Tenancy Law – Surplus Land – Vesting in State – Proof of Tenancy – Plaintiff claimed tenancy through father under original landowners for over 30 years – Land declared surplus under Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and vested in State under Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act – Allotment made in favour of defendant Jai Singh and possession delivered in 1980 – Held: Plaintiff failed to prove tenancy – No evidence of rent fixation or payment – Stray jamabandi entry insufficient to establish landlord-tenant relationship – Entries showing “Gair Marusi” without lagan negate tenancy – Plaintiff held to be trespasser [Paras 8, 16-18].

Revenue Records – Evidentiary Value – Stray Entries – Single jamabandi entry showing possession on batai without proof of rent or landlord consent – Subsequent revenue records showing no rent payable – Held: Relationship of landlord and tenant cannot be established by isolated revenue entry – Such entries liable to be ignored, especially when land had already vested in State [Paras 17-18].

Surplus Land – Allotment – Ownership Rights – Defendant Jai Singh proved allotment of surplus land by State through allotment letter, mutation, Form U.S. IV and delivery of possession – Plaintiff never claimed ownership, only tenancy and pre-emption – Held: Ownership of Jai Singh established beyond dispute – Subsequent sale to Jagdish valid [Paras 13-14].

Pre-emption – Tenant’s Right – Failure to Prove Tenancy – Plaintiff sought pre-emption of sale claiming preferential right as tenant – Held: Since tenancy not proved, plaintiff has no superior right of pre-emption – Dismissal of pre-emption suit upheld [Paras 14, 21].

Injunction – Trespasser vs True Owner – Plaintiff sought protection of possession against defendants – Courts found plaintiff to be trespasser and not tenant – Held: Trespasser not entitled to injunction against true owner – Once rights adjudicated by competent court, requirement of “due process of law” stands satisfied – No further injunction can be granted restraining owner from taking possession in accordance with law [Paras 19-20].

Due Process of Law – Meaning – Due process satisfied once court adjudicates rights of parties – It is immaterial who initiated proceedings – After adjudication, unsuccessful party cannot insist on separate eviction proceedings before possession is restored to true owner – Protection against forcible dispossession not available after judicial determination [Paras 19-20].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Findings of Fact – Findings that plaintiff was not tenant but trespasser based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence – No perversity or substantial question of law involved – High Court declined interference [Paras 18-21].

Decision: Multiple Connected Appeals – Consolidated Decision – Three RSAs arising from suits for injunction and pre-emption concerning same property and parties – Held:

• RSA-1491-1988 (pre-emption) dismissed

• RSA-1168-1989 (injunction by plaintiff) dismissed

• RSA-2180-1988 (appeal by defendants) allowed – Suit of plaintiff dismissed [Para 21].

Judgments granting injunction to plaintiff set aside – Plaintiff held to be trespasser with no tenancy or pre-emption rights.

NDPS Act – Bail – Intermediate Quantity – Applicability of Section 37 NDPS Act – Accused No.2 found in possession of 10.188 kg ganja while co-accused possessed commercial quantity – Held, rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act not attracted when quantity recovered from the applicant alone is intermediate and no material to establish conspiracy – Bail granted [Paras 6–7].

Narcotic Offences – Joint Possession – Conspiracy – Mere presence together insufficient – Prosecution failed to establish conspiracy between accused No.1 and accused No.2 – No corroborative material such as CDR details or supplier identification available – Held, joint standing at railway station by itself does not attract liability for commercial quantity [Paras 6–7].

Bail Jurisprudence – Length of Custody – Completion of Investigation – Applicant in custody since 07.08.2025 – Investigation almost over – Continued detention held unnecessary – Bail granted subject to stringent conditions [Paras 6–7].

Criminal Antecedents – NDPS Cases – Effect on Bail – Applicant involved in four prior NDPS cases, mostly for consumption and small quantity – Antecedents alone not a ground to deny bail when statutory bar under Section 37 NDPS Act is inapplicable [Para 7].

