Declaration of Title – Burden of Proof – Revenue Records – Plaintiff relied primarily on kist receipts (Exs.A3 to A15) and mutation entries to establish ancestral title – Patta and chitta not produced – No proof of alleged partitions between plaintiff’s father and uncle or between plaintiff and his brothers – Courts below decreed suit mainly on failure of defendants to prove title – Held: In a suit for declaration, plaintiff must independently prove his title by clear and cogent evidence and cannot rely on weakness of defendant’s case – Revenue records and kist receipts do not confer title – Findings of Courts below held perverse and contrary to settled law [Paras 34–37, 42–45, 50(i), (iv)].

Ex Parte Decree – Restitution – Retention of Benefit – Plaintiff obtained ex parte decree and took delivery in execution on 25.01.1985 – Ex parte decree set aside on 20.03.1991 – Courts below granted injunction relying heavily on delivery taken pursuant to ex parte decree – Held: Once ex parte decree is set aside, parties are restored to original position – Plaintiff cannot retain benefit obtained under decree which ceases to exist – Section 144 CPC embodies principle of restitution ex debito justitiae – Reliance on delivery pursuant to nullified decree held erroneous and perverse [Paras 32–33, 50(iii)].

Delivery of Possession – Presumption of Official Acts – Plea of Paper Delivery – Court officer’s report of delivery attracts presumption under Section 114 Evidence Act that official acts are regularly performed – Such presumption rebuttable only by specific plea of fraud complying with Order VI Rule 4 CPC – No such plea raised by defendants – Plea of paper delivery rejected – However, benefit of delivery lost upon setting aside of ex parte decree [Paras 28–29].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Concurrent Findings – Interference Permissible – Though High Court ordinarily does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact, interference warranted where findings are perverse, based on no evidence, ignore material evidence, or proceed on fundamental errors of law – Present case falls within such exceptions [Paras 26–27].

Transfer of Property – Better Title – Nemo Dat Principle – Defendant relied on Ex.B1 and Ex.B2/Ex.B3 to claim title through Sanjeeviraya Reddy – Parent deed (Ex.B1) did not cover suit survey numbers – Will not proved in accordance with law – Held: One cannot transfer better title than one possesses – Defendant also failed to establish better title – Neither party proved exclusive title – Plaintiff left to seek partition if so advised [Paras 46–48, 49].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court in OS.No.575 of 1983 dated 30.06.1994 and First Appellate Court in AS.No.71 of 1994 dated 13.11.1998 set aside – Suit dismissed – Trial Court directed to ensure re-delivery of property to third defendant in view of setting aside of ex parte decree – Liberty reserved to plaintiff to file properly framed suit for partition – No order as to costs [Paras 50–51].

Environmental Law – Fly Ash Pollution – Construction of National Highway – Alleged damage to crops, ponds and groundwater – Environmental degradation affecting air and water bodies – Petitioners alleged indiscriminate dumping of fly ash during construction of NH-49 without safeguards – Fly ash washed into farmlands, ponds and village roads causing pollution and damage to agriculture and pisciculture – Held: Issues raised are serious environmental concerns requiring expert adjudication [Paras 3–5].

Writ Jurisdiction – Article 226 – Alternative Statutory Remedy – National Green Tribunal – Rule of discretion and not compulsion – Availability of specialized forum under NGT Act does not oust jurisdiction of High Court – However, writ court may refuse to entertain petition where effective statutory remedy exists – Held: Self-imposed restraint warranted where dispute falls squarely within jurisdiction of NGT [Paras 2, 9–10].

National Green Tribunal – Jurisdiction – Sections 14 and 22 – No absolute ouster of High Court’s powers under Articles 226 and 227 – High Court’s power of judicial review and superintendence forms part of basic structure – Remedy under Article 226 remains intact despite statutory appeal to Supreme Court under Section 22 of NGT Act – Held: Jurisdiction preserved but to be exercised sparingly [Paras 6–7, 9].

