Partition Suit – Death of Plaintiff – Claim of Legatee – Substitution under Order XXII CPC – Original plaintiff died issueless during pendency of suit – Alleged Will executed in favour of nephew – Application filed for substitution as legal representative – Trial Court, upon direction of High Court, conducted inquiry and held Will not proved – Substitution rejected – Suit dismissed for want of legal representative – Appellate Court affirmed – Held: No perversity in findings [Paras 8–10, 22–23].

Proof of Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Attesting witness examined – Contradictions regarding presence of parties, drafting, typing and thumb impressions – Difference in thumb impressions on pages – Non-registration and absence of scribe/advocate particulars – Trial Court and Appellate Court found evidence not credible – Finding of fact not liable to be re-appreciated under Article 227 [Paras 21–23].

Order XXII Rule 5 CPC – Nature of Inquiry – Though inquiry is summary and findings do not operate as res judicata inter se rival claimants, Court must be satisfied prima facie about legal representation – Where evidence found unreliable, Court justified in rejecting substitution – Detailed evaluation already undertaken – No requirement of repetitive proof [Paras 14–15, 22].

Article 227 – Scope of Interference – Supervisory jurisdiction confined to jurisdictional error, patent perversity or manifest failure of justice – High Court cannot act as Court of appeal or re-appreciate evidence – Reliance placed on Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil – No ground for interference made out [Paras 24–25].

Transposition in Partition Suit – Interchangeability of Plaintiff and Defendant – Though in partition suits parties may be transposed, claim must be legally sustainable – In absence of valid substitution as legal representative, continuation of suit not permissible [Paras 12–13 (argument), 23].

Non-production of Original Will – Only copy filed – Petitioners failed to establish authenticity and due execution – Courts below justified in rejecting claim of legal representation [Paras 18, 23].

Decision: Miscellaneous Petition dismissed – No interference under Article 227 warranted – Liberty reserved to petitioners to file fresh partition suit, if so advised.

Cultivating Tenant – Entry in Tenancy Rights Register – Mere inclusion of name in tenancy records does not confer statutory tenancy unless other requirements are satisfied – Plaintiff failed to prove details of lease, period of tenancy, rent paid or landlord’s title – No adangal or revenue records produced to prove possession – Relief of injunction rightly refused [Para 8].

Permanent Injunction – Proof of Possession – Plaintiff seeking injunction must establish lawful possession on date of suit – Reliance only on tenancy registration order (Ex.A1) insufficient – Defendants established title and possession through sale deeds, adangals and kist receipts (Ex.B1 to B18) – Courts below justified in dismissing suit [Para 8].

Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 – Sections 3(8) and 39 – Recording of tenancy by Tahsildar does not automatically establish continuous possession – Entry not conclusive proof of cultivating tenancy in absence of supporting evidence [Paras 5, 8].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 22.03.2019 in A.S. No.12 of 2012 confirming dismissal of O.S. No.370 of 2000 upheld – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Habeas Corpus – Illegal Arrest – Non-supply of Written Grounds of Arrest – Arrest memo merely mentioning crime number and sections without disclosing specific grounds – Separate sheet of “grounds of arrest” not forming part of arrest memo and not attested as required under Section 36 BNSS – Held: Non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and mandate of Mihir Rajesh Shah (2026) 1 SCC 500 – Arrest and consequential remand rendered illegal – Petitioner entitled to release [Paras 20-26, 33-34].

Constitution of India – Article 22(1) – Communication of Grounds of Arrest – Constitutional safeguard not a procedural formality – Grounds must be furnished in writing in a language understood by arrestee – Failure to supply written grounds within stipulated time vitiates arrest and remand – Remand order cannot cure foundational illegality of arrest – “Once the edifice goes, the superstructure collapses” [Paras 19-23, 27, 33].

Criminal Procedure – Remand under Section 187 BNSS – Mechanical Remand – Magistrate obliged to apply judicial mind to legality of arrest and compliance with statutory safeguards – Failure to notice non-conformity of arrest memo and absence of duly attested written grounds – Remand held to be passed in a mechanical manner – Habeas corpus maintainable notwithstanding remand [Paras 28-30].

