Section 84 of the A.P. Endowments Act - Religious and Charitable Trusts – Unauthorized Occupation – Tenants Treated as Encroachers – Endowments Tribunal’s Eviction Order Partly Upheld – Appellants were in occupation of shop premises forming part of trust property endowed under registered Will of 1958 – Trustees had granted lease but no formal lease deed existed – Tribunal found the appellants to be encroachers under Section 83 of the A.P. Endowments Act and directed eviction and payment of damages – Appellate Court found that original trustees had already transferred rights to another religious institution via registered settlement deed – All legal challenges to that transfer (including writ petitions and earlier CMAs) had been withdrawn – Held: Appellants’ lessor had given up any claim over property, and appellants could no longer assert tenancy rights – However, in view of long possession, nature of business, and payment of rents, damages awarded by Tribunal were set aside – Eviction upheld with two-month grace period to vacate [Paras 1–6]

Trust Law – Transfer of Trust Property – Validity of Settlement Deed – Effect of Withdrawal of Legal Proceedings – Settlement deed in favour of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Mangalagiri was challenged in O.S. No.144/2010 and W.P. No.31056/2010 – Both proceedings withdrawn – Held: Withdrawal of legal challenge affirmed the validity of the settlement deed – Appellants claiming under erstwhile trustees cannot sustain possession once the transfer stood undisputed [Paras 5–6]

Land Law – Possession Without Title – Unauthorized Occupation After Lessor’s Rights Extinguished – Relief of Damages Denied on Equitable Grounds – Though possession was unauthorized, Court exercised discretion in equity – Found appellants to be small shopkeepers earning livelihood – While eviction confirmed, direction to pay damages of ₹1,000 to ₹2,000 per month as ordered by Tribunal was set aside [Paras 5–6]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Tribunal’s order directing eviction confirmed – Direction to pay damages set aside – Appellants to vacate within two months – No order as to costs.

Banking Law – Pledge of Gold Ornaments – Right of Redemption – Petitioner availed gold loan repayable by 12.01.2025 – Bank conducted auction on 17.01.2025 without observing 30-day post-maturity redemption period stipulated in contract – Held: Premature auction violated Section 176 of Contract Act and terms of pledge – Petitioner’s offer to pay dues two days prior to auction showed intent to redeem [Paras 6–9]

Fair Procedure – Auction Transparency – Principles of Natural Justice – Auction process lacked transparency – No reserve price disclosed – No opportunity given to Petitioner to participate – Bank refused post-auction disclosure of bidder details – Court found process vitiated by opacity and procedural unfairness – Auction set aside [Paras 10–11]

Lien and Appropriation – Adjustment of Surplus Proceeds – Bank adjusted surplus auction proceeds from gold loan against Petitioner’s unrelated housing loan dues – Held: Where sale itself is vitiated, consequential appropriation is invalid – Adjustment set aside – Bank may recover dues via separate proceedings in accordance with law [Paras 12]

Public Law Duty of Banks – Writ Jurisdiction – Despite private contractual origin, Bank actions held amenable to writ jurisdiction due to statutory flavour and fiduciary character – Writ maintainable to ensure compliance with fair process and banking norms [Para 13]

Decision:

Writ Petition partly allowed –

(a) Auction dated 17.01.2025 quashed

(b) If jewellery remains in specie, to be returned upon payment of lawful dues

(c) If jewellery sold, Bank to refund higher of ₹1,45,000 or market value as of auction date with 6% interest p.a. from 17.01.2025

(d) All appropriation of proceeds toward other liabilities (including housing loan) reversed – Bank may pursue such recovery separately as per law [Paras 14]

Civil Procedure – Preliminary Decree – Order XII Rule 6 – Judgment on Admission – Trial Court passed a preliminary decree for partition of moveable assets based on admissions made in the written statement – Appellants contended that the deceased had already distributed moveable assets by designating nominees and joint account holders – Held: Designation of nominees does not override the rights of legal heirs under succession law – Admissions in the pleadings clearly established that no testamentary disposition was made regarding moveable assets – No error found in Trial Court’s reliance on such admissions to grant a 1/4th share each to the four children of the deceased [Paras 27–30].

Partition Suit – Stay of Proceedings – Section 10 CPC – Applicability – Appellants sought stay of partition proceedings citing pendency of related probate cases and an earlier civil suit concerning the same properties – Held: Section 10 CPC applies only where the previously instituted suit is of a civil nature involving the same matter in issue – Probate proceedings are distinct in scope and do not adjudicate on title or ownership – Therefore, Section 10 not attracted to bar continuation of partition suit [Paras 31–35].

Inherent Powers – Section 151 CPC – Judicial Discretion to Stay Proceedings – Even if Section 10 CPC is inapplicable, the Court may exercise inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to stay proceedings in the interest of justice – Held: Since the outcome of pending probate proceedings and related litigation will directly impact the rights of parties in the partition suit, it would be appropriate to stay further proceedings – Trial Court erred in refusing to exercise this discretion [Paras 36–43].