Environmental Disputes – Specialized Tribunal – Need for technical expertise – Environmental issues relating to air and water pollution require scientific and technical evaluation – NGT constituted with expert members to address such disputes effectively – Held: Matters concerning fly ash pollution during highway construction can be conveniently and appropriately adjudicated by NGT [Paras 5, 10].

Precedents – Judicial Review vis-à-vis NGT – Limits of Tribunal’s power – NGT does not possess general power of judicial review akin to Article 226 – Appeal being creature of statute, jurisdiction of NGT confined to matters expressly provided – High Court retains constitutional oversight [Paras 6–8].

Decision:

Writ petition disposed of – High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction – Petitioners relegated to approach the National Green Tribunal – Liberty granted to raise all grievances and seek appropriate reliefs before NGT.

Tenancy Law - Eviction – Concurrent Findings – Article 227 Jurisdiction – Tenant challenged concurrent eviction orders passed by Rent Court (RLTOP No. 402 of 2020) and confirmed by Rent Tribunal (RLTA No. 52 of 2025) – Defence raised that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant and that landlord’s claim as legatee/foster son under unprobated Will was unsustainable – Held: Identical defence already rejected by Court in connected revisions relating to same premises – No ground to interfere under Article 227 – Revision dismissed [Paras 2–3, 7].

Jural Relationship – Challenge by Tenant – Tenant questioned locus of landlord on ground that Will remained unprobated and landlord was not sole legal heir – Court declined to re-examine issue in view of earlier decision in connected matters confirming landlord’s entitlement to maintain eviction proceedings [Paras 2–3, 7].

Arrears of Rent – Distress Proceedings – Tenant admittedly in arrears of Rs.2,62,300/- representing 43 months’ rent @ Rs.6,100/- per month – Earlier distress application allowed and partial payment made – Continued default noted by Court while considering grant of time [Paras 5–6].

Equitable Relief – Time to Vacate – Though revision dismissed, considering that petitioner was carrying on non-residential jewellery business, Court granted time till 30.06.2026 to vacate, subject to conditions: filing affidavit of undertaking, clearing arrears within stipulated time, and not inducting third parties [Para 7].

Conditional Order – Modification on Mention – On mention, Court recorded payment of Rs.62,300/- and permitted balance Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid in four equal monthly instalments of Rs.50,000/- each in March, April, May and June 2026 – Directed regular monthly rent from January 2026 to be paid in advance on or before 10th of every month [Order dated 05.02.2026, Paras 3–5].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – In absence of perversity or jurisdictional error in concurrent eviction orders, High Court declined to interfere under Article 227, granting only equitable time to vacate [Paras 3, 7].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Time granted to vacate premises on or before 30.06.2026 subject to conditions regarding affidavit of undertaking, payment of arrears and regular payment of rent – Subsequent order permitting instalment payment of arrears – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Motor Vehicles Act – Injury Claim – Minor Girl – Amputation of Right Leg Below Knee – Tribunal assessed notional income at Rs.24,000 per annum and disability at 36% – Applied multiplier of 15 – Awarded Rs.8,77,000 – High Court held that minimum wages of Rs.5,750 per month prevailing in 2013 with 40% future prospects to be considered – Multiplier of 18 applicable – Functional disability to be assessed at 50% considering nature of amputation and impact on earning capacity – Compensation enhanced to Rs.21,19,400 – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 7, 9, 12-14, 17-18].

Compensation – Assessment of Income of Minor – Minimum Wages – Future Prospects – In light of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel and Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi principles – Even in case of minor, loss of earning capacity to be assessed on basis of minimum wages of skilled worker – 40% addition towards future prospects permissible – Monthly income computed at Rs.8,050 – Total loss of income Rs.17,38,800 – 50% functional disability applied [Paras 7, 12, 14].

Disability – Physical vs Functional Disability – Amputation Below Knee – Doctor assessed 36% whole body disability – Court held that functional disability must be independently assessed – Considering stump length of 6.5 cm below knee and inability to perform heavy work – 50% permanent functional disability appropriate – Tribunal erred in mechanically accepting 36% [Paras 13-14].

