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 - Dowry Death - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 304-B and 498-A - Appellant-husband convicted for causing death of wife within nine months of marriage by burning - Prosecution alleged demand for scooter and cash - High Court found that the allegations of dowry demand by PW-1 and PW-2 were general and vague without specific instances of cruelty - Letter written by deceased (Ext Ka-1) three months prior to death mentioned husband's frequent stays with sister-in-law but contained no mention of dowry demands or harassment - Incident occurred on 29.02.1988 while the last reported harassment was in October 1987 - Appellant sustained 15 percent burn injuries while attempting to save the deceased and admitted her to the hospital - Conduct of the appellant was found inconsistent with the prosecution story - Held - Prosecution failed to prove the nexus between dowry demand and death - Conviction set aside - Appeal allowed - [Paras 1-61].

Evidence Law - Statutory Presumption - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 113-B - Burden of Proof - Mandatory requirements for attracting presumption of dowry death - Prosecution must establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand "soon before her death" - The phrase entails a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty and the consequential death - Evidence showed a gap of four months between the last alleged harassment and the death without intervening complaints - Initial burden to prove dowry-related cruelty not discharged by prosecution - Held - Presumption under Section 113-B cannot be invoked where the demand of dowry is remote in time and not proved beyond reasonable doubt - [Paras 35-45].

Criminal Law - Trial Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 222 - Conviction for graver offence - Distinction between Section 302 and Section 304-B IPC - Deceased's dying declaration alleged she was set on fire by the husband and in-laws - Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet only under Section 304-B and trial court failed to frame alternative charge under Section 302 - Section 304-B is not a minor offence relative to Section 302 as their compositions are vastly different - Court cannot convict an accused for a graver offence for which no charge was framed and no opportunity was given during Section 313 CrPC examination - Held - Appellate Court cannot remand the matter for re-trial after 38 years due to failure of trial court to frame appropriate charges - [Paras 53-60].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Conviction and sentence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC set aside - Appellant acquitted of all charges - Bail bonds cancelled.

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings - Gujarat Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 - Section 29(2) - Third-Party Objections - Resistance to Execution - Eviction suit filed in 1975 was decreed in 1978 and confirmed by High Court in 2003 - Petitioner No. 1 being a legal heir of the original tenant gave an undertaking to vacate but subsequently filed objections in Execution Petition No. 74 of 2005 - Objectors claimed a fresh tenancy and ownership interest based on a Sale Agreement - Rent Agreement - Memorandum of Understanding and Power of Attorney executed by only one of the co-owners in 2003-2004 - Executing Court rejected objections and Appellate Court dismissed the appeal - High Court noted that the documents were unregistered and prepared on insufficient stamp paper - High Court further observed that an agreement with only one co-owner cannot bind other decree-holders - Held - The executing court cannot go beyond the decree - No perversity in concurrent findings of fact - Revision application rejected - [Paras 1-22].

Civil Law - Procedure - Ahmedabad Small Cause Court Rules 1961 - Rule 1(2) - Summary Inquiry - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 21 Rule 97 - Petitioners argued that the Executing Court failed to frame issues or record oral evidence as required under Rule 294 of the Gujarat Civil Manual - High Court held that the Ahmedabad Small Cause Court Rules provide for disposal of Rule 97 applications by affidavit - The inquiry is summary in nature and does not require a full trial like a regular civil suit - Objectors failed to request the leading of oral evidence before the executing court and cannot raise it as an afterthought - Held - Procedure followed was correct and consistent with special rules governing Small Causes Courts - [Paras 11.1-11.6].

Property Law - Registration - Registration Act 1908 - Section 17 - Admissibility - Objectors relied on an unregistered Sale Deed and an unregistered Irrevocable Power of Attorney coupled with interest to claim rights in the suit property - High Court held that under Section 17 of the Registration Act any document creating an interest in immovable property requires compulsory registration - Documents prepared on inadequate stamp paper and not registered cannot transfer right - title or interest - Held - Such documents are inadmissible to prove title or avoid eviction - [Paras 15.2-15.3].

Civil Law - Rent Act - Suspension of Operation - The objectors claimed a fresh tenancy created in 2004 - High Court observed that the operation of the Gujarat Rent Act was already suspended by the State since 2001 - Any fresh tenancy created after suspension would not be governed by the Rent Act - Furthermore the alleged fresh tenancy period of 11 months and 29 days had expired in 2005 - Held - Objectors had no legal right to retain possession after the expiry of the alleged fresh term - [Paras 15.1-17.1].

Evidence Law - Settlement Outside Court - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 21 Rule 2 - Ratio Decidendi - Any satisfaction or compromise of a decree recorded outside the execution proceedings between the parties does not amount to a valid satisfaction of the decree unless it is recorded by the Court - Agreements with a single co-owner without the consent of other decree-holders do not stall the execution of an eviction decree - Held - Followed ratio in Lakshmi Narayan vs. S.S. Pandian - [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Revision Application rejected - Concurrent findings of the Courts below affirmed - Rejection of objections upheld.