Succession Law – Legal Effect of Nomination – Nominee Not Equivalent to Heir – Appellants’ claim that moveable assets were already distributed through nominations and joint holdings rejected – Held: Nominee holds property in trust for the benefit of legal heirs and does not acquire beneficial ownership – Nomination does not override succession rights – Legal heirs remain entitled unless excluded by a valid will – Supported by settled law including Sarbati Devi, Shakti Yezdani and other authorities [Paras 28–29].

Decision: RFA(OS) 43/2024 dismissed – Preliminary decree for partition of moveable assets upheld – FAO(OS) 89/2023 allowed – Proceedings in CS(OS) 3262/2012 stayed until final adjudication of Probate Case Nos. 5969/2016 and 5921/2016.

Railways Act, 1989 – Section 124-A – Untoward Incident – Strict Liability – Bona Fide Passenger – Compensation – Deceased allegedly fell from an overcrowded passenger train due to a sudden jerk and succumbed to injuries during treatment – Tribunal dismissed claim holding that deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the ticket recovered was fabricated – On appeal, held: Documentary evidence including Inquest Report, Post-Mortem Report, and Final Investigation Report conclusively established accidental fall from train – Once it is shown that death occurred in an “untoward incident” while travelling with a valid ticket, Railways’ liability arises irrespective of fault – Strict liability under Section 124-A applies – Tribunal erred in rejecting claim on suspicion of ticket authenticity [Paras 13–16].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Bona Fide Passengership – Initial burden on claimant can be discharged by affidavit and production of journey ticket – Once prima facie case made, burden shifts to Railways to rebut – Mere absence of ticket or clerical error in train name does not negate bona fide travel – Reliance placed on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 and Kamukayi v. Union of India, (2023) 19 SCC 116 [Paras 15–17].

Pleadings – Amendment of Claim Petition – Procedural Fairness – Refusal of Tribunal to allow amendment correcting train name from “Puri–Rourkela Passenger” to “Konark Express” held hyper-technical – Such inadvertent clerical error caused by appellants’ illiteracy and distress on son’s death cannot defeat substantive rights under a beneficial statute – Liberal construction warranted [Paras 17–18].

Relief – Remand and Compensation – High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication on amended pleadings – However, directed Union of India to pay ₹8,00,000 compensation with 6% interest p.a. from the date of claim application till realization, to be deposited before Tribunal within three months [Paras 19–22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh adjudication – Compensation of ₹8,00,000 with 6% interest awarded to appellants – Interim orders vacated [Paras 20–23].

Land Revenue – Mutation Entries – Competing Claims – Dispute over entry of name in revenue records concerning 30 guntas in Sy.No.155/1 – Appellant claimed title through Jayaramaiah based on Inams Abolition grant of 5 acres 4 guntas – Respondent No.5 traced title to Appashetty based on separate Inam grant and mutation in 1962 – Held: Appellant failed to establish grant of full 5 acres 4 guntas – Authorities justified in entering Respondent’s name for 30 guntas [Paras 3–6, 10, 18–20]

Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities – Limitation on Title Adjudication – Contention raised that revenue authorities lacked jurisdiction to alter entries amid pending civil suit on title – Held: While revenue officials cannot adjudicate title disputes, they may enter names based on available documents evidencing title – Mutation does not confer title but reflects source – No infirmity found in orders passed [Paras 16–17]

Maintainability of Appeal under Section 136(2) – Objection on maintainability of appeal before Assistant Commissioner due to alleged absence of order under Section 129(4) – Held: Mutation entry reflects an operative decision by Tahsildar – Section 136 appeal lies – Objection not raised before Single Judge or in appeal memo – Rejected [Paras 21–23]

Procedural Grounds – Waiver and Non-pleading – Grounds related to procedural defects and jurisdiction not raised at earlier stages – Court declined to entertain at appellate level – Legal principle affirmed that grounds not urged before learned Single Judge cannot be raised for first time in appeal [Paras 22, 26]

Decision: Writ appeal dismissed – Orders of revenue authorities and Single Judge upheld – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 27–28]

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Allegation of Sexual Harassment by Child Welfare Committee Chairman – Lack of Sexual Intent – Petitioner, a statutory authority under Child Welfare Committee, was alleged to have made sexually coloured remarks during counselling of two minor girls – Statements attributed to the petitioner included reference to the girls’ relationships and questioning their attire – Held: Alleged words, though intemperate and inappropriate in tone, do not amount to sexually coloured remarks or indicate sexual intent – Interaction occurred in official capacity and in the presence of another counsellor – Prosecution under Section 354A(1)(iv) IPC and Sections 11/12 of POCSO Act unsustainable [Paras 6-10]

POCSO Act – Section 11 r/w Section 12 – Requirement of Sexual Intent – To attract offence of sexual harassment under POCSO, act must involve sexual intent – Mere inappropriate or offensive language, without such intent, held insufficient – Petitioner’s conduct, viewed in totality, lacked sexual intent and did not amount to harassment under the Act [Paras 8-10]

