Civil Law - Partition - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 96 - Proof of Will - Remand - Plaintiffs filed suit for partition of ancestral and joint family properties - Defendant No. 5 Appellant purchased part of properties from Defendant No. 1 mother - Appellant contended that Defendant No. 1 became absolute owner via registered Will dated 10.02.1988 Ex.B-10 executed by late father - Trial Court decreed suit in part holding Will was not proved as no attesting witnesses were examined - Appellant argued that both attestors and scribe were dead and son of one attestor was examined as D.W.4 to prove the Will - Trial Court failed to refer to D.W.4 evidence in its judgment or name him in the appendix - Respondents conceded this procedural lapse - High Court observed that Trial Court totally ignored D.W.4 testimony and cross-examination - Held - Interest of justice requires remand - Judgment and decree dated 11.03.2026 set aside - Matter remanded to Trial Court to frame additional issue on whether Ex.B-10 Will is proved in accordance with law - Trial Court directed to hear arguments and pass fresh judgment on merits within two months - [Paras 1-19].

Civil Law - Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XX Rule 4 - Consideration of evidence - Trial Court ignored the certified copy of deposition and oral evidence of D.W.4 who was examined as a secondary witness to a Will after the death of original attestors - Omission of witness name from appendix and failure to discuss evidence on record constitutes a ground for interference in appeal - Held - Findings of Trial Court on the point of Will are unsustainable due to non-consideration of material evidence - [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree in O.S.No.9 of 2013 set aside – Matter remanded to Trial Court for framing additional issue and disposal on merits within two months – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - Sexual Offences - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 376(2) and 506 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 - Section 6 - Appeal against conviction for penetrative sexual assault on a minor prosecutrix - Prosecution case alleged that the appellant committed rape on his minor sister-in-law and intimidated her - Trial Court convicted based on school records showing the victim as 12 years old and her initial statements to the police - During trial the prosecutrix resiled from her previous version - Deposed that she was a major and the relationship was consensual - Stated that her earlier statements were made under pressure from her sister - Mother of the prosecutrix admitted in cross-examination that she falsely recorded the age in school to secure admission and that the victim was around 18 years old at the time - High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the victim's minority beyond reasonable doubt - Noted that the testimony regarding consent remained unrebutted - Held - In the absence of proof of minority and the existence of a consensual relationship - the conviction for rape and under POCSO Act cannot be sustained - Appeal allowed - [Paras 1-25].

Evidence Law - Proof of Age - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 - Section 6 - Reliability of School Records - Prosecution relied on school admission register to prove minority - Principal admitted that no birth certificate or supporting documents were produced at the time of admission - Date of birth was recorded solely on the version furnished by parents - Victim’s mother testified that the age recorded in school was incorrect and that the victim was actually a major at the time of admission - Held - School records not supported by an independent certificate and undermined by the testimony of the very parent who provided the data are unreliable - Prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor - [Paras 11, 16, 18-22].

Evidence Law - Testimony of Prosecutrix - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 375 - Consensual Relationship - Prosecutrix deposed before the trial court that she had established sexual relations with the appellant with her consent - Denied prosecution suggestions of force or criminal intimidation - Stated that her initial complaint was motivated by family pressure - Held - No offence of rape is made out when the prosecutrix is found to be a major and she categorically deposes that the physical relationship was consensual - [Paras 17, 23].

Criminal Law - Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 232 - Non-compliance - Trial court failed to conduct a hearing as contemplated under Section 232 - Held - Non-compliance with Section 232 does not ipso facto vitiate proceedings unless it is shown that such omission resulted in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused - [Para 8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment dated 12.12.2019 and order on sentence dated 19.12.2019 set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges and directed to be set at liberty.

