Civil Law – Challenge to Transfer Deed on Grounds of Fraud – Validity of Declaratory Relief – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff Sansar Singh, paternal uncle of the defendants, filed suit for declaration and injunction claiming fraudulent transfer of his 1/3 share in joint property based on misrepresentation – Both Trial and First Appellate Courts held transfer deed dated 06.01.2006 to be result of fraud – High Court affirmed findings, holding that the defendant failed to prove execution by attesting witness as required under Section 68 of the Evidence Act – Further held that suit was maintainable as it was accompanied with consequential relief – Appeal dismissed [Paras 4-20].

Transfer Deed – Proof under Section 68 Evidence Act – Attesting Witnesses Not Examined – Transfer Deed Declared Void – Plaintiff Sansar Singh challenged the transfer of his 1/3 share in the suit property, claiming fraud and misrepresentation – Despite denial of execution, defendant failed to examine attesting witnesses as required under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act – Held: Burden of proof was on the defendant; non-examination of attesting witnesses rendered the transfer deed unproved and void [Paras 10-13].

Family Dispute – Fraud and Misrepresentation – Elder Uncle Deceived by Nephews – Plaintiff claimed that believing the document to be a Will, he was fraudulently induced to sign a transfer deed – Subsequent conduct of defendants, including attempt to dispossess him, confirmed fraudulent intent – Held: Courts below rightly held the transfer to be invalid due to fraud [Paras 4-7, 14-16].

Maintainability – Simplicitor Declaration Suit with Consequential Relief – Section 34 of Specific Relief Act – Appellant objected that suit was barred as it was for declaration only – Held: Suit also claimed injunction and alternative relief of joint possession – Hence, maintainable under Section 34 – Objection rejected [Paras 17-19].

Appeal – Concurrent Findings – No Illegality or Perversity – Dismissal Upheld – High Court found no error in concurrent findings of fraud and lack of valid execution – Held: Appeal devoid of merit and dismissed [Para 20].

Civil Revision – Partition Suit by Granddaughter – Hindu Succession Act – Suit Not Maintainable – Plaintiff sought partition and possession of maternal grandfather’s property during lifetime of her mother (coparcener) – Court held: granddaughter not coparcener; property is obstructed heritage, not ancestral in her hands – Only mother can seek partition – Plaintiff has no locus standi – Rejection of plaint proper under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Revision allowed [Paras 7-17].

Coparcenary – Rights of Daughters under Section 6, Hindu Succession Act – Daughter acquires coparcenary right by birth at par with son – But granddaughter cannot claim as coparcener in maternal grandfather’s property – Plaintiff’s claim was obstructed heritage, accruing only after mother’s death intestate – Hence, no vested right during mother’s lifetime [Paras 8-13].

Unobstructed vs. Obstructed Heritage – Explained – Property from paternal ancestors (father, grandfather, great-grandfather) is unobstructed heritage with birthright – Property from maternal grandfather is obstructed heritage, rights accrue only on death of last holder – Plaintiff’s claim fell under obstructed heritage, thus premature [Paras 12-13].

Cause of Action – Illusory – Plaintiff’s mother, alive and impleaded as defendant, did not claim partition – Plaintiff cannot substitute her mother’s claim – Cause of action pleaded was illusory – Clever drafting cannot confer jurisdiction – Plaint barred by law [Paras 17-18].

Section 14, Hindu Succession Act – Absolute Ownership of Female Coparcener – Once plaintiff’s mother receives her share, she becomes absolute owner – Plaintiff acquires rights only upon her mother’s death intestate – Hence, no present right or share to sustain suit [Para 18].

Decision – Impugned order dated 28.02.2023 rejecting application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC quashed – Plaint in RCS No. 224/2022 rejected – Civil Revision Application allowed [Para 19, Order].