Civil Law - Impleadment of parties - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order I Rule 10 - Suit initially filed for perpetual injunction and subsequently amended in 2019 to seek declaration of title and recovery of possession - Original sole plaintiff died in 2023 - Mother of the deceased brought on record as plaintiff number two being Class I legal heir - Brothers of the deceased filed impleadment applications claiming to be joint owners of the suit schedule property - Trial court allowed the impleadment holding them to be necessary and proper parties - Petitioner challenged the impleadment arguing the claim for declaration is barred by the twelve year limitation period as the applications were filed after thirteen years - High Court observed that in a suit for declaration of title all co-owners must be arrayed as parties to pass an effective decree - High Court further held that the issue of limitation regarding whether it should be computed from the year 2010 or 2019 is a matter to be decided by the trial court and cannot be determined in interlocutory proceedings - Held - Proposed parties being co-owners are necessary parties and entitled to be impleaded as plaintiffs - No infirmity in the trial court order - Civil Revision Petitions dismissed - [Paras 3-19].

Civil Law - Necessary and Proper Party - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order I Rule 10 - Distinction and test for impleadment - A necessary party is one whose presence is indispensable for passing an effective decree - A proper party is one whose presence is necessary for adjudication of all disputes and would throw light on the subject matter - Suit for declaration of title by one co-owner is not maintainable unless all co-owners are arrayed as plaintiffs - Surviving co-owners must seek declaration of title together - Held - An effective decree can be passed only when all co-owners are plaintiffs to the suit making the proposed parties necessary parties - [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Civil Revision Petitions dismissed – Common order dated 18.03.2024 passed by the trial court confirmed – Miscellaneous applications if any pending shall stand closed.

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.

Family Law - Return of Property - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Matrimonial Appeal against Family Court judgment directing return of 80 sovereigns of gold and Rs 500000 and marriage expenses - Appellant husband challenged findings on entrustment and expenditure - High Court evaluated evidence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities - Finding regarding Rs 500000 confirmed based on oral testimony of witnesses and documentary evidence of source of funds - Regarding gold ornaments Family Court awarded 80 sovereigns based on marriage register entries - High Court found evidence of entrustment only for 242.9 grams pledged by husband shortly after marriage - Contention that pledged gold belonged to sister rejected due to timing and lack of specifics - Entrustment for remaining gold not proved through material facts - Claim for marriage expenses set aside - Held - Liability to refund marriage expenses is unjustified where marriage is valid and expenses are voluntary - Entitlement to gold limited to 30 sovereigns - Appeal partly allowed - [Paras 1-18].

Evidence Law - Standard of Proof - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 - Preponderance of probabilities in matrimonial disputes - Initial burden of proof on claimant to show entrustment of gold or money through material facts - Burden shifts to husband only upon discharge of initial burden - Court cannot rely on speculative inferences or assumptions of general practices or customs - Judicial notice of changing social realities where educated women retain control over property - Held - Findings must rest on robust common sense and evidence rather than trained intuition or conjecture - [Paras 7-10].

Family Law - Marriage Expenses - Recovery - Claim for refund of expenses incurred for engagement and wedding - Family Court awarded expenses citing divorce on ground of cruelty - High Court found no legal basis for refund where marriage was not null or void - Expenses are common to both parties and levels of extravaganza are personal choices - Held - Saddling the husband family with liability to refund expenses incurred by wife family is unjustified - [Para 17].

Decision: Matrimonial Appeal is partly allowed – Impugned judgment set aside to the extent of marriage expenses and gold quantity – Appellants directed to return Rs 5,00,000 with 6 percent interest and 30 sovereigns of gold or its market value to the respondent.

Criminal Law - Regular Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 483 - Bail application by lady accused facing charges under BNS POCSO and Atrocities Acts - Prosecution alleged applicant acted as kingpin in forcing a 10 year old minor girl into flesh trade at her residential home - Victim got pregnant by a juvenile facilitated by the applicant - Applicant argued for bail citing her gender and completion of investigation leading to chargesheet - Court noted prima facie involvement supported by victim statement under Section 183 BNSS - Court emphasized the heinous nature of forcefully exploiting a child of tender age and the presumption of guilt under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act - Merely filing a chargesheet or the accused being a woman does not warrant bail in such grave offences - Held - possibility of evidence tampering and flight risk cannot be ruled out - application dismissed - [Paras 1.0-8.0].

Criminal Law - Regular Bail - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 - Sections 29 and 30 - Statutory presumption - Applicant contended that filing of chargesheet lessens the need for continued custody - Court relied on Supreme Court precedent holding that filing of a chargesheet establishes that the investigating agency found materials against the accused for trial - The alleged offence being against a minor orphan attracts proceedings governed by statutory presumptions - Held - no case made out to exercise discretion for granting bail - [Paras 6.4-6.5].

Criminal Law - Bail Jurisprudence - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 483 - Gender of accused as ground for bail - Applicant pleaded for bail on the ground of being a lady accused - Court held that gender alone is not a sufficient ground to enlarge on bail when the accused is involved in a serious crime of repeatedly exploiting a minor 10 year old girl - Held - bail cannot be granted merely because the applicant is a woman - [Para 6.3].

Decision: Application dismissed – Rule discharged – Learned trial Court directed to expedite the trial as the applicant is an under-trial prisoner.

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 - 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.