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 482 - Fabrication of Will - Petitioners accused of fabricating their deceased father's Will dated 09.12.2011 and executing registered gift deeds - Complainant lodged FIR after nearly thirteen years - Petitioners argued that a comprehensive suit for partition is already pending before the competent Civil Court where the genuineness of the Will is the principal issue - Prosecution contended that investigation is at a nascent stage and custodial interrogation is necessary - Court observed that the authenticity of the disputed Will falls within the domain of the trial Court and the civil forum - Considering the nature of accusations the admitted pendency of civil proceedings concerning the same subject matter the considerable delay in lodging the complaint and the absence of material indicating the petitioners are likely to abscond - Held - Petitioners have made out a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail subject to conditions - Petition allowed - [Paras 4-13].

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 482 - Scope of consideration - Power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary yet salutary remedy intended to safeguard individual liberty against arbitrary arrest - Exercise must be guided by facts and circumstances of each case - Scope confined to examining whether custodial interrogation is indispensable whether there exists a reasonable possibility of the accused absconding or interfering with investigation and whether discretion deserves to be exercised - Held - Interests of prosecution can be adequately safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions ensuring continued cooperation with investigation - [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Criminal Petition is allowed – Petitioners directed to surrender before the Station House Officer on or before 28.07.2026 and shall be released on bail on execution of a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two sureties – Petitioners directed to appear before the Investigating Officer for ten weeks and cooperate fully with the investigation.

Writ Law - Prohibited Property List - Registration Act 1908 - Section 22-A(1)(c) - Alternative Remedy - Deletion of property from prohibited list - Petitioner purchased Ac.3.86 cents in Sy.No.34/1A-1 through registered sale deed in 2012 and obtained layout approval in 2013 - Sub-Registrar refused registration of subsequent sales to third parties on ground that land was listed as prohibited under Section 22-A(1)(c) - Assistant Commissioner of Endowments rejected petitioner's representation for deletion stating land belongs to Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora Trust - Petitioner contended Re-Survey Register (RSR) and revenue records show land as private property - Respondents argued land is recorded in the register maintained under Section 43 of A.P. Act 30 of 1987 and revenue records do not confer title - Held - When property is registered under Section 43 of the Endowments Act 1987 the remedy for an aggrieved party is to approach the Endowments Tribunal under Section 87 of the Act - High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact regarding title - Writ Petition dismissed as not maintainable - [Paras 1-11].

Writ Law - Endowments - A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act 1987 - Sections 43 and 46(3) - Presumption of correctness of entries - Petitioner claimed land based on RSR and mutation in revenue records - Respondents asserted property is listed in Trust register under Section 43 - Held - Under Section 46(3) of Act 30 of 1987 entries in the register are deemed genuine until contrary is established - Mutation or entry in revenue records does not confer title - RSR is only prima facie evidence - Dispute regarding inclusion of property in the register must be adjudicated by the Endowments Tribunal - [Paras 4-8].

Writ Law - Alternative Remedy - Endowments Tribunal - Ratio Decidendi - Division Bench and Full Bench precedents - Full Bench in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary case and subsequent Division Bench orders established that grievances regarding entries in the register of properties maintained under Section 43 of Act 30 of 1987 must be redressed before the Endowments Tribunal under Section 45 read with Section 87 - Held - Remedy for deletion of entry in the register of properties which triggers prohibition under Section 22-A of the Registration Act lies exclusively before the Endowments Tribunal - [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Petitioner relegated to the Endowments Tribunal under Section 87 of the Act 30 of 1987 – No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 and Order 6 Rule 17 - Appellant filed suit for declaring sale deed null and void alleging defendant obtained execution through fraud and deception by handing over post-dated cheques which were later retrieved on false pretext without paying any consideration - Appellant filed amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC pending which defendant filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Trial court allowed application under Order 7 Rule 11 rejecting the plaint on grounds that only suit for recovery of unpaid consideration was maintainable and ignored the pending amendment application - High Court held that where an application under Order 6 Rule 17 is pending it must be decided first prior to adjudicating the application under Order 7 Rule 11 - Plaint averments taken in their entirety clearly disclosed gross elements of fraud and deception along with complete absence of consideration - Held - Trial court erred in allowing application under Order 7 Rule 11 without deciding the amendment application and wrongly ignored the explicit pleadings of fraud - Appeal allowed - [Paras 2-17].

