Tenancy Law - Lease and Eviction – Expired Lease Period – Tenant Liable for Eviction – Second Appeal Dismissed – High Court upheld concurrent findings that the appellant was a tenant under a registered lease deed from 01.11.2002 to 31.10.2008 – Quit notice issued and tenancy not renewed – Appellant held unauthorized occupant thereafter – Eviction decree affirmed [Paras 1–4, 16–21, 26].

No Substantial Question of Law – Second Appeal Not Maintainable – High Court held that no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC – Disputed facts already decided by two courts below based on evidence – Law clarified that factual conclusions not open to re-evaluation in second appeal [Paras 13–15, 26].

Oral Assurances and Construction Investment – No Proof – Tenant’s Claims Rejected – Allegations that landlord permitted continued occupation or rent waiver in lieu of construction by tenant were rejected due to lack of evidence – No documents or credible proof produced by appellant – Oral promises deemed vague and unenforceable [Paras 18–20].

Pendente Lite Transfers – Section 52 TPA – Purchasers Added as Respondents – During pendency of suit, plaintiffs sold property to respondents 7–10 – Purchasers validly impleaded under Section 52 as pendente lite transferees – Entitled to take possession on success of suit [Paras 25, 28].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Possession to Be Delivered – Second appeal dismissed at admission stage – Appellant directed to hand over possession within three months to respondents 7–10 or face legal enforcement [Paras 28–29].

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Agreement of Sale – Lack of Readiness and Willingness – Suit Dismissed – Plaintiffs claimed execution of sale agreement dated 28-02-1998 and alleged part payment of ₹25 lakhs – Only plaintiff No.5, as attorney holder, was examined; others did not depose – Held: Plaintiffs failed to prove execution, payment, or readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract – Absence of required notices and oral evidence by principal parties fatal to claim [Paras 14–20].

Limitation – Article 54 of the Limitation Act – Barred by Time – Agreement fixed 28-02-1999 as last date for execution of sale deed – Suit filed on 09-01-2003 – Held: Beyond the three-year period prescribed under Article 54 – Plaintiffs' attempt to extend limitation through post-dated documents and MOUs was disbelieved – Suit barred by limitation [Paras 19a–j].

Procedural Requirements – Suit Not in Conformity with CPC Form 47 – Registered Demand Not Issued – Notices issued only by plaintiff No.5 individually and not by all vendees – Held: Suit not in compliance with mandatory Forms 47 and 48 under Appendix A of CPC – Absence of registered demand to perform contract renders the suit defective [Para 18a–e].

Power of Attorney – Attorney Cannot Depose to Pre-POA Events – Evidence of Plaintiff No.5 Inadmissible – Attorney was granted POA in 2001, but testified about transactions in 1998–1999 – Held: Attorney-holder cannot testify to acts done by principals prior to the POA unless he had personal knowledge – Testimony not reliable to prove core allegations [Paras 16e–f].

Adverse Inference – Plaintiff No.2 Signed as Attestor to GPA in Favour of Third Party – Did Not Enter Witness Box – Held: Adverse inference drawn – Weakens credibility of plaintiffs' version and supports defendant’s plea that transaction was for loan and not a genuine sale [Paras 16c–d].

Trial Court Findings – Non-Framing of Key Issues – Reversed – Trial Court failed to frame issues on limitation, validity of agreement, and readiness/willingness – Held: Decree granted without addressing essential legal requirements – Judgment set aside [Para 20].

Final Decision – Appeals Allowed – Trial Court Decree Set Aside – Suit for specific performance dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 22].
 

Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 NI Act – Conviction Confirmed – Petitioner convicted for issuing a cheque of ₹5 lakhs which was dishonoured for "insufficient funds" – Trial Court convicted him to one year simple imprisonment and fine – Conviction upheld by Appellate Court – Held: Evidence of complainant and bank officials, along with cheque, return memo, statutory notice, and acknowledgment, conclusively proved offence – Petitioner failed to rebut legal presumption [Paras 2–7].

Legal Presumption – Unrebutted by Accused – No Defence Evidence – Petitioner neither denied signature nor produced any evidence disproving legally enforceable debt – Legal presumption under Section 139 NI Act not rebutted – Held: Courts below rightly convicted based on unrebutted evidence [Paras 6–7].

Modification of Sentence – Compensation in Lieu of Imprisonment – Sentence Reduced – Considering petitioner's willingness to pay cheque amount and part payment already made, Court modified sentence of imprisonment to compensation of ₹5 lakhs – ₹2.5 lakhs already deposited; remaining ₹2.5 lakhs paid via DD in court – Held: Imprisonment undergone shall be treated as sufficient punishment [Paras 10–13].

