Bail – Section 20(b)(ii)(A) read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act – Small Quantity of Contraband – Bail Granted – Petitioner found in possession of 4 kg of ganja, not a commercial quantity – Detained for 48 days – Material part of investigation completed, charge sheet pending – Court held that no apprehension of absconding or tampering with evidence exists – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 2, 6-8].

Judicial Discretion – Factors for Grant of Bail – Quantity of contraband and duration of custody considered relevant – Court exercised discretion in favour of bail as petitioner was cooperating, and offence did not involve commercial quantity – Conditions imposed to ensure appearance and prevent reoffending [Paras 6-8].

Conditions of Bail – Compliance Directed – Bail granted on execution of personal bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties – Weekly appearance before police mandated – Movement restricted to local district limits without trial court permission – Cooperation with investigation made mandatory [Para 8].

Final Order – Criminal Petition Allowed – Petitioner released on bail under specific conditions – Trial court directed to ensure compliance and monitor conduct [Para 8].

Writ Petition – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Section 230 Rajasthan Tenancy Act – Section 2(2) Hindu Succession Act – Maintainability of ST daughter’s suit for declaration of khatedari rights – Board’s revisional order quashed – Petitioner (sole daughter of a Meena ST father) filed revenue suit for declaration after civil court directed her to seek khatedari declaration – Board allowed O7 R11 relying on Section 2(2) HSA to hold daughters of ST have no succession – Held: In view of Supreme Court in Tirth Kumar and Ram Charan, discrimination against ST daughters is impermissible and rejection at threshold was illegal – SDO’s rejection of O7 R11 restored and suit to be tried on merits with expeditious timeline – Writ allowed [Paras 2, 5-8].

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 2(2) – Applicability to Scheduled Tribes vis-à-vis equality – Supreme Court’s rulings in Tirth Kumar (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3810) and Ram Charan (CA No. 9537/2025) – Court reiterates that while HSA is inapplicable to STs per S.2(2), exclusionary customs must be proved and in their absence denial of a daughter’s share violates Articles 14 & 15 – Reliance on S.2(2) to non-suit an ST daughter at the threshold is unsustainable – Board’s order set aside [Paras 6-7, 16-18].

Customary Law – Burden of proof – Where Hindu law is inapplicable by virtue of Section 2(2) HSA, succession among tribals turns on proved custom – Courts cannot presume an exclusionary (patriarchal) custom – In absence of proof of custom excluding female succession, equality principle controls – Outcome: Plaintiff’s claim is maintainable and must be adjudicated on evidence [Para 6].

Procedure – Prior civil suit for cancellation of gift and liberty to seek revenue declaration – Petitioner correctly approached SDO for declaration of khatedari rights – Order 7 Rule 11 cannot be invoked to decide disputed rights or to foreclose claims on a debatable legal position – Direction issued to decide the pending 2018 suit expeditiously, preferably within two years, uninfluenced by observations – O7 R11 application rejected [Paras 2, 5, 8].

Constitutional Law – Articles 14, 15(1), 15(3), 16, 21 & 51-A – Equality and non-discrimination for tribal women – Court echoes and builds on Supreme Court’s recommendation in Kamla Neti urging Union of India to revisit Section 2(2) HSA to secure parity in intestate succession for female tribals – Observation made as a way forward and not as a binding direction on merits of the suit [Paras 10-18].

Taxation Law - Capital Gains – Exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act – Investment in Multiple Units – Exemption Allowed – The appellant sold a flat in Mumbai and invested ₹1.08 crore in seven residential units in Pune – Tribunal restricted exemption to one unit – Held: Under the unamended Section 54, the phrase “a residential house” can include multiple units – Exemption granted for full investment – ITAT and Assessing Officer’s orders set aside [Paras 2, 9, 13-15, 19-21, 23-24].

Interpretation – Beneficial Provision – Liberal Interpretation Favoured – Section 54(1) being a beneficial provision must be liberally construed – Held: If two interpretations are possible, the one favourable to the assessee must be adopted – Encouraging reinvestment in housing justified broader reading of “a residential house” [Paras 5, 21].

