Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Registered sale agreement dated 16.10.1992 relied on by plaintiff – Plaintiff failed to prove continued readiness and willingness to pay balance consideration of ₹2,00,000 within the stipulated three months – No legal notice issued within prescribed time – Notice issued after 2 years and 11 months – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish readiness and willingness as mandated under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act – Specific performance rightly denied [Paras 14, 18, 24].

Sale Agreement – Competing Claims – Prior Agreement Prevails – Earlier agreement of sale dated 10.12.1990 (Ex.B-7) in favour of defendant No.6 found to be true, valid, and partly acted upon through subsequent registered sale deeds dated 29.04.1993 in favour of defendants 2 to 6 – Plaintiff aware of prior transaction – Held: Ex.B-7 prevails over Ex.A-2 – Plaintiff’s agreement is subject to earlier equitable rights [Paras 16, 18, 24].

Bona Fide Purchaser – Protection under Section 19(b) – Defendants 2 to 6 held bona fide purchasers for value under registered sale deeds executed in pursuance of prior agreement (Ex.B-7) – No relief can be granted against them in absence of any challenge to those sale deeds – Plaintiff’s suit for specific performance not maintainable against bona fide purchasers without notice [Paras 17, 23].

Refund of Advance – Equitable Relief – Though specific performance denied, Court held plaintiff entitled to refund of advance consideration of ₹1,00,000 paid under Ex.A-2, with 6% interest from date of suit till realization – Refund to be paid by legal representatives of deceased vendor out of her estate [Paras 24–25].

Evidence – Proof of Execution – Ex.A-2 found valid – Attesting witness (daughter of executant) and scribe supported execution and payment of advance – Trial court’s contrary view reversed – Agreement held genuine, but unenforceable due to superseding prior agreement and lack of timely action [Paras 15–16].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Trial Court's Discretion – Trial court’s finding on invalidity of Ex.A-2 reversed due to misappreciation of evidence – However, discretionary denial of specific performance upheld on settled legal grounds, including delay, suppression of facts, and superior equities in favour of prior purchasers [Paras 15, 18, 24].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Relief of specific performance denied – Plaintiff entitled to refund of ₹1,00,000 with 6% interest p.a. from date of suit till realization – Refund to be paid by legal representatives (respondents 7 to 11) from estate of deceased defendant No.1 – Appeal dismissed as against bona fide purchasers (respondents 2 to 6) – No order as to costs [Para 25].

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Dismissal of Divorce Petition – Appeal by Husband – Appellant-husband sought divorce on grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act – Alleged that respondent-wife was abusive, assaulted him, mistreated his parents, and refused marital relations – Respondent-wife denied allegations and alleged cruelty on part of husband – Trial Court found no grave acts of cruelty and held disputes were part of normal wear and tear of marriage – Held: Appellant failed to prove cruelty – Trial Court rightly appreciated evidence and law – No perversity found in judgment – Appeal dismissed [Paras 6, 7, 20, 45, 62, 64, 66-70].

Evidence – Proof of Cruelty – Allegation of Assault and Abuse – P.W.1 (Mother of Husband) and P.W.2 (Husband) testified about wife’s rude behavior, physical assaults, and threats – However, no independent witnesses produced – No prior complaint lodged before police – Contradiction in husband's stand as he earlier filed restitution suit under Section 9 of HMA, not citing cruelty – Court found inconsistencies and lack of credible corroboration – Allegations considered ordinary wear and tear of married life – Not sufficient for decree of divorce [Paras 42-44, 61-64].

Interpretation of Law – Cruelty – Mental and Physical – Scope and Definition – Reiterated that cruelty must be grave and weighty, not trivial irritations – Intention not essential – Referred to precedents including Dastane v. Dastane, Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Majumdar – Held: Mere allegations or domestic disputes do not qualify as cruelty – Conduct must make it unreasonable for a spouse to continue cohabitation [Paras 51-60].

Decision: Divorce appeal dismissed – Trial Court judgment affirmed – No evidence of cruelty to warrant dissolution of marriage – No perversity or legal infirmity found in judgment [Paras 68-70].