Non-Pecuniary Damages – Pain, Shock and Suffering – Loss of Marriage Prospects – Loss of Amenities – Artificial Limb – Special Diet and Attendant Charges – Tribunal awarded meagre amounts – High Court, relying on Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, Master Ayush, Sidram and Pappu Deo Yadav, emphasized need for just, liberal and humane approach in cases of severe disability of minors – Enhanced pain and suffering to Rs.5,00,000 – Loss of marriage prospects Rs.3,00,000 – Loss of amenities Rs.2,00,000 – Artificial limb Rs.1,50,000 – Special diet, attendant and transportation Rs.1,00,000 [Paras 8, 10-11, 15-16].

Just Compensation – Duty of Tribunal – Sensitive and Humane Approach – Courts must consider lifelong deprivation, emotional trauma and loss of dignity under Article 21 – Compensation to be awarded once and for all and not as token damages – Nigardly approach deprecated [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Award modified from Rs.8,77,000 to Rs.21,19,400 – Appellant entitled to additional Rs.12,42,400 with proportionate costs and interest – Respondents directed to deposit enhanced amount within four weeks – Record remitted to Tribunal for disbursement.

Motor Accident – Rash and Negligent Driving – FIR initially against unknown vehicle – Registration number and driver’s name introduced after 21 days – Eyewitness (PW2) stated driver got down after accident but he could not note entire number – Minor discrepancies in cross-examination held not fatal – Driver did not step into witness box – Criminal acquittal not decisive in MACT proceedings – Held: Involvement of offending vehicle and negligence proved – Plea of planted case rejected [Paras 7, 10; ].

Assessment of Income – Minimum Wages as Yardstick – Deceased aged 21 years working in shop – Tribunal assessed income at ₹9,000 per month based on Deputy Commissioner rates for semi-skilled/skilled labour – Court held minimum wages not absolute rule but guiding factor – Some guesswork permissible – Income of ₹9,000 per month upheld as just and reasonable [Paras 11; ].

Future Prospects – Correction from 50% to 40% – Deceased on fixed income – As per Pranay Sethi, addition should be 40% and not 50% – Tribunal’s award modified accordingly [Para 12; ].

Conventional Heads – Consortium – Tribunal awarded ₹1,00,000 for consortium and ₹3,00,000 for love and affection – Held not in consonance with Pranay Sethi, Magma General Insurance and N. Jayasree – Reworked to:

– ₹18,000 towards loss of estate

– ₹18,000 towards funeral expenses

– ₹48,000 each towards consortium (spousal, filial, parental) – Total ₹1,92,000 [Paras 12–13; ].

Recalculation of Compensation – Monthly income ₹9,000 – Deduction 1/4th – Multiplier 18 – Future prospects @ 40% – Total compensation reduced from ₹26,12,000 to ₹22,69,200 – Interest @ 9% per annum from date of claim petition maintained [Para 13–14; ].

Apportionment – Minor’s share to be kept in FDR till attaining majority – Balance amount to be adjusted from deposited sum; excess to be returned to Insurance Company [Paras 14–15; ].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Award modified – Compensation reduced to ₹22,69,200 with 9% interest – Other findings of Tribunal affirmed.

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Cause of Action – Court reiterated that while considering an application for rejection of plaint, it must confine itself strictly to the averments in the plaint and documents relied upon therein – Test is whether on a plain and meaningful reading, the plaint discloses a cause of action against the defendant seeking rejection – Plaint can be rejected partially against some defendants while surviving against others [Paras 1, 14, 18(A), 18(G)].

Company Law – Directors – Personal Liability – Separate Corporate Personality – Mere designation as director or nominee director does not ipso facto render a director personally liable for acts or contractual obligations of the company – In absence of pleadings showing personal role, benefit, statutory liability, or grounds for lifting the corporate veil, no cause of action lies against directors [Paras 11, 12, 18(D), 18(E)].

Pleadings – Omnibus Allegations – Use of Generic Expression “Defendants” – Plaint making sweeping and omnibus allegations without attributing specific acts, omissions, or roles to individual defendants held insufficient – Use of generic expression “the Defendants” without individualized pleadings fails to disclose cause of action against directors [Paras 10, 18(B)].