Maintainability – Habeas Corpus after Judicial Remand – Writ lies where remand order suffers from absolute illegality or is passed mechanically – Distinction between judicial review remedies and writ of habeas corpus – Habeas corpus is writ of right granted ex debito justitiae in case of unlawful detention – Petition maintainable despite pendency of criminal proceedings [Paras 28-32].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Arrest of petitioner declared illegal – Remand order dated 29.01.2026 set aside – Petitioner directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case – Liberty granted to respondents to proceed in accordance with law.

Cheques drawn on State Bank of Patiala presented after its merger with State Bank of India – Cheques returned with remark “Funds Insufficient” and not “Invalid” – Contention that cheques became invalid after 31-12-2017 due to amalgamation – Held: Expression “within the period of its validity” in proviso (a) to Section 138 is elastic and may cover invalidity arising from merger – However, where cheque is dishonoured for “Funds Insufficient”, presumption under Section 146 NI Act operates – Whether cheque had become invalid and could not have been honoured is a triable issue – Cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC – Complaints not liable to be quashed [Paras 19–23, 29–31, 40–41].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of Process – Disputed Questions of Fact – Accused relying on Acquisition Order and RBI Circular not produced before Trial Court – Cheques dishonoured for insufficiency of funds – Statutory presumptions under Sections 139 and 146 NI Act applicable – Rebuttal requires evidence – Held: Inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked to decide disputed factual issues requiring trial – No interference with orders issuing process [Paras 13–15, 29–30, 35, 37–39, 41].

Negotiable Instruments – Presumptions – Sections 139 & 146 – Cheque Returned for “Funds Insufficient” – Mandatory presumption that cheque was dishonoured – Onus shifts to drawer to rebut – Where return memo does not indicate invalidity but insufficiency of funds, burden lies on accused to establish invalidity at trial – Quashment at threshold impermissible [Paras 29–30, 32–34, 40–41].

Presentation of Cheque – Proviso (a) to Section 138 – “Within the Period of its Validity” – Interpretation – Term not confined only to period printed on cheque – May include circumstances rendering cheque invalid before expiry of printed validity – However, no straightjacket formula that merger automatically nullifies liability under Section 138 – Attendant facts and bank endorsement decisive [Paras 20–23, 40].

Decision: Applications under Section 482 CrPC dismissed – Orders of Magistrate issuing process and Sessions Court dismissing revisions upheld – No costs [Paras 42–43].

PIL - Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Judicial Review – Policy Decision – Scope of Interference – Petitioner challenged the closure of fresh registrations and the fixation of age-related eligibility criteria (21 to 60 years) under the Mukhyamantri Ladli Behna Yojana, 2023, alleging arbitrariness and violation of Art. 14 – Held: Judicial review of a policy decision is limited to examining its legality, not its wisdom. Courts do not substitute their opinion for that of experts in policy matters. A policy decision can only be interfered with if it is unconstitutional, arbitrary, malafide, or dehors the provisions of a statute. The fixation of the date for commencement and closure of a scheme, as well as the determination of the age of entitlement, falls squarely within the executive domain of the State. The court found no arbitrariness in the State’s exercise of discretion regarding the implementation and continuation of the policy. [Paras 9, 10, 11]

Constitution of India – Art. 14 – Equality before Law – Hostile Discrimination – Allegation of arbitrary exclusion of newly eligible women from a welfare scheme – Held: The State has the discretion to decide the implementation period and the scope of beneficiaries for a welfare policy. Stoppage of fresh registrations from a specific date does not, per se, constitute hostile discrimination. The fixation of minimum and maximum age limits for entitlement is a policy matter within the domain of the State Government and does not warrant judicial interference unless proven to be manifestly arbitrary. [Paras 10, 11]

