Civil Law - Specific Performance – Nature of Sale Agreement – Agreement Held Sham – Plaintiff sought specific performance of Ex-A.1 dated 29.01.2014, claiming payment of ₹10 lakhs out of ₹15 lakhs as advance – Defendant contended it was executed only as security for a loan of ₹5 lakhs – Held: Long period of 4 years for performance despite 2/3rd advance, omission of house details in schedule, and corroborating witness testimony showed the agreement was not meant for actual sale – Document found to be sham and nominal [Paras 12–18].

Evidence – Oral Evidence Admissibility – Sections 91 and 92 of Evidence Act – Bar Does Not Apply to Sham Transaction – Defendant's oral claim that Ex-A.1 was a security for loan not barred by Section 91 or 92 – Cited Supreme Court rulings in Roop Kumar and R. Janakiraman – Held: Oral evidence is admissible to show that contract was never intended to be acted upon – Defendant’s plea legally tenable [Paras 19–22].

Refund of Advance – Entitlement Established – Plaintiff claimed ₹10 lakhs as advance – Defendant did not deny execution of Ex-A.1 but claimed only ₹5 lakhs was loan – No proof adduced for alternate amount – Held: Plaintiff entitled to refund of ₹10 lakhs with 9% p.a. interest from date of suit – Charge created on suit property to secure recovery – Trial Court decree for specific performance reversed [Para 23–24].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Trial Court’s decree for specific performance set aside – Defendant directed to refund ₹10 lakhs with 9% simple interest p.a. from date of suit till realization – Plaintiff entitled to withdraw deposited amount and recover costs incurred at Trial Court – No costs in the appeal [Para 24].

Matrimonial Law – Title over Joint Property – Claim of Exclusive Ownership – Allowed – Husband sought declaration of exclusive ownership over 85 cents purchased jointly with wife – Evidence including Ext.B1 Sale Deed, bank withdrawals, and father’s loan established that consideration flowed from husband – Wife’s claim of contribution by sale of trees and loan unsupported by evidence – Family Court erred in overlooking documentary proof – Held: Sale consideration proceeded from husband – Husband declared exclusive owner – Family Court judgment set aside [Paras 9-11].

Matrimonial Appeals – Claim for Damages – Defamation and Mental Agony – Rs.5,00,000 Award Upheld – Wife alleged persistent false accusations of illicit relationships by husband with colleagues, doctor, students, and others – Evidence showed husband made baseless allegations causing wife to quit employment and suffer mental trauma – Husband failed to substantiate charges – Family Court awarded Rs.5,00,000 damages for mental agony – Held: Findings justified and decree warrants no interference – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12].

Decision – Mat.Appeal No.674/2018 allowed – Judgment of Family Court set aside and O.P. No.5/2014 allowed – Husband declared absolute owner of property – Mat.Appeal No.675/2018 dismissed – Award of Rs.5,00,000 damages to wife affirmed – Parties to bear own costs [Paras 11-12].

Bail  – Illegal Quarrying – Sections 447, 427, 379 r/w 34 IPC, Section 3 PDPP Act, Sections 21(1), 21(4) MMDR Act, Sections 120-B, 109, 290, 506 IPC, Sections 3 & 5 Explosive Substances Act, and SCs & STs Atrocities (PoA) Act – Bail Granted with Conditions – The appellant, former Minister and MLA, was implicated in large-scale illegal extraction of quartz and feldspar minerals based primarily on co-accused confessions and statements of political opponents – Investigation revealed alleged conspiracy, use of explosives, and loss of Rs.138 crores to the exchequer – However, initial FIR and reports did not name the appellant, and no direct overt acts or caste-based intent under SCs & STs (PoA) Act were established – Court held that co-accused confessions are weak evidence, no prima facie role was shown under Atrocities Act, and investigation was substantially complete – Bail granted subject to stringent conditions including restriction from entering Nellore district, surrender of passport, weekly attendance before IO, and prohibition on media statements – Held: Bail is the rule, jail the exception; continued custody not justified [Paras 21–28, 41–49, 53–55].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - POCSO Act – Gender Neutrality – Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 POCSO – Held Gender Neutral – The Court held that the POCSO Act, as evident from its objects and reasons (2012 and 2019 amendments), is intended to protect all children (male or female) below 18 years from sexual offences – Section 2(2) POCSO read with Section 8 IPC clarifies that pronoun “he” includes male and female – Delhi High Court judgment in Sundari Gautam v. State of NCT of Delhi relied upon – Thus, POCSO is gender neutral [Paras 9-11].

POCSO – Offence by Woman – Sections 4 & 6 – Applicable – Held that offences of penetrative sexual assault under Sections 3–4 and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Sections 5–6 can be alleged against a woman also – Clause (a) to (d) of Section 3 uses “a person” as subject, with phrases “makes the child to do so with him or any other person” widening scope beyond male-only penetration – Hence, a woman compelling or manipulating a male child to penetrate her falls within the statutory ingredients – The contention that a woman cannot be prosecuted under Sections 4 & 6 rejected [Paras 12-13].