Family Law – Guardianship – Custody of Children – Shared Parenting Order Modified – Appeal by Mother – Family Court had ordered “shared parenting” based on father’s petition under Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act – Appellant-mother challenged the arrangement – Court found strained relationship between parents and absence of conducive environment at father’s home – Held: Shared parenting not in welfare of children – Welfare of child is paramount – Custody granted to mother – Father granted visitation rights [Paras 72, 83, 126-128, 135-138, 148-150].

Guardianship – Welfare of Minor – Paramount Consideration – Court reiterated settled position of law that welfare of child is primary consideration, not legal rights of parents – Referenced key Supreme Court decisions including Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan, Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu, and Gaytri Bajaj v. Jiten Bhalla – “Parens patriae” jurisdiction invoked – Welfare includes moral, ethical, emotional, and educational needs of child [Paras 109-125].

Shared Parenting – Not Suitable in High-Conflict Cases – Trial Court had acknowledged multiple litigations between parties and father’s lack of availability due to business commitments – Despite this, ordered shared parenting – Held: Shared parenting not viable in cases of deep parental conflict – Risks to child’s emotional well-being highlighted – Cited Braiman v. Braiman (US) to emphasize unsuitability of joint custody in bitter disputes [Paras 137-144].

Visitation Rights – Balanced Arrangement – Despite setting aside shared parenting, Court ensured father retains meaningful access to children – Permitted visitation every fortnight and during vacations with detailed schedule – Objective: Maintain parental bond without compromising child’s stability [Paras 151-152].

Decision: Shared parenting arrangement quashed – Custody granted to mother – Father granted structured visitation rights – Family Court judgment modified accordingly – Appeal disposed of [Paras 149-153].

Public Service Commission – Scaling of Marks – Validity of Scaling Formula in Exams with Optional Papers – RPSC adopted scaling method in optional subjects of competitive exam for Forest Services after finding wide subject-wise variation in difficulty index and mean marks – Appellants contended that scaling was not authorized under the 1962 and 2015 Rules and yielded arbitrary and absurd results – Held: Scaling necessary to ensure uniformity and fairness in evaluation when different optional subjects are involved – Expert Committee analyzed statistical data before recommending scaling formula – No arbitrariness or mala fides found in process – Scaling limited only to optional subjects and not applied to compulsory ones [Paras 1–4, 11–13, 31, 36].

Recruitment Rules – Interpretation of “Marks Obtained” – Scaled Marks vs. Raw Marks – Petitioners argued that scaling violated Rule 29 of the 2015 Rules, which prohibits re-evaluation – Court held that “marks obtained” includes scaled marks and scaling is distinct from re-evaluation – Scaling is part of the evaluation process and is not barred by the Rules – Application of scaling found to be within the implied powers of the Commission [Paras 32–34].

Precedent – Consistency of Judicial View – Stare Decisis – Court reaffirmed settled position in Jai Singh, Chandu Parihar, and Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal that scaling in exams involving optional subjects is valid – Rejected appellants’ reliance on Sanjay Singh case, holding it inapplicable since it pertained to exams with only compulsory subjects – Held: No change in facts or law to justify deviation from consistent precedent upholding scaling [Paras 26–28, 37–38].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Equality and Fairness in Competitive Examinations – Without scaling, candidates choosing difficult subjects would be unfairly disadvantaged – Scaling ensures uniformity across subjects of differing difficulty levels – Held: Use of scaling promotes objectivity, fairness, and does not violate Article 14 – No arbitrariness or unequal treatment established [Paras 29–30, 40].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Judgment of learned Single Judge upheld – Scaling formula adopted by RPSC found to be fair, rational, and legally sustainable – No costs imposed – Pending applications disposed [Paras 39–41].

Civil Law – Temporary Injunction – Prima Facie Case – Balance of Convenience – Irreparable Injury – Rejection Upheld – Appellants filed suit for declaration and possession claiming title through registered sale deed of 1957 – Sought injunction against construction over suit property allegedly by temple trust – Trial court found no prima facie case, no irreparable loss, and no balance of convenience – Held: Plaintiffs failed to prove continued possession or identity of suit land – Delay of nearly 70 years and admission in affidavit regarding lack of knowledge of title belied their claim – No interference warranted with trial court's discretion [Paras 10, 20-22, 24]

Property Dispute – Identity of Suit Property – Revenue Records vs. Sale Deed – Conflict Noted – Plaintiffs' description of suit property inconsistent with long-standing entries in revenue record showing temple possession since 1965 – Sale deed lacked survey number or definitive boundaries – Temple renovations conducted in 1985 and 2008 with municipal approval – Plaintiffs failed to prove nexus between sale deed and present-day suit land [Paras 13-15, 21]