Public Interest Litigation – Maintainability – Locus Standi – Enhancement of Financial Benefits – Petitioner sought a direction to enhance the amount provided under the scheme as per alleged promises – Held: The petitioner is admittedly neither an aspirant nor a beneficiary of the scheme. Claims regarding the enhancement of financial benefits under a social welfare scheme cannot be entertained at the instance of a third party in a PIL. Such matters pertain to the discretionary executive functions of the State. [Para 12]

Ratio Decidendi: The Court’s power of judicial review over executive policy is restricted to assessing whether the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions, or ultra vires the powers of the delegatee. The determination of eligibility criteria, including age limits and registration timelines for a welfare scheme, is a matter of administrative policy within the State's domain and does not attract judicial interference under Art. 226 unless it is demonstrated to be palpably arbitrary or malafide.

Decision: The Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Rent Control – Repossession – Failure to Enter Written Tenancy Agreement – Section 21(2)(a) TNRRRL Act – Landlord sought repossession on ground of absence of written agreement – Tenant contended that in absence of written rental agreement, petition itself not maintainable – Core issue held to be purely legal and capable of decision on arguments without additional evidence – Held, additional documents unnecessary [Paras 2, 3, 6].

Civil Procedure – Production of Additional Documents – Application filed after filing counter – Trial Court dismissed petitions seeking to receive documents not filed along with counter – High Court held that Rent Court need not receive documents which are irrelevant to core issue – No enabling provision under the Act permitting belated production of documents after pleadings – No error in Trial Court’s order – Revision dismissed [Paras 4, 5, 6].

Relevancy of Documents – Arbitral Order – Police Complaint – FIR – Municipal Notice – Order passed in arbitral proceedings need not be marked and can be relied upon without formal proof – Documents such as police complaint, FIR direction and notice to Corporation not relevant to legal issue involved in main RLTOPs – Production rightly refused [Para 6].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Scope of Interference – Interference warranted only in case of patent illegality or serious error – No serious error found in impugned orders of Rent Court – Civil Revision Petitions dismissed – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 6, 7].

Decision: Both Civil Revision Petitions dismissed – No order as to costs – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Motor Vehicles Act – Fatal Accident – Grievous Head Injuries – Death after prolonged treatment – Deceased sustained severe head injuries and multiple fractures and underwent three major surgeries – Continuous hospitalization till death – Held, death directly attributable to injuries sustained in accident and not due to intervening cause – Medical expenses rightly awarded and confirmed [Paras 12].

Contributory Negligence – Non-wearing of Helmet – Absence of Driving Licence – Vehicle without Registration and Insurance – Admissions by P.W.1 and Ex.A4 Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report established violations – Though accident primarily caused by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle, non-wearing of helmet had direct nexus with fatal head injuries – Fixing 25% contributory negligence on deceased held just and reasonable [Paras 13, 14].

Compensation – Pain and Suffering – Survival of Claim – Claims for pain, suffering and personal injuries do not survive upon death of injured – Award of Rs.2,00,000/- under said head set aside – Tribunal’s award modified accordingly [Para 15].

Quantum of Compensation – Loss of Income – Medical Bills – Filial Consortium – Funeral Expenses – Attender Charges – Tribunal’s assessment under various heads except pain and suffering confirmed – Total compensation reduced from Rs.33,57,696/- to Rs.31,57,696/- – After 25% deduction towards contributory negligence, compensation reduced from Rs.25,18,272/- to Rs.23,68,272/- [Para 16].

Appeal and Cross Objection – Insurer’s Appeal Partly Allowed – Award Modified – Cross objection seeking enhancement rejected – No order as to costs [Para 17].

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal partly allowed – Award modified by deducting Rs.2,00,000/- granted towards pain and suffering – Total compensation payable fixed at Rs.23,68,272/- with applicable interest – Cross Objection dismissed – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Wrong Quotation of Penal Provisions – Petitioner, a Director of company, sought quashing contending offences under Sections 415, 420, 472, 477A, 378 and 379 IPC not attracted – Held: Mere misquoting of penal provisions by investigating agency does not warrant quashing – Trial Court empowered to frame appropriate charges based on materials on record – Petition dismissed [Paras 5-7].