Civil Law - Validity of Sale - Transfer of Property Act 1882 - Section 54 - Suit for declaration of sale deed as void - Defendant handed over post-dated cheques during execution and subsequently retrieved them on false pretext resulting in complete absence of sale consideration - Payment of price is an essential constituent of sale under Section 54 - Precedent dictates that a sale deed executed without payment of price and without any provision for future payment is a sham transaction and not a valid sale in the eyes of law - Held - Plaint could not be rejected at the threshold by merely treating it as a case of unpaid consideration when the core foundation of the plaint rested on execution obtained via deception and fraud - [Paras 10-16].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Impugned order dated 2.8.2024 passed by the trial Court in RCS-A No.558/2023 is set aside - Matter is remitted back and restored to its original number on the file of the trial Court for framing issues and recording evidence.

Criminal Law - Outraging Modesty - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 354 - Petitioner doctor challenged his conviction and sentence of two years imprisonment for outraging the modesty of a patient who visited him for irregular menstrual periods - Trial Court convicted petitioner noting he unbuttoned her blouse groped her breasts bit her lips and attempted sexual assault - Sessions Court upheld the conviction dismissing the appeal - High Court observed the testimony of the victim was consistent and corroborated by her brother - Defense plea of conducting a routine pregnancy test was found absurd as the victim complained of menstrual problems and pregnancy tests do not require inappropriate groping of breasts - High Court held that minor contradictions in testimony do not thwart the evidence of a sterling witness - Held - Concurrent findings of guilt suffer from no illegality or impropriety - Conviction upheld but sentence reduced to a fine of Rs 5000 considering the petitioner is 71 years old and the incident predates the 2013 amendment - [Paras 1-32].

Evidence Law - Non-examination of Witnesses - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 161 and 162 - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 145 - Petitioner argued prejudice due to non-examination of the Investigating Officer and certain medical officers - High Court noted that no contradictions as per Section 145 of the Evidence Act qua Section 162 of the CrPC could be elicited during cross-examination - Medical opinion is not a sine qua non to prove a victims modesty has been outraged especially under Section 354 IPC where no physical injuries are expected - Held - Non-examination of IO and medical officers did not cause any dent in the prosecution evidence - [Paras 16-25].

Evidence Law - Witness Testimony - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 161 - Reliance on victim testimony - Trial and Appellate courts erroneously relied on Section 161 CrPC statements of hostile witnesses - High Court held that despite this error the entire judgment cannot be set aside as the testimony of the prosecutrix if consistent can alone be relied upon - Modesty is an abstract term and the victim is the best person to justify if her modesty has been outraged - Held - Minor discrepancies brushed aside as human memory is not photostat - [Paras 15-24].

Decision: Revision petition disposed of – Conviction under Section 354 IPC upheld but sentence reduced to a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months – Fine to be deposited in the Trial Court and transferred to DLSA, Morigaon for victim compensation.

Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 and Order 6 Rule 17 - Procedural Propriety - Appellant filed suit for declaring a sale deed null and void alleging fraud and non-payment of consideration - Trial Court allowed defendant application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint while ignoring a pending application for amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - High Court observed that provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 are not controlled by Order 7 Rule 11 - Where an amendment application intends to remedy defects it must be decided prior to or along with the application for rejection of plaint to serve the interests of justice - Held - Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit without considering the impact of the pending amendment application - Appeal allowed - [Paras 1-8].

Civil Law - Sale Deed Validity - Transfer of Property Act 1882 - Section 54 - Execution without consideration - Suit property transferred via registered sale deed against post-dated cheques which were subsequently taken back by the purchaser under false pretenses - Trial Court held only recovery of money suit was maintainable - High Court relied on Kewal Krishan vs Rajesh Kumar - Payment of price is an essential part of sale under Section 54 - If a sale deed is executed without payment of price and lacks provision for future payment it has no legal effect and the sale is void - Held - Absence of sale consideration coupled with allegations of fraud makes the execution itself invalid - Plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold - [Paras 10-15].