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Discretionary Orders – Scope Limited – Principles Reiterated – Citing Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. and Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd., held: Appellate court cannot substitute trial court’s discretion unless arbitrary or perverse – Trial court’s denial of injunction found consistent with settled legal principles – No error in exercise of jurisdiction [Paras 23-24]

Judicial Reasoning – Delay, Acquiescence, and Possession – Conduct Considered – Plaintiffs’ long silence since 1957, absence of mutation, and lack of possession undermined credibility – Affidavit stating knowledge of sale deed surfaced only in 2023 further weakened case – Respondents demonstrated continuous possession and legal sanction of construction – Injunction rightly denied [Paras 20-22]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No interference warranted in trial court's refusal to grant temporary injunction – No order as to costs.

Prevention of Money Laundering – Discharge Application – Scope under Section 227 CrPC – Petitioners sought discharge from prosecution under PMLA on the ground that cognizance in predicate offence (scheduled offence) stood quashed – Special Court rejected the application – Held: Offence under Section 3 PMLA is a standalone and continuing offence – Proceedings under PMLA can survive even if cognizance in one scheduled offence is quashed, so long as other FIRs alleging scheduled offences remain pending – No automatic extinguishment of PMLA proceedings upon quashing of predicate offence [Paras 10 to 15, 31].

PMLA – Scheduled Offence – Relevance – Multiple FIRs – Quashing of cognizance in one predicate case – Whether affects PMLA proceedings – Held: Predicate offence is jurisdictional trigger, but proceedings under PMLA are distinct and can proceed independently – Where multiple FIRs exist, each can independently sustain the ECIR and prosecution under PMLA – PMLA process continues if at least one scheduled offence survives with prima facie link to alleged proceeds of crime [Paras 14 to 15, 19].

Money Laundering – Proceeds of Crime – Definition and Scope – Whether proceeds must involve monetary gain – Held: Proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u) PMLA includes any property obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity – Property transfers without monetary exchange can constitute proceeds of crime if obtained through or represent advantage from the scheduled offence – Absence of cash component not fatal to prosecution under PMLA [Paras 24 to 25].

Burden of Proof – Presumption under Section 24 PMLA – Reverse burden – Applicability at discharge stage – Held: Once prima facie material exists linking property with scheduled offence, statutory presumption arises that it is proceeds of crime – Burden shifts to accused to explain legitimate origin – At Section 227 CrPC stage, accused must show lack of nexus or insufficiency of material to sustain presumption – Otherwise, matter must go to trial [Paras 20 to 23].

Supplementary Complaint – Validity – Whether reinforces ED’s case – Held: Filing of supplementary complaint under Section 45 PMLA akin to supplementary charge sheet under CrPC – Strengthens foundational basis for cognizance by bringing in new facts or materials – Reflects continuing nature of money laundering – Not illegal or improper if supported by fresh material [Paras 26 to 27].

Discharge – Consideration at Section 227 CrPC stage – Nature of evaluation – Held: Court not to assess sufficiency of evidence or enter into probative analysis – Only required to see whether there exists ground for presuming offence – Where prima facie material indicates systematic transactions linked to alleged crime, discharge not justified – Transactions across extended period involving numerous properties warrant scrutiny in trial [Paras 28 to 30].

Revision Jurisdiction – Scope – Interference in discharge orders – Held: Revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence or enter into disputed factual determinations – Interference warranted only in case of legal bar or where no offence made out on admitted facts – No such infirmity found in Special Court’s order – Petitioners must face trial [Paras 32 to 33].

Decision: Criminal revision dismissed – Impugned order rejecting discharge upheld – Proceedings under PMLA to continue – No merit found in plea that proceedings were rendered unsustainable due to quashing of one predicate offence.

