim of forfeiture – Rent accepted under protest and adjusted towards damages – Held: Mere demand and acceptance of rent with express reservation does not amount to waiver of forfeiture [Paras 5, 8, 15, 18].

Without Prejudice Demand – Intention of Landlord – Subsequent notices and correspondence consistently asserted forfeiture and denial of tenancy – Filing of eviction suit shortly thereafter reinforced absence of waiver – Intention to continue forfeiture clearly established [Paras 15, 17–18].

Distinguishing Waiver by Conduct – Chandrashekhar Gadgil Case – In earlier case landlord invoked Rent Act provisions years after forfeiture notice and sought eviction on statutory grounds – Held: Facts materially different – No waiver in present case as landlord never abandoned forfeiture plea and consistently reserved rights [Para 16].

Protection under Rent Control Laws – Effect of Forfeiture – Once tenant forfeits character by denying title and claiming ownership, protection under rent control legislation is unavailable – Conceded legal position correctly applied [Paras 6, 13–14].

Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court based on correct application of law – No perversity or legal error demonstrated – Second Appeal dismissed [Paras 18–19].

Equitable Relief – Time to Vacate – Considering long possession and residential nature of premises – Six months’ time granted to vacate subject to undertaking – Tenant directed to hand over vacant possession on or before 15/07/2026 [Paras 20–21].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Concurrent decrees for eviction confirmed – No order as to costs – Time granted to vacate till 15/07/2026.

Domestic Violence Act – Section 2(f) – “Relationship in the Nature of Marriage” – Live-in Relationship with Married Man – Not Maintainable – Petitioner claimed reliefs under PWDVA alleging marriage and long-standing cohabitation with Respondent No.1 during subsistence of his first marriage – Evidence of joint property purchase, financial arrangements, IVF treatment, and birth of child relied upon – Sessions Court reversed reliefs granted by JMFC – Held: Relationship between an unmarried woman and a married man, entered into with knowledge of subsisting marriage, does not qualify as a “relationship in the nature of marriage” – Such relationship lacks legal sanctity and falls outside ambit of Section 2(f) PWDVA [Paras 24–28].

Live-in Relationship – Supreme Court Guidelines – Indra Sarma and D. Velusamy Applied – Court reiterated that all live-in relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage – Essential conditions include parties being legally eligible to marry – Respondent No.1, being married, failed to satisfy mandatory condition of legal eligibility – Ratio of Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma and D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal squarely applicable [Paras 22–27].

Knowledge of Existing Marriage – Effect – Petitioner admitted awareness of Respondent No.1’s marital status at inception of relationship – Even if induced by misrepresentation, such relationship cannot be elevated to marriage-like status under PWDVA – Relationship akin to concubinage or extra-marital affair, for which Act does not presently provide protection [Paras 25–26].

Joint Property, Financial Control, Childbirth – Not Conclusive – Factors such as joint ownership of property, handling of bank accounts, sexual relationship, IVF treatment, or birth of child, though relevant, are insufficient by themselves to establish relationship in the nature of marriage when core legal requirements are absent – Social projection as husband and wife and legal capacity to marry remain determinative [Paras 25–27].

PWDVA – Beneficial Legislation – Limits of Interpretation – While PWDVA is a beneficial statute intended to protect women from abuse, courts cannot extend its scope beyond statutory definition – Expansion of protection to relationships knowingly entered with married persons requires legislative intervention and not judicial enlargement [Paras 26–28].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Limited Interference – Sessions Court correctly applied settled law and reversed trial court’s findings – No perversity or jurisdictional error found warranting interference under Article 227 – Concurrent appreciation of law upheld [Para 28].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune upheld – Petitioner held not entitled to reliefs under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Family Law - Custody and Visitation – Paramount Consideration – Welfare of Child – Visitation rights of father modified by Family Court reducing frequency of physical meetings and introducing regulated video calls – Held: In matters of custody and visitation, welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration overriding rights and convenience of parents – Courts must ensure physical safety, emotional well-being and psychological stability of the child [Paras 11, 15–18].

Interim Visitation – Power to Modify – Change in Circumstances – Family Court modified earlier consensual interim visitation arrangement dated 14.11.2024 based on subsequent incidents including alleged altercations, registration of FIR and complaints under PWDV Act – Held: Interim visitation arrangements are always subject to modification if subsequent events demonstrate potential impact on child’s welfare – No vested right accrues to either parent [Paras 14–16].

Discretionary Jurisdiction – Limited Appellate Interference – Family Court exercised discretionary jurisdiction after considering relevant material – Appellate court cannot substitute its own view unless order is perverse, arbitrary or contrary to welfare of child – Mere reduction in visitation frequency does not amount to denial of parental contact [Paras 20–21].

Balancing Parental Contact with Child’s Safety and Stability – Modified arrangement permitted physical meetings twice a month at neutral public place and video calls twice a month – Held: Arrangement strikes balance between father’s right to meaningful contact and need to protect child from instability arising from inter se parental disputes – Modification protective rather than punitive [Paras 17–18].

Ongoing Parental Conflict – Impact on Child – Record reflected multiple litigations and acrimonious disputes between parties – Courts duty-bound to insulate child from parental conflict as far as possible – Stability, routine and academic needs of school-going child must be prioritised over frequent short-duration meetings [Paras 19–20].

Allegations Pending Investigation – No Final Adjudication Required at Interim Stage – While allegations against father disputed, Family Court not required to conclusively determine truth at interim stage – Existence of surrounding circumstances sufficient to warrant cautious approach in regulating visitation [Paras 16–18].

Visitation Rights – Not Absolute – Subject to Regulation – Right of a parent to visitation is not absolute and can be reasonably regulated in interest of child’s welfare – Interim arrangements remain open to future modification upon demonstrable change in circumstances [Paras 20–23].

Counselling and Mediation – Observations – Court emphasised shared parental responsibility to foster healthy environment for child – Family Court may explore counselling or mediation to evolve harmonious co-parenting framework [Para 24].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Impugned order dated 15.12.2025 upheld – Modified interim visitation arrangement to continue until further orders – Observations confined to interim visitation and not to affect merits of pending proceedings [Paras 21–25].