Criminal Breach of Trust – Company Director – Allegation of Misappropriation of Company Assets – Prosecution alleged petitioner purchased goods in name of company, diverted them to wife’s shop, manipulated computer data, removed company records and retained company car – Court observed that materials prima facie disclose offences under Sections 406 and 409 IPC – Applicability of Sections 415 and 420 IPC to be examined at stage of charge – Proceedings cannot be scuttled at threshold [Paras 2, 5].

Forgery and Use of Forged Documents – Incorrect Mention of Sections 472 and 477A IPC – Allegations indicate possible offences under Sections 465 and 471 IPC – Held: If investigating agency wrongly invoked Sections 472 and 477A IPC, Magistrate can incorporate correct provisions while framing charges – No ground for quashment merely because specific sections may not strictly apply [Para 6].

Theft – Company Vehicle – Defence that Car Surrendered to Financier – Petitioner contended that offences under Sections 378 and 379 IPC not attracted as vehicle returned to financier due to loan arrears – Held: Such factual defence to be considered by Trial Court at stage of framing of charge – Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC not to be invoked for premature evaluation of defence [Para 7].

Powers of Trial Court – Alteration of Charge – Court clarified that Magistrate may invoke powers under Section 216 CrPC (Section 239 BNSS, 2023) to alter or add charges if already framed – Observations in present order to be considered at stage of framing/alteration of charges [Final Order].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case dismissed – No ground to quash proceedings – Trial Court to consider proper penal provisions at stage of framing or alteration of charges.

Mohammedan Law – Inheritance – Joint Family and Ancestral Property – Concepts of joint family property, coparcenary and ancestral property are wholly foreign to Mohammedan Law – Muslim succession is individual and heirs succeed as tenants-in-common in definite shares only on death – No right by birth and no presumption of joint family nucleus – Trial Court erred in granting injunction on premise of joint family/ancestral property – Such approach contrary to settled principles of Mohammedan Law – Order held perverse [Paras 11.7–11.18, 12–15, 27, 30].

Family Settlement – Validity under Mohammedan Law – Family arrangement executed during lifetime of deceased father recognizing shares of sons in immovable properties and providing monetary payment to daughters – Revenue entries mutated pursuant thereto and statements of plaintiff recorded – Settlement not specifically challenged – Prima facie binding and acted upon – Trial Court failed to give due weight at interim stage – Ignoring material document amounts to perversity [Paras 16–21, 27].

Acquiescence and Delay – Suit filed after nearly 37 years of father’s death and decades after mutation entries and multiple sale transactions – Plaintiff residing in same city and aware of transactions – Plea of continued assurances found to be clever drafting to avoid consequences of acquiescence – Conduct disentitles equitable relief of injunction – Principle of acquiescence attracted [Paras 22–23, 32–33].

Injunction – Interference by Appellate Court – Scope under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC – Appellate Court can interfere where discretion exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely or in ignorance of settled principles – Failure to apply governing personal law and grant of relief beyond pleadings (based on affidavit Exh.79) held perverse – All three cardinal principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss not satisfied – Injunction order set aside [Paras 11.1–11.4, 24–30, 33].

Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Limitation – Suit for administration of estate and claim of exclusion – Limitation under Article 110 involves question when exclusion became known – Plaintiff pleaded denial upon recent development and sale – Issue of limitation held to be mixed question of law and fact – Not liable to be rejected at threshold – Civil Revision Applications dismissed [Paras 10.2–10.10].

Decision: Civil Revision Applications Nos. 48 of 2023 and 49 of 2023 dismissed – Appeal from Order Nos. 41, 42 and 43 of 2024 allowed – Order dated 02.02.2024 below Exh.5 granting temporary injunction quashed and set aside – Application Exh.5 dismissed – Observations tentative and not to influence trial – Interim protection in AOs continued for three weeks from date of judgment.