Decision: Bail Application Allowed – Applicant directed to be released on bail on execution of bond with conditions including cooperation with investigation, weekly appearance before Investigating Officer, non-tampering of evidence, and restriction on leaving the State of Kerala.

Civil Procedure Code – Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court, which is the final court on facts, unless such findings are perverse, contrary to mandatory provisions of law, settled legal position, based on inadmissible evidence or rendered without evidence – No substantial question of law arises merely because a different view is possible [Paras 14, 35].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 8 – Mandatory Reference to Arbitration – Partnership deed admittedly contained an arbitration clause – Arbitral proceedings were pending since 2007, much prior to institution of suit in 2011 – Civil court had no jurisdiction to continue the suit – Judicial authority bound to refer parties to arbitration once existence of arbitration agreement and arbitrable dispute is shown [Paras 20, 26, 28–30].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Arbitration Clause – Outright rejection of plaint improper where arbitration clause exists – Correct course is to refer parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Act – First Appellate Court rightly modified the trial court’s order rejecting plaint and directed reference to arbitration [Paras 10–11, 32].

Arbitration Agreement – Non-production of Original Partnership Deed – Effect – Existence of arbitration clause and pendency of arbitral proceedings admitted by both parties – Plaintiff, being Managing Partner and custodian of original deed, cannot take advantage of non-production – Requirement of filing original or certified copy not fatal in admitted circumstances [Paras 16–17, 20].

Arbitrability – Partnership Disputes – Rights in Personam – Dispute relating to partner’s share of profit and loss is a dispute in personam – Amenable to arbitration – Not a category of non-arbitrable disputes as explained in Booz Allen & Hamilton [Paras 18–21].

Allegations of Fraud – Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal – Allegations of fabrication of documents or fraud simpliciter do not oust arbitral jurisdiction – Arbitral Tribunal competent to rule on its own jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Act – Civil court should not assume jurisdiction on such pleas [Paras 25–27, 31–33].

Parallel Proceedings – Civil Suit During Pending Arbitration – Discouraged – Institution of civil suit during pendency of arbitral proceedings amounts to forum shopping – Bifurcation of disputes between arbitral tribunal and civil court would delay proceedings, increase costs and risk conflicting decisions – Contrary to object of Arbitration Act [Paras 29, 34].

Limitation – Appointment of Arbitrator Already Made – Arbitrator appointed in 2007 and proceedings pending – No issue of limitation or failure to appoint arbitrator arises – Objection not raised before courts below – Cannot be agitated in second appeal [Para 22].

Cross Objections – No Independent Merit – Once reference to arbitration upheld and no substantial question of law found, cross objections filed by defendant do not survive – Liable to be dismissed [Para 35].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Cross Objections dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court directing reference of parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act affirmed – No substantial question of law involved – No order as to costs – Pending applications closed.

Criminal Law – Bail – Murder by Poisoning – Grant of Bail on Change in Circumstances – Petitioner (A-2) sought regular bail in a case alleging conspiracy and murder by mixing cyanide poison in alcohol of the deceased – Earlier bail application dismissed on the ground that investigation was at a crucial stage – Subsequent completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet constitutes a change in circumstances – Bail granted [Paras 1, 4, 6].

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 103(1), 61(2), 238 r/w 3(5) – Allegation of Conspiracy and Homicide – Prosecution case based on alleged extra-judicial confession made before Village Revenue Officer – Allegation that deceased misbehaved with wife of A-1 and conspiracy hatched by A-1 and A-2 – Court held that at bail stage, detailed appreciation of evidence is not warranted [Paras 3, 6].

Parity – Co-Accused Granted Bail – Relevant Consideration – Accused No.1, the prime accused, already enlarged on regular bail by the Trial Court – Principle of parity applicable in favour of petitioner – Continued incarceration of A-2 held unwarranted once investigation concluded [Paras 4–6].