Criminal Law - Section 482 Cr.P.C - Inspection of Judicial Records – Enforcement Directorate’s Right – Rule 2, Chapter 16, Part C, High Court Rules – Inspection Allowed – Petitioners objected to ED inspecting IT Department’s complaint records before the Magistrate, arguing secrecy under Article 28 of Indo-French DTAA – Court held Rule 2 allows even strangers to inspect pending judicial records for sufficient cause – ED, being a statutory investigative agency under FEMA, had valid reasons – Permission to inspect upheld [Paras 4, 7].

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement – Secrecy Clause – No Absolute Bar – Reliance on Ram Jethmalani Case – Information May Be Used in Judicial Proceedings – Petitioners argued disclosure violated Article 28 of Indo-French DTAA – Court relied on Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India holding similar DTAA provisions do not create absolute secrecy and allow disclosure in judicial proceedings – Held petitioners cannot object to ED’s access; if any violation, only the contracting state could object [Paras 8, 8.1, 8.3].

Right to Privacy – Balancing with Investigative Needs – Names/Details not for Public Dissemination – Court reiterated that while right to privacy protects individuals from public disclosure of bank details, investigative agencies may access such information for inquiry – ED’s request was limited to investigation, not public dissemination – Hence permissible [Paras 8.1, 8.2].

Doctrine Against Indirect Evasion – Not Attracted – No Circumvention of Law – Petitioners relied on K. Shyam Sunder v. State of Tamil Nadu to argue ED was indirectly accessing restricted information – Court held there was no evasion, as inspection was legally permissible under High Court Rules and DTAA did not bar intra-state investigative use [Para 8.4].

Final Decision – Petitions Dismissed – ED Permitted Inspection with Safeguards – Court dismissed all petitions – Directed that ED may inspect complaint records for investigation but barred public dissemination of information without due legal process [Paras 9].

Tenancy Law  – Personal bona fide requirement – Clause (g), Section 13(1), Bombay Rent Act – Liberal construction includes landlord’s dependent family – Eviction decree sustained – Landlords (a priestly family near a temple) proved insufficiency of existing premises and need for additional space for named family members; Trial Court erred by insisting those members be examined; Appellate Court rightly decreed eviction and High Court found no revisional infirmity – Held: “for occupation by himself” is not confined to the landlord individually and non-examination of the specific family members is not per se fatal [Paras 5, 15-21, 22-24].

Evidence – Unimpeached testimony and absence of cross-examination – Order VIII Rule 10 CPC – Court’s duty to evaluate merits still applies – Decree valid where plaintiff’s case, even if uncontested, independently proves bona fide need – Tenant’s failure to cross-examine PW-1/PW-2 or lead rebuttal evidence left landlord’s evidence intact; Trial Court’s approach was erroneous; Appellate Court corrected error; High Court approves – Principle from Balraj Taneja applied to require judicial satisfaction, which was met on facts [Paras 6-11, 15-21].

Comparative hardship – Tenant operating multiple firms – Evidence (including invitation card, Exh. 32) unimpeached – Hardship balanced in favour of landlord – No material to show tenant’s efforts to find alternative premises post-suit – Finding of greater hardship to landlord upheld [Paras 25-26].

Scope of revisional jurisdiction – Interference limited to jurisdictional error or material irregularity – Appellate decree based on proper appreciation of law and evidence – No perversity or jurisdictional error – Revision dismissed [Paras 24, 27-28].

Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed – Eviction decree on ground of personal bona fide requirement affirmed – Stay to continue for four weeks subject to undertaking. [Paras 27-28; Final Order].

Criminal Law - BNSS – Section 94 – Scope – Production of documents – Notice to University Registrar for scholarship records (2020–2025) challenged as unrelated to alleged exam malpractice – Petitioners argued no nexus with University; scholarships processed and disbursed by State through nodal officers – Held: Section 94 empowers Investigating Officer to call for documents necessary or desirable for investigation – Records prima facie relevant; Court cannot interfere with ongoing investigation under Article 226 – Notice upheld [Paras 18-20, 24].