Fraud and Collusion – Pleading Requirements – Order VI Rule 4 CPC – Allegations of fraud, collusion, or conspiracy must be pleaded with material particulars – Bald and vague allegations without specific particulars do not meet statutory pleading standards and cannot sustain impleadment of directors [Paras 10, 18(E)].

Order VII Rule 11 – Scope of Enquiry – Affidavit in Reply Irrelevant – Plaintiff cannot rely on averments in affidavit-in-reply to cure defects in plaint – Cause of action must be disclosed in the plaint itself – Material outside the plaint cannot be considered while deciding application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 13, 17, 18(F)].

Nominee Directors – Impleadment Without Averments – Nominee directors impleaded solely on basis of designation without any pleaded involvement or wrongdoing – Held that plaint was entirely bereft of any allegation against Defendant Nos. 3 to 8 – Plaint rejected as against them [Paras 3–9, 16, 18(B), 18(C)].

Decision: All Notices of Motion allowed – Plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as against Defendant Nos. 3 to 8 – Suit to proceed only against remaining defendants – Consequential Notice of Motion disposed of as infructuous [Paras 19–20].

Pre-emption – Co-sharer – Sale of Specific Khasra Numbers – Whether Pre-emptible – Plaintiff sought possession by way of pre-emption being a co-sharer in joint khewat – Defendant contended that sale was of specific khasra numbers and thus not of share in joint holding – Relying on Full Bench in Bhartu v. Ram Sarup – Held that sale of specific portion described by khasra numbers by a co-owner out of joint khewat amounts to sale of share in joint land and is pre-emptible under Section 15(1)(b) – Plaintiff being co-sharer had preferential right – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras 11–14].

Pre-emption – Nature and Scope – Right of Substitution – Requirement of Superior Right on Relevant Dates – Court reiterated principles laid down in Bishan Singh v. Khazan Singh – Pre-emptor must establish superior right on date of sale, date of suit and date of decree and right must subsist throughout – Right of pre-emption is weak right but cannot be defeated by device of describing land by specific khasra numbers – Plaintiff satisfied statutory requirements [Paras 11–13].

Partial Pre-emption – Impermissibility – Distinction – Appellant argued suit bad for partial pre-emption – Court held that in present case entire sale sought to be pre-empted – Judgment in Ajit Singh v. Waryam Singh distinguished as in that case certain khasra numbers were excluded from claim – Plea rejected [Para 14].

Deposit and Withdrawal of Decretal Amount – Effect on Right of Pre-emption – Appellant contended that withdrawal of deposited amount resulted in loss of right – Court held that plaintiff had duly deposited decretal amount as directed – Withdrawal permitted by High Court during pendency of appeal due to stay of execution – No default in compliance – Judgment in Bachan Singh distinguished – Right not defeated [Para 14].

Improvement of Status of Vendee – Acquisition of Co-sharership Prior to Suit – Section 21-A Punjab Pre-emption Act – Vendee purchased another parcel prior to filing of suit and claimed equal status – Court held that subsequent sale deed forming basis of improved status was itself subject matter of separate pre-emption suit and both matters decided together – In such peculiar facts improved status liable to be ignored – Distinguished Jagdish Kumar and applied principles in Krishan Lal and Garib Singh – Plaintiff’s superior right remained intact [Paras 15–16].

Second Appeal – Punjab and Haryana High Court – Framing of Substantial Questions of Law – In view of Pankajakshi, Randhir Kaur and Gurbachan Singh – Questions of law not required to be framed under Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act, 1918 – Concurrent findings of fact not liable to interference [Para 17].

Decision: Both Regular Second Appeals dismissed – Concurrent decrees granting possession by way of pre-emption upheld – Plaintiff directed to redeposit withdrawn amount within two months – Pending applications disposed of.