Investigation Completed – Filing of Charge Sheet – No Apprehension of Tampering – Once charge sheet is filed and material witnesses examined during investigation, apprehension of tampering with evidence substantially reduces – Bail can be granted subject to stringent conditions [Para 6].

Conditions for Bail – Safeguards Imposed – Bail granted subject to execution of bond and sureties – Weekly appearance before Station House Officer till cognizance – Deposit of passport – Prohibition on leaving country and on influencing witnesses or making statements on social media – Conditions imposed to ensure fair trial [Para 7].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner/Accused No.2 enlarged on regular bail subject to conditions imposed by the Court.

POCSO Act – Sexual Assault on Minor – Conviction – Prosecutrix kidnapped while going for nature’s call during marriage ceremony – Confined in accused’s house and subjected to repeated sexual intercourse – Victim recovered from accused’s house on third day – Trial Court convicted accused under IPC and POCSO provisions – High Court upheld conviction – Held: Prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 25–35].

Age Determination – Minor Victim – School Records vs. Ossification Test – Prosecutrix and parents consistently stated age to be 13–14 years – School admission register from first attended school showed date of birth as 04.07.2006 – Defence relied on doubtful scholar register showing different date of birth – Register found unauthenticated and unreliable – Held: As per Rule 12 of JJ Rules and Section 94 JJ Act, school record has precedence – Victim held to be minor on date of incident [Paras 11–18, 24].

Medical Evidence – Ossification Test – Not Mandatory – Doctor advised X-ray for age determination but ossification test not conducted – Held: Ossification test required only in absence of reliable documentary evidence – Non-conduct does not vitiate prosecution case when school records are available – Reliance placed on Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana and State of M.P. v. Anoop Singh [Paras 19–24].

Evidence Appreciation – Testimony of Prosecutrix – Credibility – Prosecutrix gave consistent and cogent account of forcible sexual intercourse – Supported by testimony of mother, father, friend and grandfather – No material contradiction elicited in cross-examination – Sole testimony of prosecutrix sufficient when found trustworthy [Paras 25–29].

Scientific Evidence – DNA Report – Corroboration – DNA analysis confirmed match between accused and biological samples of prosecutrix – Strong corroborative evidence establishing sexual intercourse by accused – Defence plea of false implication rejected [Paras 33–34].

Consent – Minor Victim – Irrelevant – Defence plea of consensual relationship rejected – Victim below 18 years of age – Consent, even if assumed, legally inconsequential under IPC and POCSO Act [Paras 34–35].

Sentence – Confirmation – Multiple offences including aggravated penetrative sexual assault – Sentence of up to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment upheld – No mitigating circumstance warranting interference [Paras 1, 35].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentences imposed by Trial Court affirmed – Records directed to be sent back to Trial Court forthwith [Paras 35–36].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 8 – Reference to Arbitration – Pendency of Arbitration Prior to Suit – Plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant from claiming his share of profits and losses in partnership firm – Admitted position that arbitration proceedings between parties were pending since 2007 under partnership deed containing arbitration clause – Suit instituted in 2011 during pendency of arbitration – Held: Civil court cannot assume jurisdiction when dispute is already seized of by arbitral tribunal – Reference to arbitration justified – Parallel adjudication by civil court impermissible [Paras 20, 26, 29–34] .

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 – Rejection of Plaint – Proper Course under Section 8 of Arbitration Act – Trial Court rejected plaint – First Appellate Court modified order directing reference to arbitration – Held: Where arbitration clause exists, plaint need not be rejected; appropriate course is reference to arbitration – First Appellate Court correct in modifying decree [Paras 11, 32] .

Section 100 CPC – Second Appeal – Scope and Limitations – Interference permissible only when findings of First Appellate Court are contrary to mandatory law or settled legal principles – Findings based on admitted facts regarding arbitration clause and pending arbitral proceedings – No perversity or legal infirmity shown – No substantial question of law arises – Second Appeal not maintainable [Paras 14, 35] .