Investigation – Judicial Interference – Well-demarcated functions of Police and Judiciary – Police have statutory right to investigate cognizable offences without judicial interference – Courts cannot quash investigation steps unless mala fides or abuse of power shown – Reliance placed on Khwaja Nazir Ahmad (AIR 1945 PC 18), J.A.C. Saldanha (1980), Neeharika Infrastructure (2021) – Writ jurisdiction not to be used to stall investigation [Paras 20-23].

Scholarship Records – University’s role – Petitioners argued University merely verifies forms, disbursal directly by Government – Court held: relevance of records is matter for Investigating Officer; not for writ court to assess at investigation stage – Prayer to quash notice rejected [Paras 9-10, 19, 24].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Notice under Section 94 BNSS sustained – Court declines to interfere with ongoing police investigation [Paras 24-25].

Civil Revision – Waqf Suit – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Plaint Rejected – Plaintiff, a devotee, sought declaration and possession over Survey Nos. 51 and 52 as Waqf property of Dargah – Tribunal rejected applications under Order 7 Rule 11 – Held: Suit not maintainable as properties never included in gazetted list under Section 5 of Waqf Act, 1954/1995 – No statutory procedure followed – Suit barred by limitation under Section 6 proviso – Relief of declaration cleverly drafted to overcome legal bars – Plaint rejected – Revision allowed [Paras 13-19, 25, 27, 32].

Waqf Property – Gazette Notification Mandatory – Sections 4-6 of Waqf Act, 1954/1995 – Inclusion of property in Waqf list requires survey, enquiry and gazette notification – Mere letter dated 11.12.1979 or corrigendum cannot confer status – No evidence of statutory procedure – Suit properties not proved as Waqf – Tribunal’s finding perverse [Paras 14-18].

Limitation – Section 6 of Waqf Act – Suit filed after 47 years – Proviso mandates filing within one year from publication of list – Properties not notified in 1973 list – Declaration suit of 2020 manifestly barred – Section 107 cannot revive extinguished rights – Relief time-barred [Paras 19-25].

Section 107, Waqf Act – No Retrospective Operation – Protects suits for possession of Waqf property – But does not save stale claims barred before 1995 Act – SC in T. Kaliamurthi (2008) and K. Akbar Ali (2021) held extinguished rights cannot be revived – Plaintiff’s declaratory relief barred [Paras 22-25].

Clever Drafting – Abuse of Process – Plaintiff avoided challenging old sale-deeds (1985, 1988) and couched plaint to declare land as Waqf – Cause of action illusory, bar of limitation camouflaged – Absurd pleadings and oblique intentions – Abuse of law – Fit case to reject plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 [Paras 20-21, 27].

Decision – Civil Revision Application allowed – Common order dated 07.09.2021 by Waqf Tribunal quashed – Plaint in Waqf Suit No. 66 of 2020 rejected – Stay of judgment granted for four weeks to enable appeal [Order, Paras 32, 36].

Civil Law - Commission Report – Re-inspection of Property – Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC – Remand Ordered – Petitioners (defendants) challenged Trial Court’s rejection of their request to re-entrust commission to Advocate-Commissioner to measure suit schedule property – Trial Court held re-entrustment impermissible as objections to commission report already filed – High Court held that no inquiry was conducted by Trial Court regarding why measurement was not done – Set aside impugned order and remanded for proper inquiry – Directions issued for re-consideration [Paras 1–21].

Commissioner's Report – Partial Execution – Re-entrustment Justified – Advocate-Commissioner had only recorded physical features and not measured properties due to alleged non-cooperation – Petitioners requested measurement with assistance of surveyor – Court held: If initial commission not fully executed, same commissioner can be directed to complete work, not barred by law – Reliance placed on Kushal Rao v. Shyam Rao (1997 (1) ALT 93) [Paras 16–18].