Final Directions – Compensation of ₹5 Lakhs – Conviction Maintained – Petitioner released – Respondent permitted to withdraw court-deposited amount – Criminal Revision allowed in part to modify sentence [Paras 14–15].
 

Land Acquisition – Market Value Assessment – Appeal for Further Enhancement Rejected – Appellants sought increased compensation by relying on nearby land valuations fixed in earlier case (LAA No. 57/2015) at ₹56,41,905 per acre – Held: Mere proximity not sufficient; no evidence led to establish comparability or compliance with CPC Order XLI Rule 27 – Existing award at ₹39,10,000 per acre upheld [Paras 6.3–8].

Comparable Sales – Legal Standards for Admissibility – Reliance on Judgment in Other Cases Requires Evidence of Similarity – Held: Prior award not inter partes and not part of evidentiary record – Without proving comparability, mere citation of earlier decision not valid ground for enhancement – Appellants failed to meet legal test [Paras 7–7.4].

Burden of Proof – Failure to Establish Evidence of Comparable Market Value – Held: Appellants did not produce sale deeds or comparable exemplars from time of notification – Map relied upon not exhibited during trial – No new evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 submitted – Appeal lacks substantiation [Paras 6.5, 7.4, 8].

Judicial Precedents – Court Reiterates Principles for Compensation Assessment – Reference made to multiple Supreme Court rulings including Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana, Ravinder Kumar Goel v. State of Haryana, and Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. LAO – Held: Appellants failed to discharge burden under established legal principles [Paras 7.1–7.4].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No Case for Further Enhancement Made Out – High Court found no infirmity in trial court’s valuation – Appeal dismissed with no costs – Compensation at ₹39,10,000 per acre with statutory interest and solatium sustained [Para 8].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - Criminal Conspiracy and Forgery – Role of Professional Valuer – FIR Quashed – Petitioner, an empanelled bank valuer, was accused of preparing false valuation reports without physically inspecting properties – Court held petitioner relied on representations made by bank officer and submitted a valuation opinion, not a forged document – No evidence of collusion or meeting of minds to establish conspiracy under Sections 120B or 467 IPC – FIR and proceedings quashed [Paras 3, 8-24, 29-32].

Forgery – Ingredients Not Satisfied – Mere Negligence Not Criminal – Court reiterated that for forgery under Sections 463, 464 IPC, intent to defraud or fabricate must be shown – Petitioner’s report may be based on negligent reliance, but no evidence of intentional fraud or fabrication – No entrustment or inducement proven to attract Sections 406, 409, or 420 IPC – Criminal charges ruled unsustainable [Paras 21-24].

Professional Opinion – Valuation Report as Expert Opinion – No Mens Rea – Court found valuation report to be a subjective professional opinion, disclaiming liability and ownership verification – Bank could independently verify the report before acting – Held: Valuer cannot be criminally prosecuted unless shown to have actively conspired or abetted fraud [Paras 17-18, 30-31].

Decision – Petition Allowed – FIR registered as CR No.11199010210968/2021 with Bharuch ‘A’ Division Police Station and subsequent proceedings quashed qua the petitioner – Court held continuance of trial against petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law [Para 32].
 

Criminal Law - Murder – Appeal Against Acquittal - Appreciation of Evidence – Eye-Witness and Medical Testimony – Conviction Restored - The Trial Court acquitted all accused in a murder case citing contradictions and unreliable witness testimony – The High Court reversed the acquittal of Accused No.1, holding that minor contradictions did not discredit consistent and corroborated eye-witness accounts – Medical and FSL evidence supported the prosecution case and the recovery of the murder weapon was properly proved – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld [Paras 6–34].

Unlawful Assembly – Section 149 IPC – Acquittal of Co-Accused Upheld – The co-accused (Nos. 2 to 5) were present at the scene but the prosecution failed to prove they shared a common object or instigated the murder – FIR did not mention their instigation – Their presence was deemed natural and not sufficient to prove constructive liability – Acquittal confirmed [Paras 25–26].

Contradictions in Witness Testimony – Legal Position Clarified – Minor discrepancies or omissions in Section 161 CrPC statements do not vitiate credible eye-witness evidence – Reaffirmed that the maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” does not apply in India – Conviction can rest on truthful core of testimony even if peripheral inconsistencies exist [Paras 19–21].