Abuse of Process – Frivolous Prosecution – Section 482 CrPC – Petitioner alleged that complaint was motivated by enmity after he reported sexual exploitation of minor girls by their lovers – Court accepted that prosecution appeared retaliatory and not based on genuine grievance – Criminal proceedings quashed to prevent abuse of judicial process [Paras 5, 10]

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case Nos. 2457/2022 and 2464/2022 allowed – Proceedings in SC Nos. 466/2021 and 467/2021 on the files of Additional Sessions Court-I, Thalassery quashed

Goods and Services Tax – Cancellation of Registration – Non-filing of Returns – GST registration of petitioner cancelled under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act due to failure to file returns for six months – Petitioners contended they were unaware of the online procedure and could not respond to the show cause notice – Registration cancelled ex parte without assigning reasons [Paras 2–3]

Revocation of Cancellation – Technical Barrier – Petitioners filed all pending GST returns up to March 2023 along with applicable dues and late fees – Application for revocation of cancellation could not be processed on GST portal due to expiry of 270-day timeline [Paras 4–5]

Rule 22(4) Proviso – Compliance – Petitioners willing to comply with Rule 22(4) proviso of CGST Rules by filing returns and clearing tax dues – Held: Proper officer may drop proceedings and restore GST registration if petitioners fulfil all requirements under Rule 22(4) proviso – Petitioners directed to approach concerned authority within 2 months – GST authority to consider and process restoration expeditiously [Paras 10, 12–13]

Limitation – Computation of Time – For the purpose of proceedings under Section 73(10), limitation to be computed from the date of this order, except for FY 2024–25 which will be governed by Section 44 of the CGST Act [Para 14]

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Petitioners granted liberty to seek restoration of registration on compliance – No cost [Para 15]

Ombudsman Jurisdiction – Temple Property – Public Pond – Scope of Section 271J of Panchayat Raj Act – WP(C) No. 14200 of 2024 filed by Cochin Devaswom Board challenged Ombudsman’s direction allowing public access to temple pond on the ground that it exceeded jurisdiction – WP(C) No. 20996 of 2024 filed by private individual sought enforcement of Ombudsman’s order and demolition of allegedly illegal compound wall – Held: Dispute related to title and possession over pond is a private dispute and beyond the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction – Ombudsman cannot decide title or pass enforceable directions where no maladministration or corruption by local self-government institutions is alleged [Paras 21-24]

Mandamus – Illegal Construction – Delay and Limitation – Relief sought to demolish alleged unauthorised compound wall constructed in 2013 – Petition filed in 2024 after 12 years – Court held claim barred by delay and latches – Relief declined on equitable grounds and disputed facts not suitable for adjudication under Article 226 [Paras 25-27]

Writ Jurisdiction – Disputed Facts – High Court reiterated that while it may decide factual issues in writ jurisdiction, where matters involve complex title questions or need for oral evidence, parties must seek appropriate remedies before civil courts or competent forums – Mere existence of factual dispute does not oust jurisdiction, but courts exercise discretion cautiously [Paras 26-27]

Decision:

WP(C) No. 14200 of 2024 allowed – Ext.P7 order of Ombudsman set aside

WP(C) No. 20996 of 2024 dismissed – Reliefs declined due to limitation and lack of jurisdiction

Civil Law – Partition Suit – Ancestral Property – Appeal by grandchildren of original owner claiming 1/8th share in suit property on ground that it is ancestral – Trial Court dismissed suit finding that property was self-acquired by Krishnama Raju and succession governed by Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act – High Court upheld finding – Held: Property purchased in 1957 and owner died in 1983, making it self-acquired – No evidence of ancestral nucleus – Mere recital in sale agreement that property was ancestral is insufficient – Plaintiffs have no right by birth [Paras 13–15]

Specific Performance – Binding Nature of Decree – Suit property was subject of earlier specific performance decree in O.S. No. 69 of 2007 – Appeal in A.S. No. 12 of 2009 dismissed – Plaintiffs not parties to earlier suit – Held: Agreement of sale executed by wife and two daughters of deceased owner – Decree confirmed by High Court – Present plaintiffs (grandchildren) cannot challenge decree without establishing independent title – Attempt to reopen settled decree impermissible [Paras 9–10, 14, 17]

Succession Law – Applicability of Section 6 vs. Section 8 – Deceased left behind wife and two daughters, no male heir – Plaintiffs claimed right by birth – Held: Section 6 not applicable when no son survives – Property devolved on wife and daughters absolutely under Section 8 – No coparcenary interest arises – Suit rightly dismissed [Paras 13, 17]

Will – No Proof of Execution – Respondents referred to registered Will dated 21.04.1980 in favour of one daughter – However, Will not marked or proved – Held: In absence of proof, succession to be considered as intestate – But plaintiffs’ claim still fails as succession under Section 8 does not support birthright claim of grandchildren [Para 13]

Abuse of Process – Plaintiffs Set Up by Defendants – Trial Court found that plaintiffs were instigated by earlier unsuccessful defendants to stall execution of decree – All lived under same roof – Held: Suit a device to obstruct lawful execution – No merit in appeal [Para 18]

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Trial Court judgment upheld – No costs – CMP closed [Para 19]