Civil Law - Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 - Deception and Fraud - Principles for rejection of plaint - Trial Court relied on Dahiben case to reject plaint for non-payment of consideration - High Court distinguished Dahiben on facts noting the present suit was filed within eight months and contained specific averments of fraud - Plaint must be read in its entirety to determine if it discloses a cause of action - Averments of deception and false promises by the defendant must be tested through evidence - Held - Suit involving issues of validity of execution based on fraud requires trial after framing of issues and cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - [Paras 12-18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 02.08.2024 set aside – Suit restored to its original number – Trial Court directed to decide the matter on merits in accordance with law.

Civil Law - Review Application - Fraud on Court - Forged Vakalatnama - Applicant alleged that he never engaged the services of the Advocate in the present case and that his signature on the vakalatnama was forged - Conflicting personal affidavits filed by the parties regarding their visits to the High Court and engagement of the Advocate - Advocate stated that his clerk had verified the signature of the applicant - Court observed a clear conflict in the stands taken by the parties and noted that no party supported the version of handing over the vakalatnama to the Advocate - Court framed the point of determination as to whether the averments regarding the forged vakalatnama amounted to fraud on the court affecting the administration of justice - Held - Court directed the Registrar Judicial to arrange a Signature Expert to examine and compare the signatures of the Advocate and the applicant on various vakalatnamas and caveat applications kept in a sealed cover - Report to be submitted within two weeks - [Paras 5-10 and 16-20].

Writ Law - Educational Institution - Election Dispute - Validity of elections held in the year 2009 - Court previously observed that the Joint Director of Education had categorically stated that the elections held by the Authorized Controller in the year 2009 were doubtful - District Inspector of Schools also denied her signature on the election proceedings calling them forged - Underlying writ petition was eventually dismissed as infructuous by consent of both parties - Held - Dismissal of the writ petition by consent leads to the conclusion that the order of the Joint Director of Education attained finality and no valid elections were held in the year 2009 - Fresh elections ought to have been held - [Paras 11-15].

Decision: The Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to arrange for a Signature Expert to examine the disputed vakalatnamas and caveat application kept in a sealed cover and submit a report within two weeks – Next date of hearing fixed for 28.07.2026 with directions for the parties to remain present.

Criminal Law - Drugs and Cosmetics - Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 - Sections 18(a)(i) and 27 - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 468 - Quashing of complaint - Petitioner-manufacturer sought quashing of complaint and summoning order for manufacturing drug Zextil 200 which failed the dissolution test - Sample drawn on 02.08.2014 and test report dated 25.11.2014 declared drug as Not of Standard Quality - Complaint filed on 01.03.2018 after a period of 03 years and 03 months from the test report - Petitioner argued that since the drug was only Not of Standard Quality the offence falls under Section 27(d) which carries a maximum punishment of 02 years imprisonment - Limitation for such offence under Section 468(2)(c) CrPC is 03 years - Prosecution contended that reduced efficacy could cause harm and thus Section 27(c) should apply - Held - Complaint contained no allegations that the drug was spurious or likely to cause death or grievous hurt - Section 27(d) is the specific provision for drugs that are only Not of Standard Quality - Prosecution filed beyond the 03-year limitation period is fatal to the case - Complaint and summoning order quashed - [Paras 1-15].

Criminal Law - Statutory Interpretation - Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 - Section 27 - Classification of offences - Court examined the scheme of penalties under the Act - Section 27(a) applies to adulterated or spurious drugs likely to cause death or grievous hurt - Section 27(b) and 27(c) apply to other adulterated or spurious drugs - Section 27(d) applies to drugs which are Not of Standard Quality and do not fall under higher penalty clauses - Held - Accepting the respondent's argument that every Not of Standard Quality drug could be punished under Section 27(a) or 27(c) would render Section 27(d) redundant - Limitation period must be strictly calculated based on the provision applicable to the specific allegations in the complaint - [Paras 9-13].

Decision: Petition allowed – Complaint Case No. COMA 8-18 and summoning order dated 01.03.2018 quashed as being barred by limitation.