Statutory Amendment – Prospective Effect – Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 – Court held that the amendment replacing “a residential house” with “one residential house” is prospective from 01.04.2015 – Hence, for AY 1995-96, unamended provision applied, which did not restrict exemption to a single unit [Paras 11-13, 17].

Judicial Precedent – Consistent High Court View – Karnataka and Madras High Courts in similar cases have upheld exemption for multiple units under Section 54 – Bombay High Court agreed with these views and distinguished contrary Special Bench ruling in Sushila Jhaveri – Tribunal erred in ignoring binding precedent [Paras 14-16, 18, 20].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Exemption on Entire Capital Gains – Question of law answered in favour of assessee – Full exemption under Section 54 allowed on capital gains of ₹1,08,30,625/- from investment in seven row houses – Tribunal’s order modified accordingly [Para 24].

Writ Petition – Ex-parte Decree – Order 5 Rule 17 CPC – Section 96(2) CPC – Section 224 Rajasthan Tenancy Act – Three impugned judgments quashed – Petitioner assailed ex-parte decree (09.05.2002) and affirming appellate orders (21.07.2004; 22.09.2020) on ground of defective service and denial of hearing – Held: Appeal under Section 96(2) CPC against an ex-parte decree is a substantive statutory remedy; where service via affixation lacked compliance with Order 5 Rule 17 (no witness identification/signature), service was incomplete and ex-parte proceedings unsustainable – Matter remitted to Assistant Collector for de novo trial; decide expeditiously, preferably within two years – Writ disposed of [Paras 6-8, 10-11, 15-16].

Service of Summons – Affixation without witness identification – Non-compliance with Order 5 Rule 17 CPC vitiates service – Process Server failed to obtain signature of any witness identifying the house; treating such unverified affixation as complete service was erroneous – Ex-parte proceedings could not have been drawn [Paras 8-10].

Appeal Against Ex-parte Decree – Dual remedies – Section 96(2) CPC vs. Order 9 Rule 13 CPC – Defendant may file either an application under Order 9 Rule 13 or a regular appeal under Section 96(2) challenging the decree on merits – Right of appeal is substantive and cannot be denied merely because no Order 9 Rule 13 application was filed – Respondents’ objection to maintainability rejected [Paras 6-7, 12-13].

Appellate Scrutiny – Technical rejection unsustainable – RAA erred in rejecting appeal on the technical count that no written statement was filed and no issues framed; record showed written statement existed – Failure to address improper service and ex-parte nature amounts to material irregularity [Para 11].

Natural Justice – Audi alteram partem – Passing ex-parte decree without proper service violates principles of natural justice; sufficient cause shown for non-appearance where summons service is doubtful – Ex-parte decree not sustainable [Para 14].

Decision – All three impugned judgments dated 09.05.2002, 21.07.2004 and 22.09.2020 set aside – Suit remitted to Assistant Collector for fresh decision after framing issues and granting opportunity to both sides; trial to be concluded expeditiously, preferably within two years from receipt of certified copy – Writ petition disposed of; pending applications also disposed [Paras 15-16].

Family Law - Domestic Violence – Right to Appeal – Section 29 of the DV Act – Leave to Appeal Denied – The petitioner, mother-in-law of the aggrieved woman, filed for leave to appeal against an order passed by the Trial Court under Section 12 of the DV Act – Held: She did not qualify as an “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) and was not a party to the proceedings nor subject of the impugned order – Consequently, she lacked locus to maintain an appeal under Section 29 [Paras 2, 4-5].

Aggrieved Person – Interpretation of Section 2(a) of DV Act – Limitation on Scope – The Court reaffirmed that “aggrieved person” under the DV Act only includes a woman who has been in a domestic relationship and subjected to domestic violence – Held: Petitioner, being a mother-in-law and not the victim of violence, did not fall within this definition and thus could not invoke the appellate mechanism under Section 29 [Paras 3-5].

Alternative Remedy – Liberty Granted to Seek Impleadment – The petitioner sought liberty to move the Trial Court for impleadment as a party – Held: Liberty granted – The Trial Court to consider any such application after hearing objections and decide as per law [Paras 7-8].