Trial Court Jurisdiction – Duty to Inquire Before Dismissal – Judicial Error – Court observed that dismissal of re-entrustment petition without inquiring into failure of commission execution amounted to procedural irregularity – Matter remanded with direction to conduct inquiry and decide whether warrant should be re-issued – Trial Court to complete process within four weeks [Paras 19–21].

Final Decision – Order Set Aside – Matter Remanded – High Court allowed revision petition, set aside order dated 29.07.2024 passed by I Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nellore – Directed trial court to conduct inquiry regarding Advocate-Commissioner’s failure to execute warrant as per terms, and decide on re-entrustment thereafter [Para 21].

Civil Writ - Foreigners Tribunal – Ex-Parte Declaration – Delay in Challenge – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner challenged the ex-parte opinion of the Foreigners' Tribunal after nearly six years – High Court held that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings, had appeared through counsel, and failed to adduce evidence despite multiple opportunities – Delay not justified – Petition dismissed solely on ground of laches and delay [Paras 1-4, 13, 20, 22].

Foreigners Act – Burden of Proof – Section 9 – Not Discharged – Tribunal held the petitioner failed to prove her Indian citizenship prior to 1971 as required under Section 9 – High Court observed that despite filing written statement, the petitioner failed to lead evidence, and absented herself from proceedings – Held: Petitioner failed to discharge burden imposed by law [Paras 2, 10-12, 21].

Writ Jurisdiction – Condonation of Delay – High Threshold in Citizenship Matters – Petitioner claimed poverty, illiteracy, and advocate’s inaction as cause of delay – Court held these reasons insufficient, especially when petitioner’s family members were not prevented from assisting – Held: Delay of 6 years fatal – Petitioner not entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction belatedly [Paras 5-9, 13, 16, 18-20].

COVID-19 Argument – Not Applicable – Pandemic Not a Valid Excuse – Petitioner argued delay due to COVID-19 disruption – Held: COVID limitation relief ended in 2022 – Petition filed in 2025 still barred by gross delay [Para 13].

Final Order – Writ Petition Dismissed – Opinion of Tribunal Sustained – High Court refused to interfere and directed that consequences of the Tribunal’s order would follow – Petition dismissed with directions to record the order in the Tribunal record [Paras 22-23].

Criminal Law – Summoning of Additional Accused – Section 319 CrPC – Standard of Proof – Mother of minor victim sought summoning of grandmother and paternal aunts on the ground of alleged suppression and non-reporting of child sexual abuse – Trial Court rejected application noting that no new or compelling evidence had emerged during trial beyond what was already part of the charge-sheet – High Court concurred, holding that child witness’s testimony was vague, inconsistent and lacked corroboration – Held: Section 319 CrPC requires strong prima facie evidence suggesting possible conviction – Mere suspicion or general allegations insufficient [Paras 8-13, 18-19].

POCSO Act – Duty to Report – Section 21 – Knowledge of Crime – Allegations against grandmother and paternal aunts for failing to report child sexual abuse – PW-1 (minor victim) made broad claims about “family knowing” and “suppression” – Court held that such statements lacked specificity and did not establish actual knowledge or intent to suppress – Held: Section 21 not attracted in absence of clear, credible, and independent proof of knowledge or concealment [Paras 15-16].

Misuse of Process – Matrimonial Acrimony – Vindictive Prosecution – High Court found application was not filed in the child’s best interest but was a misuse of criminal law motivated by the mother’s personal disputes with her estranged husband – Held: Attempt to implicate elderly grandmother and aunts using the minor victim’s testimony amounted to arm-twisting and gross abuse of process – Court cautioned against converting child protection laws into tools for vengeance [Paras 9, 14, 19-22].

Costs – Deterrence Against Frivolous Litigation – Trial Court’s imposition of ₹20,000 in costs upheld – Additional ₹10,000 cost imposed by High Court – Held: Costs justified to curb misuse of judicial time and protect individuals from baseless criminal allegations arising out of personal vendetta [Paras 21, 23].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Trial Court order upheld – Additional cost of ₹10,000 imposed – Pending applications also disposed of.