Criminal Law - Forgery – Wills – Civil Dispute Converted into Criminal Case – Criminal complaint filed alleging will dated 17.3.2015 is forged and used to claim property – Discharge sought on ground that genuineness of both wills (dated 17.3.2015 and 11.1.2017) already sub judice in civil suit filed in 2017 – FIR filed in 2019 as retaliatory measure – Held: Allegations raise disputed questions of title and ownership – No prima facie case under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 or 120-B IPC – Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process [Paras 5, 8, 14, 21–26]

Criminal Revision – Discharge – Jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC – Trial court refused discharge – High Court held that when allegations are entirely civil in nature and issues are pending adjudication in civil court, criminal prosecution must not proceed – Reliance placed on Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of U.P. and Urmila Devi v. Balram – Power to discharge should be exercised to prevent misuse of criminal process [Paras 18, 19, 25]

Misuse of Criminal Law – FIR Against Deceased Person – FIR lodged against one Shamsher Singh who had died months prior to the complaint – Court held this indicated malice and misuse of process – Further strengthens case for discharge [Para 24]

Probate and Will Dispute – No Final Adjudication – Probate petition for will dated 17.3.2015 was dismissed in default and not on merits – Pending civil suit to determine genuineness of rival wills – Until civil court decides validity, treating will as forged is premature [Paras 13, 22]

Decision: Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 6.1.2025 set aside – Revisionists discharged from proceedings – Trial against co-accused Sushil Narula to continue as per law [Paras 26–27]

Judicial Service Law - Premature Retirement – Judicial Officers – Integrity Remarks – ACR entries from 2009 onwards indicating doubts on integrity, punctuality, work shirking and adverse general reputation – Full Court’s collective decision based on entire service record upheld – Limited judicial review applicable – Recovery of subsistence allowance after premature retirement held impermissible when disciplinary proceedings kept in abeyance – CWP 16020/2021 dismissed; CWP 16022/2021 partly allowed [Paras 5.4–5.13].

Premature Retirement – Judicial Officers – Scope of Judicial Review - High Court analyzed the service record including adverse ACR remarks relating to integrity, punctuality, work shirking and general reputation from 2009 onwards – Held: Remarks were sufficient for the Administrative Committee and Full Court to form bona fide opinion that continuation was not in public interest – Court cannot reassess adequacy of material in judicial review – Standards stricter for judicial officers – Reliance placed on Pyare Mohan Lal, Ram Murti Yadav, Om Prakash, Rajendra Singh Verma – Orders of premature retirement cannot be interfered with unless mala fide, no evidence, or perversity [Paras 5.4, 5.5, 5.3, 5.7] .

Integrity-Related ACR Remarks – Weight in Premature Retirement - Repeated remarks concerning spoken reputation, integrity to be kept under watch, work shirking, lack of punctuality from 2009–2012 formed valid basis for review committees – Held: Petitioners’ argument that they had an “unblemished” record rejected – Even a single integrity doubt may suffice for compulsory retirement in case of judicial officers [Paras 5.5, 5.3] .

Guidelines of 1979 & 2011 – Applicability - Guidelines of 20.09.1979 and Full Court’s 2011 clarification (requiring B+ grading in latest ACRs) held inapplicable – Premature retirement based not on grading alone but holistic record with integrity doubts – 2007 Rules relate only to promotions, not premature retirement [Paras 3.1, 3.4, 5.7] .

Disciplinary Proceedings Pending – Whether Bar to Retirement - Petitioners claimed that since disciplinary proceedings were pending or not concluded, retirement was illegal – Held: Incorrect; premature retirement was not based solely on pending proceedings but on ACR-based integrity concerns – No evidence of disciplinary proceedings being kept pending to circumvent due process – Not a “shortcut” under principles of Umedbhai Patel [Paras 3.2, 5.8] .

Bias Allegations – Rejected - Allegations of bias against Administrative Judge found baseless – Adverse remarks also made by other Administrative Judges; concerned Judge retired in 2013 while retirement orders were passed later; allegations held to be afterthought – Collective Full Court decision reinforces absence of bias [Para 5.9] .

Suspension Period Treated as Leave of the Kind Due – Legality - Full Court had kept disciplinary proceedings in abeyance; therefore treating suspension as leave of the kind due and ordering recovery of ₹23,85,664/- was unjust, arbitrary, and contrary to principles laid down in Rafiq Masih – Held: Recovery impermissible; orders quashed in respect of petitioner Ravinder Kumar Condal – Relief restricted only to him as Asha Condal did not raise such challenge [Paras 5.11–5.13] .