Final Decision – Petition Disposed of with Liberty – The revision petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an application for impleadment before the Trial Court – No opinion expressed on merits – Trial Court directed to decide such application in accordance with law [Para 8-9].

Civil Law - Property Ownership – Co-ownership Rights – Mandatory Injunction for Rectification of Records – Dismissal of Appeal – The appellant challenged concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court which decreed mandatory injunction for rectification of municipal records to reinstate plaintiff’s name as co-owner – Supreme Court found the registered sale deed showed joint purchase of property and no proof was provided by appellant justifying exclusive ownership – Held: Both Courts rightly directed rectification of records in favour of co-owner; second appeal dismissed [Paras 3-11].

Registered Sale Deed – Evidentiary Value – Conclusive Proof of Joint Ownership – The registered sale deed dated 01.05.1996 (Ex.P-2) conclusively proved joint ownership of the suit property by plaintiff and appellant – Held: Official municipal records and RTI information corroborated the joint ownership status, and appellant could not rebut documentary evidence of co-ownership [Para 10].

Res Judicata – Prior Litigation on Distinct Property – No Bar to Current Claim – The Court rejected the plea of res judicata based on a 2004 judgment regarding a different property (common Haveli and flour mill), holding that the suit property was separately purchased by the plaintiff and appellant – Held: Mere pendency of other proceedings regarding different properties does not extinguish rights derived from a valid registered sale deed [Para 10].

Municipal Record Mutation – Mutation Entries Do Not Create Ownership – Mutation Change Invalidated – The Court held that mutation entries changed during a 2002 survey without supporting documentation or legal basis could not override title under a registered sale deed – Held: Mutation entry in favour of appellant without plaintiff’s knowledge is illegal; plaintiff’s name directed to be restored [Para 10].

No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings Upheld – The High Court found no substantial question of law arose in the matter since the findings were based on clear documentary evidence of ownership – Held: Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Para 11].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – High Court affirmed judgments of both lower Courts – Mandatory injunction in favour of co-owner plaintiff upheld, rectification of municipal record ordered, and no merit found in appeal [Paras 10-11].

Criminal Law - Bail – Sections 8(c), 20(b), 22(c), 23(c), 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act – Conscious Possession Not Established – Bail Granted – The High Court allowed bail to the petitioner who was arrested after collecting a courier parcel containing 100 LSD blots, observing absence of evidence proving conscious possession and involvement in narcotics trafficking – Held: In absence of incriminating digital, financial, or forensic links, and considering inconsistencies in the prosecution case, twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act were satisfied; bail granted [Paras 1-18].

Conscious Possession – Mere Custody Not Sufficient – Knowledge of Contraband Not Proved – The Court noted petitioner was neither consignee nor sender, parcel was addressed to third party, and petitioner consistently claimed he was asked by a neighbour to collect the parcel – Held: Without proof of knowledge or dominion over contraband, conscious possession not established [Paras 5-13].

Confessional Statement under Section 67 – No Recovery Pursuant to Disclosure – Inadmissible without Corroboration – The Court held confessional statement under Section 67 NDPS Act is insufficient for conviction without substantive corroboration – Held: No recovery from petitioner pursuant to statement; reliance solely on Section 67 impermissible [Paras 10, 13].

Statutory Presumption under Section 54 NDPS Act – Rebuttable Where Conscious Possession Lacking – The Court held presumption of culpability under Section 54 not attracted in absence of conscious possession – Held: Prosecution failed to establish knowledge of contents, presumption rebutted [Paras 5-12].

Differential Role Compared to Co-Accused – No Connection with Drug Syndicate – Bail Justified – The Court differentiated petitioner’s limited role of collecting one parcel from active drug dealers from whom large quantities were recovered – Held: No link with wider drug syndicate established; bail warranted [Paras 6-9].

Satisfaction of Twin Conditions of Section 37 NDPS Act – No Likelihood of Re-Offending – Bail Granted – The Court noted petitioner had no criminal antecedents, cooperated with investigation, remained in custody for two years, and showed good conduct in jail – Held: Twin conditions under Section 37 satisfied; bail granted with conditions [Paras 14-18].