Arbitration Agreement – Non-production of Original Deed – Effect – Defendant pleaded original partnership deed was in possession of plaintiff – Plaintiff did not deny existence of arbitration clause and admitted pendency of arbitration – Held: Non-filing of original arbitration agreement not fatal where existence of arbitration clause and arbitral proceedings is admitted by both parties [Paras 16–18, 26] .

Arbitrability – Rights in Personam – Dispute concerning enforcement of partner’s share of profits and losses – Contractual dispute arising out of partnership deed – Held: Dispute is in personam and arbitrable – Suit seeking injunction to restrain contractual rights barred in view of arbitration clause [Paras 18–21] .

Allegations of Fraud – Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal – Plaintiff alleged fabrication of documents and issues beyond scope of arbitration – Held: Allegations of fraud simpliciter or statutory violations do not oust jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal – Arbitral tribunal competent to rule on its own jurisdiction under Section 16 – Civil court’s jurisdiction excluded [Paras 25–27, 31–33] .

Effect of Order under Section 8 – Once parties are referred to arbitration, nothing survives for adjudication in civil suit – Remedies governed exclusively by Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Continuation of suit barred [Paras 30, 34] .

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Cross Objections dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court directing reference to arbitration confirmed – Parties to bear their own costs.

Suspension of Sentence – Deposit of Fine as Condition – Recall of Condition – Appellant convicted under Section 8/15 NDPS Act and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment – Sentence suspended earlier subject to deposit of fine of Rs.1 lakh – Appellant unable to deposit fine due to poverty and continued to remain in jail despite suspension order – Held: Imposition of an impossible condition defeats right of appeal and violates Article 21 – Condition regarding deposit of fine recalled and release directed forthwith [Paras 9–15].

Right to Life and Personal Liberty – Article 21 – Poverty of Accused – Continued Detention Despite Release Order – Court held that poverty cannot be a ground to deny liberty when sentence already suspended – Continued incarceration despite suspension amounts to violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 [Paras 9, 12–15].

Lawyers’ Strike – Abstention from Court Work – Impact on Administration of Justice – Bar Associations opposing working Saturdays called for strike – Supreme Court precedent reiterating that lawyers have no right to strike or boycott courts – Held: Boycott of courts infringes litigants’ right to speedy justice, particularly in matters involving personal liberty [Paras 1–8].

Balancing Right to Protest and Right to Liberty – Article 19(1)(b) vis-à-vis Article 21 – Right to protest not absolute – Must not obstruct administration of justice or affect personal liberty of undertrial/convicted prisoners – Courts cannot be paralysed due to lawyers’ abstention [Paras 7–9].

Precedent – Suspension of Sentence of Fine – Appellate Court’s Discretion – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision holding that conditions while suspending sentence must not be such that compliance becomes impossible and defeats statutory right of appeal [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Interim Application allowed – Condition of deposit of fine of Rs.1 lakh recalled – Trial Court directed to release appellant forthwith subject to remaining bail conditions – Order clarified not to be treated as precedent – Directions issued to Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Rajasthan [Paras 15–18].

Execution Proceedings – Section 47 CPC – Scope and Limits – Objections raised by judgment-debtors questioning executability of decree – Held: Executing Court cannot go behind decree but can examine whether decree is a nullity, vague, or incapable of execution – Executability of decree itself falls within ambit of Section 47 CPC [Paras 52–55, 69–74].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 115 CPC – Narrow Compass – High Court can interfere only where subordinate court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted with material irregularity – Revisional court not an appellate forum for reappreciation of evidence [Paras 51, 63].

Execution of Injunction Decree – Vagueness – Inexecutability – Decree of permanent injunction restraining disclosure of design without specifying design particulars, dimensions, drawings or identifying features – Held: Prohibitory decree lacking precision and certainty is incapable of execution – Vague decree cannot be enforced by attachment of property [Paras 72–77].