Decision: CWP-16020-2021 (Asha Condal): Dismissed. CWP-16022-2021 (Ravinder Kumar Condal): Partly allowed – Recovery and leave-due orders quashed – Premature retirement upheld [Para 5.13] .

Civil Law – Injunction Suit – Suppression of Material Facts – Non-specification of Suit Land – Plaintiff described suit land by khasra number, area and location – Evidence of parties and witnesses clearly identified the suit land – Held: Mere absence of boundary description not fatal when parties are aware of identity of land – No suppression of material facts established – Suit maintainable [Paras 11–16].

Property Law – Transfer of Immovable Property – Section 138, J&K Transfer of Property Act – Mandatory Requirement of Written and Registered Instrument – Defendant claimed possession based on alleged transfer from daughters of plaintiff – No registered sale deed or legal instrument produced – Held: Transfer without compliance with Section 138 is void and confers no right of ownership or lawful possession [Paras 18–21].

Property Law – Possession Follows Title – Illegal Possession – Defendant admittedly purchased land only from daughters of plaintiff – Vendor cannot convey better title than he possesses – Plaintiff never executed any transfer deed – Held: Defendant’s possession, if any, without lawful title amounts to trespass and cannot defeat lawful owner’s claim [Paras 15, 18–23].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Reversal of Findings of Fact – First Appellate Court set aside Trial Court decree without appreciating statutory mandate of Section 138 – Erroneously vested ownership and possession in defendant without documentary title – Held: Interference with Trial Court’s well-reasoned findings was perverse and unsustainable in law [Paras 21–24].

Civil Law – Permanent Prohibitory Injunction – Plaintiff Established Ownership and Lawful Possession through Revenue Records and Oral Evidence – Defendant failed to establish any legal right to possess suit land – Trial Court decree rightly granted injunction restraining interference – Restoration of Trial Court decree justified [Paras 22–25].

Decision: Civil Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 24.08.2018 passed by the Principal District Judge, Anantnag set aside – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court granting permanent prohibitory injunction restored – Suit of the plaintiff decreed – Registry directed to prepare decree sheet.

Municipal Law – Unauthorized Construction – Bar on Civil Court Jurisdiction – Section 433A MMC Act – Civil Court Cannot Entertain Suit Challenging Demolition Notices – Plaint Rejected – Plaintiff challenged notices under Sections 260 and 478 MMC Act alleging unauthorized construction – Civil court refused to reject plaint holding suit not barred – Held: Suit was plain challenge to statutory notices; no specific averment of nullity or bad faith – Bar under Section 433A attracted – Plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11 [Paras 14, 36, 42, 46–47]

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 – Rejection of Plaint – Barred by Statute – Duty of Court to Reject Suit at Threshold – Court held that where statutory bar exists, plaint must be scrutinised meaningfully to assess if jurisdiction is retained – If not, it must be rejected at inception – Trial Court erred by delving into merits and failing to apply strict standards under Order VII Rule 11 [Paras 44–46]

Interpretation – Scope of Civil Court Jurisdiction in Urban Planning Matters – Bar is Not Absolute but Limited to Cases Not Involving Nullity or Bad Faith – While recognising that some exceptions exist to ouster clauses (e.g. nullity, bad faith, abuse of power), Court reaffirmed that such exceptions must be specifically pleaded and not merely stated in vague terms – No such grounds found in plaint [Paras 20–28, 41]

Town Planning – Civil Suit to Prevent Demolition – Suit Filed as Tactical Measure to Delay Action Against Illegal Construction – High Court Disapproves Misuse of Court Process – Plaintiff expanded tin-shed without permission; sought to mask demolition notice challenge as suit for possession – Held: Suit a strategic device to delay statutory action – Not permissible in law [Paras 43, 45]

Municipal Law – Section 260 and 478 MMC Act – Action for Unauthorized Construction – Civil Court Cannot Interfere with Demolition Once Notice Issued Unless Action Is Nullity – Court reaffirmed statutory scheme where designated officers are empowered to demolish illegal structures – Civil suits against such notices are barred unless challenge is based on strong foundational grounds [Paras 15–17, 42]

Decision: Revisions allowed – Order of Trial Court dated 8 October 2015 set aside – Plaint in Regular Civil Suit No.130 of 2015 rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Civil suit barred under Section 433A of MMC Act – Status quo to continue for four weeks to allow appeal [Paras 47–49]