Ingredients of Offence – Sections 4 & 6 POCSO – Met – Complaint, victim’s statement, statement of mother, Child Protection Officer’s report, and charge sheet narrate detailed acts of manipulation and coerced penetration by petitioner – Allegations fit squarely within statutory phrases “makes the child do so with her” – Held that ingredients of Sections 4 and 6 are satisfied – Narrow interpretation excluding women would defeat legislative intent to protect children – Hence, case fit for trial [Paras 14-17].

Delay in FIR – Effect – Four-year delay between incident (2020) and complaint (2024) – Held: In cases of child sexual abuse, delay cannot be treated as fatal – Trauma, silence, and stigma explain delay – Victim disclosed only after therapy – Supported by precedents (Shreekant Sharma v. State of W.B., Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana) – Delay held to be matter of trial and not ground to quash under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 18].

Potency Test – Non-Conduct – Not Fatal – Contention that no potency test of victim was conducted rejected – At 13 years, issue of puberty or erection irrelevant for offence under POCSO, which punishes inducement or manipulation of child to perform penetration regardless of physiological maturity – Held: Non-conduct of potency test does not vitiate proceedings [Implied Paras 16-17].

Decision – Criminal Petition Dismissed – The Court held that POCSO is gender neutral; offences under Sections 4 and 6 can be alleged against a woman; ingredients of the offence were prima facie met; delay in FIR not fatal – Hence, petition for quashing dismissed – Proceedings to continue before trial court [Paras 9-18].

Civil Law - Declaration of Title – Assignment Deeds in Name of Minor – Burden of Proof – Father–Son Property Dispute – Plaintiff claimed that properties purchased in 1983 under two assignment deeds stood in his name when he was 6 months old, though deeds recorded age as 6 years – Father contended plaintiff was born in 1983 and not in existence when deeds were executed – Held: Burden of proving title lies on plaintiff, but evidence established that “minor Basheer” was indeed the plaintiff – Plaintiff’s mother (PW2) categorically testified that plaintiff was born in October 1982, and her testimony went unchallenged – Birth certificate showing 1983 rebutted by oral evidence – Presumption of correctness of birth register is rebuttable – Oral evidence of mother preferred [Paras 7–13].

Property Purchased in Minor’s Name – Ceiling Law Justification Rejected – Defendant’s claim that land was purchased in fictitious name of non-existent minor to avoid ceiling law not supported by evidence – Assignment deeds themselves showed defendant purchased property on behalf of minor son Basheer – Defendant admitted no other son named Basheer – No third-party claim was raised – Thus plaintiff proved absolute ownership [Paras 14–17].

Decision – Trial Court rightly decreed declaration and injunction in favour of plaintiff – Appellate Court upheld decree – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs considering close relationship [Paras 17–18].

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Rejection of Plaint – Limitation and Misjoinder Grounds Rejected – Defendant sought rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC citing limitation and non-joinder – Held: Suit for partition discloses cause of action; right to partition is a continuing cause of action – No plea of ouster or adverse possession by defendant – Hence, limitation does not bar the suit – Further, misjoinder is not a ground for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 – Revision dismissed [Paras 6–8].

Limitation – Article 65 of the Limitation Act – Partition Suit Not Time-Barred – Legal notice issued in 2014 by plaintiffs did not start limitation – Held: In absence of any assertion of exclusive right or ouster by defendant, mere issuance of legal notice cannot bar a partition suit – Plaintiff deemed in constructive possession due to family relationship – Right continues till actual partition [Paras 7–8].

Constructive Possession – Physical Possession Not Required in Partition – Plaintiff need not be in actual possession of suit property to maintain partition suit – Held: Entitlement to share and family relationship sufficient to infer joint or constructive possession – Right to partition accrues even if plaintiffs are not in residence or use of property [Para 7].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope – Grounds for Rejection Must Appear from Plaint – Court reaffirmed that in deciding applications under Order VII Rule 11, only averments in plaint can be considered – Defences, written statement, or documents cannot be relied upon – Dismissal of application proper [Para 6].

Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – No merit found in contentions of limitation or misjoinder – Dismissal of rejection application by Trial Court upheld – Connected Miscellaneous Petition also dismissed – No costs awarded [Para 8].