Sentencing – Life Imprisonment with Consideration for Health – Accused No.1 was bedridden and paralysed – Court granted six months' time for surrender and directed jail authorities to provide medical care – Life imprisonment imposed under Section 302 IPC [Paras 40–42].
 

Criminal Procedure – Multiple FIRs – Same Incident – Quashing of FIRs - Petitioners challenged registration of multiple FIRs (Cr.Nos.154 and 155 of 2024) arising from the same occurrence as Cr.No.153 of 2024 relating to an alleged attack on government officials – Court held that multiple FIRs for the same incident and cause of action are impermissible and amount to abuse of process – Held: Subsequent FIRs quashed, and related proceedings set aside [Paras 2-7, 32-44].
Unlawful Assembly and Conspiracy – Allegations against Petitioners – Petitioners alleged to have conspired to obstruct public servants and attack them during land acquisition hearing – Court found allegations against Petitioners were identical in all FIRs without specific distinct acts – Held: Allegations insufficient to justify continuation of multiple proceedings [Paras 6, 9-11, 40].
Police Procedure – Registration of FIRs – Commonality in Complaints – Complaints in three crimes prepared by same scribe without specific individualization by complainants – Court observed that multiple FIRs with identical allegations prepared mechanically were impermissible – Held: Abuse of process established [Paras 36-39].
Investigation – Consolidation of Evidence – Statements recorded in subsequently quashed FIRs can be treated as evidence in main FIR – Court permitted Investigating Officer to treat materials from Cr.Nos.154 and 155 of 2024 as part of investigation in Cr.No.153 of 2024 [Para 45].
Decision – Criminal Petition Allowed – Remand orders dated 09.01.2025 in Cr.Nos.154 and 155 of 2024 set aside – Proceedings in Cr.Nos.154 and 155 of 2024 against petitioners quashed – Investigation to proceed in Cr.No.153 of 2024 alone [Paras 47].
 

Service Law - Family Pension – Legal Entitlement of First Wife – Marriage Not Dissolved – Held: Plaintiff, being legally wedded wife, entitled to family pension despite separation – Marriage never dissolved and was subsisting till husband’s death – Trial court rightly granted her limited relief of family pension [Paras 22–24, 28].

Nomination and Will – Validity of Second Marriage Disputed – Benefits Payable by Nomination and Will Valid – Held: Second woman (5th defendant) was nominated by deceased and was named in a duly attested Will – Will proved through attesting witnesses DW4 and DW5 as Ex.B.21 – Court accepted Will as legally valid – Death benefits rightly disbursed to nominee [Paras 13–21, 28].

Probative Value of Will – Compliance with Section 68 of Evidence Act – Will Found Genuine – Held: Propounders discharged burden by proving execution and attestation – No suspicious circumstances existed – Plaintiff admitted knowledge of Will and husband’s remarriage – Will accepted as valid [Paras 15–18, 21].

Admissions and Conduct – Plaintiff’s Own Testimony Defeated Her Claim – Held: Plaintiff admitted abandonment of husband, non-attendance of obsequies, no nomination claim made – Also admitted 5th defendant raised deceased's children and continued maintenance payments – Conduct disentitled her to claim other benefits [Paras 20, 26–27].

Decision – Both Appeals Dismissed – Trial Court’s Judgment Upheld – High Court found no infirmity in trial court’s order – Family pension granted to legally wedded wife; death benefits granted to nominee under Will – No interference warranted [Paras 28–29].
 

Criminal Law - Criminal Conspiracy – Sentence Modified – Section 120-B IPC – Sentence Reduced to Time Served – Appellant convicted for conspiracy in a violent robbery incident and sentenced to 3 years’ simple imprisonment – Held: Though conviction upheld, sentence reduced to time already served (5 months 28 days) – Court noted no minimum sentence prescribed, no other criminal involvement, and long pendency of trial since 2019 – Appellant shown reformation and desire for peaceful life [Paras 1, 3–4, 6, 10–11].

Sentencing Principles – Discretion and Proportionality – Sentence Must Reflect Justice, Not Mere Formality – Court reiterated that sentencing should consider nature of offence, role of accused, conduct post-offence, and scope for reformation – Emphasized balance between deterrence and rehabilitation in criminal jurisprudence – Discretion must be applied judiciously and not arbitrarily [Paras 7–8].

Decision – Conviction Upheld – Sentence Modified – High Court upheld the conviction dated 11.12.2024 but modified the sentence dated 17.12.2024 to the period already undergone – Appellant directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 11–13].