SARFAESI Act – Bar of Civil Court Jurisdiction – Section 34 – Suit filed by subsequent purchaser seeking declaration of title and injunction against secured creditor – Bank had already taken measures under Section 13(4) and obtained order under Section 14 SARFAESI Act – Held, where cause of action arises out of measures taken under Section 13(4), jurisdiction of civil court is expressly barred [Paras 7–10, 16].

Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Suit barred by law – Though plaint cannot be rejected piecemeal, substance of plaint showed challenge to SARFAESI measures and prayer for injunction against bank – No substantive relief claimed against vendor – Held, suit liable to be rejected as barred under Section 34 SARFAESI Act [Paras 8–9, 14, 24].

Subsequent Purchaser – Remedy under Section 17 SARFAESI Act – Expression “any person” – Subsequent purchaser after creation of mortgage falls within ambit of “any person” under Section 17 – Remedy lies before Debts Recovery Tribunal against measures taken under Section 13(4) – Civil suit not maintainable [Paras 4, 9, 12, 23].

Declaration of Title – Scope of DRT Jurisdiction – Distinction between challenge to validity of prior sale deed and challenge to SARFAESI measures – Plaintiff did not allege defect in title of mortgagor prior to mortgage – Mere assertion of subsequent purchase insufficient to invoke civil court jurisdiction – DRT competent to adjudicate grievance [Paras 11–13, 17].

Stamp Duty – Nature of Security Agreement – Contention that document was only an agreement and not a mortgage due to stamp duty paid under Article 6 – Held, irrelevant for deciding maintainability – Definitions of “security agreement” and “security interest” under Sections 2(zb) and 2(zf) SARFAESI Act are wide and include agreements creating security interest – Even an agreement securing loan qualifies [Paras 18–22].

Precedents – Applicability – Reliance placed on Jagdish Singh v. Heeralal, SBI v. Allwyn Alloys (P) Ltd., and M/s Sree Anandhakumar Mills Ltd. – Held, civil court jurisdiction completely barred where SARFAESI measures are challenged – Distinguished Prabha Jain as plaintiff raised no issue beyond competence of DRT [Paras 11, 13–15].

Decision – Civil Revision Allowed – Order rejecting application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC set aside – Plaint rejected as barred by Section 34 SARFAESI Act – Liberty granted to plaintiff to approach DRT under Section 17 SARFAESI Act within 30 days [Paras 24–25].

Rent Control – Shop-cum-Flat (SCF) – Change of User – Residential Portion used for Commercial Tailoring Activity – Tenant initially inducted in ground floor portion for commercial purpose – Subsequently shifted to first and second floor (residential portion) for store purpose – Tenant running tailoring business from residential portion without permission – Held: Use of residential portion for commercial activity without permission of Rent Controller violates Section 11 of the 1949 Act – Eviction justified [Paras 18, 20, 25].

Chandigarh – SCF – Nature of Building – Reference to Division Bench – Question whether entire SCF to be treated as commercial – Division Bench answered that SCF in Chandigarh is a non-residential building in view of 1982 Amendment and law laid down in Rakesh Vij – Ejectment permissible on bona fide ground in both residential and non-residential buildings – Issue settled against tenant [Paras 2, 3, 17].

Misuse Notices – Estate Office Proceedings – Show cause notices issued by Estate Officer for misuse of SCF contrary to allotment terms – Property allotted as Shop-cum-Flat (shop at ground floor and flat at upper floors) – No conversion obtained – Held: Landlord cannot be made to suffer for tenant’s misuse – Misuse supports ground of eviction [Paras 19, 20].

Appellate Authority – Appreciation of Evidence – Rent Controller dismissed eviction petition for want of proof of misuse – Appellate Authority reappreciated evidence and found change of user established – High Court in revision found no illegality or perversity warranting interference – Order of eviction upheld [Paras 10, 18, 25].

Precedents – Applicability – Judgments relied upon by tenant distinguished on facts – Judgment in Nand Kishore v. Yashpal Singh supports eviction where residential premises used for commercial purpose – Revision petition dismissed [Paras 22–24, 25].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Order dated 24.11.2015 of Appellate Authority upheld – Pending miscellaneous applications disposed of [Paras 25, 26].