Civil Law - Money Lending – Exorbitant Interest – Applicability of TN Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act – Borrower filed O.P. seeking to restrict interest on ₹75 lakhs mortgage loan to 9% p.a. under Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act and Act 38 of 2003 – Respondent contended loan was via cheque, based on commercial agreement, and petitioner was not eligible for benefit under said Acts – Held: Loan disbursed by negotiable instrument exceeding ₹10,000 is excluded from definition of “loan” under TN Money Lenders Act – No evidence of kandu vatti, daily/hourly interest, or informal lending practices – Act 38 of 2003 does not apply – Petition rightly dismissed by Trial Court [Paras 8–21]

Jurisdiction – Suit under Order 34 CPC – Mortgage-based dispute – Trial Court noted respondent had already filed mortgage recovery suit under Order 34 CPC – Held: Original Petition under Act 38 of 2003 misconceived and not maintainable when parallel mortgage suit is pending – Remedy lies within civil suit framework, not under special statutes [Paras 13, 22]

Contractual Interest – Limitation of Statutory Cap – Petitioner argued that interest above 9% p.a. is usurious – High Court reiterated settled law that contractual terms between parties govern when loan is outside scope of Money Lenders Act – Petitioner must contest such terms in civil suit, not by invoking inapplicable statutory remedies [Paras 4–6, 22]

Decision – No perversity in Trial Court order – Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Petitioner permitted to raise defences in pending mortgage suit – Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur directed to dispose suit by 31.12.2025 [Para 23]

NDPS Bail – Recovery from Premises – Section 42 NDPS Act – Bail Denied – The petitioner was arrested based on disclosure of co-accused and 30 grams of heroin was recovered from her premises – The Court found prima facie compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, noting that prior information was recorded in the Daily Diary and appropriate permission was obtained for the search – Held: Search was legally conducted under supervision of an empowered officer [Paras 20–25, 30–35].

Section 50 NDPS Act – Applicability Limited to Personal Search – No Violation Found – The petitioner argued non-compliance with Section 50 – The Court held that since the recovery was from premises and not person, Section 50 was not attracted – Relying on Baldev Singh and Prabhu decisions, Court clarified that protection under Section 50 applies only to personal search and not to residential premises [Paras 36–44].

Conspiracy under Section 29 NDPS Act – Prima Facie Material – Calls, Confession, Recovery – The petitioner was implicated based on CDRs showing 56 calls with co-accused and a disclosure statement admitting she received the heroin – Her prior involvement in similar offences and familial links to NDPS cases supported the prosecution’s theory of a drug network – Held: Prima facie role made out under Section 29 [Paras 20–21, 46–48].

Medical Grounds – No Immediate Risk – Jail Facilities Adequate – The petitioner cited serious eye ailments and filed jail medical records – Court acknowledged the health condition but found no imminent threat or unavailability of treatment in custody – Medical ground not sufficient to override gravity of offence [Paras 26, 49].

Previous Offences – Bail Refused – Prior Involvement in NDPS and IPC Cases – Petitioner had FIRs from 2019 and 2016, and family members were similarly involved – Court viewed this as indicative of continued criminal conduct – Held: Applicant posed a threat to society and was undeserving of bail [Paras 17, 47–48].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Court found no merit in pleas regarding procedural violations or medical urgency – Recovery, disclosures, CDRs and antecedents cumulatively justified rejection of regular bail [Paras 50].

Company Law  – SFIO probe – Whistleblower sought copies of complaint & annexures – Special Court directed “Issue CC on usual terms” without reasons – High Court quashed – Held: Stranger not entitled to complaint/annexures; only investigation report permissible under Section 212(13) Companies Act – Orders unsustainable – Applications remitted [Paras 8–12, 18–20].

Third-party right to copies – Criminal Rules of Practice (Kerala) – Rule 226 allows strangers to apply but no entitlement as of right – Court must assess bona fides, purpose and privacy concerns – Orders must show reasons – Here, Special Court’s cryptic orders unsustainable – Ismail P.M. v. Muhammad Ameer-ul-Islam, 2022 (2) KHC 660 (Ker HC DB) and Karthik Dasari v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 1412 applied [Paras 8–10, 16–17].

Companies Act – Section 212(13) – Scope – “Any person concerned” may obtain copy of SFIO’s investigation report – Petitioner already supplied report (Annexure A10) – No right to complaint or annexures under Companies Act – Generalia specialibus non derogant argument rejected for non-report documents [Paras 11–12, 18–19].

Privacy & misuse – Concern that petitioner intended to use documents for political mileage despite civil court injunction (OS No.104/2025, Sub Judge Ernakulam) – Court emphasized privacy of accused/respondents – Referred Saurav Das v. Union of India, (2023) 11 SCC 154 holding charge sheet/documents not “public documents” under Evidence Act [Paras 6, 12, 20].

Judicial duty – Courts must give reasoned orders when granting copies – Mere “Issue CC” not sufficient – Application must be verified and purpose scrutinized – Orders here quashed for non-application of mind [Paras 8–9, 17].

Rules Committee – Court requested amendment of Rule 226 to require notice to affected parties before granting third-party copies, in light of privacy implications [Para 20].

Disposition – Crl.M.C. Nos. 6537 & 6409/2025 (by CMRL) allowed; orders directing copies quashed – Crl.M.C. No. 5765/2025 (by Shone George) dismissed – Special Court to reconsider applications afresh with reasons and safeguards [Paras 18–20].