Decision – Bail Application Allowed – Petitioner Released on Bail – Court directed petitioner’s release on furnishing personal bond and surety with conditions including non-tampering with evidence, appearance before court, and residence verification [Paras 15-18].

Employment Law - Reservation of Municipal Wards – Rotation of SC/ST Seats – Rotation Not Mandatory – Appeal Allowed – The High Court reversed the order of the Writ Court which had quashed the reservation notification for municipal wards in Indore on grounds of failure to rotate reserved seats – Held: Rotation principle under Article 243T and Rules applies only to OBC and Women categories, not to SC/ST seats where reservation is based on concentration of population – Writ Court erred in interpreting rotation as mandatory for SC/ST seats [Paras 1-32].

Article 243T Interpretation – Use of “May” Indicates Discretion – Not Compulsion – The Court held that the term “may” in Article 243T relating to rotation of SC/ST reserved seats signifies discretion and not a mandatory obligation – Held: Legislative intent was to ensure reservation in proportion to concentrated SC/ST population; rotation is not a constitutional mandate for SC/ST seats [Paras 20-30].

Reservation Rules of 1994 – Rule 3 and 4 Distinguished – Rotation Limited to OBC and Women Categories – Court found that Rule 3 provides reservation of SC/ST wards based on population concentration in descending order while Rule 4 applies rotation principle only to OBC and Women reservations – Held: No legal requirement to rotate SC/ST wards during successive elections [Paras 24-30].

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent – K. Krishna Murthy Judgment Not Applicable to SC/ST Ward Rotation – The Court clarified that reliance on K. Krishna Murthy’s judgment by writ petitioners was misplaced as it pertains to broader policy issues and not specific application of rotational reservation under local municipal statutes – Held: Supreme Court rulings do not mandate compulsory rotation of SC/ST wards [Paras 12-13, 28].

Overruling of Writ Court – Prior Division Bench Judgments Affirmed – High Court reaffirmed earlier judgments (Sunil v. State of M.P.; Mohammad Azad v. State of M.P.) holding non-applicability of rotation to SC/ST wards – Held: Writ Court’s contrary interpretation erroneous, appeal allowed [Paras 26-27, 31].

Final Decision – Writ Court Order Quashed – State’s Appeal Allowed – Notification Restored – High Court allowed appeal, set aside Writ Court judgment, upheld validity of Gazette Notification dated 06.11.2020 regarding ward reservations in Indore – Writ Petition dismissed [Paras 31-32].

Civil Law  – Declaration and Injunction Suit – Title not established – Appeal dismissed – The plaintiff-appellant sought a declaration claiming ownership over 5 kanals of land on the basis of a sale deed executed by her husband Gurlal Singh, but the lower courts dismissed the suit holding that Gurlal Singh’s ownership was limited to 1/4th share and there was no evidence of ownership of 3/4th share as mentioned in the sale deed – The High Court upheld the concurrent findings observing that execution of a sale deed without lawful title cannot confer ownership – Held: No substantial question of law arises, second appeal dismissed [Paras 2-10].

Sale Beyond Ownership – Effect of Invalid Title – Legal Principle Reaffirmed – The Court reiterated that a vendor cannot sell more than his ownership share – Jamabandi entries recorded only 1/4th share of Gurlal Singh while the sale deed wrongly mentioned 3/4th share – Held: Execution of sale deed by a person without title does not vest ownership rights in vendee [Paras 7-9].

No Proof of Excess Sale by Defendants – Courts’ Findings Upheld – The appellant failed to prove that defendants/respondents had sold land in excess of their share – The courts below rightly relied on revenue records showing that the land sold by respondents was within their recorded share – Held: No illegality in the sale deed executed by respondents, suit rightly dismissed [Paras 9].

Concurrent Findings – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal dismissed – The Court found no perversity or misapplication of law in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial and First Appellate Courts – Held: In the absence of any substantial question of law, second appeal not maintainable and liable to be dismissed [Para 10].

Decision of the Case – Appeal dismissed – The judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissing the plaintiff’s suit for declaration and injunction are affirmed – Pending applications also disposed of [Para 10].