Attachment of Property – Beyond Decree – Impermissible – Decree restrained disclosure of design by Defendant No.1 only – No direction for attachment, seizure or restraint on use of machines – Executing Court exceeded jurisdiction by attaching machines not identified or declared infringing in decree – Held: Executing Court travelled beyond decree [Paras 65–66, 80–84].

Secondary Evidence – Indian Evidence Act – Strict Compliance Required – Photocopy of agreement dated 29.01.2015 relied upon by Executing Court – Application under Section 65 Evidence Act neither allowed nor adjudicated – Document not exhibited or proved – Held: Unproved and inadmissible document cannot form basis of adjudication in execution proceedings [Paras 67–68].

Cross-examination – Reference to Unproved Document – No Cure of Inadmissibility – Mere confrontation of witness with inadmissible document does not render it proved or admissible – Evidentiary status cannot be conferred indirectly [Para 68].

Execution Proceedings – Recording of Evidence – Permissibility – Executing Court permitted to record evidence in exceptional cases when necessary for effective execution – Decree-holders having invited remand and participated in evidence cannot later object – Principle of approbate and reprobate applied [Paras 61].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Objection at Belated Stage – Waiver – Judgment-debtors participated in execution proceedings without protest – Order of transfer and attachment not challenged earlier – Held: Objection as to territorial jurisdiction barred by acquiescence and waiver [Para 62].

Order XXI Rule 32 CPC – Injunction Decree – Preconditions – Execution for breach of injunction presupposes clearly identifiable prohibited act – Where subject matter of restraint is indeterminate, execution by coercive measures impermissible [Paras 75–76].

Attachment Based on Subsequent Agreement – Jurisdictional Error – Executing Court maintained attachment of one machine on basis of agreement dated 20.06.2020 – Said agreement not subject matter of decree – Held: Execution cannot be founded on subsequent transactions requiring independent adjudication [Paras 78–84].

Additional Evidence at Revisional Stage – Not Maintainable – Applications to place additional documents on record during revision dismissed – Revisional court confined to material before executing court – Allowing fresh material would convert revision into appeal [Paras 15–18].

Decision: S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 12/2023 (by Decree-holders) dismissed – S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 273/2022 (by Objectors/Judgment-debtors) allowed – Impugned order dated 11.11.2022 set aside to extent it maintained attachment of one machine – Executing Court directed to release both machines forthwith – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 85–88].

Civil Procedure – Appointment of Advocate Commissioner – Mandatory Injunction – Suit initially filed for bare injunction later amended to include relief of mandatory injunction for removal of alleged encroachment and construction – Trial Court allowed application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measure suit property with help of Surveyor – Held: In a suit seeking mandatory injunction, proper measurement and identification of offending construction is essential to avoid execution difficulties – Appointment of Advocate Commissioner justified [Paras 4–5].

Civil Suit – Bare Injunction vs Mandatory Injunction – Change of Circumstances – Earlier application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner dismissed when suit was only for bare injunction – Subsequently, prayer for mandatory injunction introduced by amendment – Held: Dismissal of earlier application does not bar a fresh application when there is a subsequent change in circumstances – Doctrine of res judicata not attracted [Paras 7–8].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Limited Interference – Challenge to interlocutory order appointing Advocate Commissioner – Held: Order passed by Trial Court is neither perverse nor illegal – Appointment would assist Court in adjudicating real controversy – No ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution [Paras 8–9].

Measurement of Property – Role of Advocate Commissioner – Direction issued that Advocate Commissioner shall measure suit property with assistance of Surveyor with reference to title deeds of both parties and revenue records – Held: Such exercise would aid effective adjudication and precise identification of disputed constructions [Para 10].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Order appointing Advocate Commissioner upheld – Directions issued regarding manner of measurement – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.