Civil Suit – Declaration of Title – Burden of Proof – Plaintiffs sought declaration of title and injunction claiming ancestral ownership over suit lands – Held: In a suit for declaration, plaintiffs must succeed on the strength of their own title and not on the weakness of the defendants’ case – Failure to prove title of ancestors fatal to claim [Paras 21-23, 54(i)-(ii)].

Evidence – Revenue Records – Pattadar Passbooks and Cist Receipts – Plaintiffs relied on pattadar passbooks, cist receipts and revenue entries to establish title – Held: Revenue records and mutation entries are not documents of title and do not confer ownership – They raise, at best, a presumption of possession for fiscal purposes only [Paras 26-29, 48-53].

Possession – Presumption under Section 110 Evidence Act – “Possession Follows Title” – Scope – Presumption applies only when possession is prima facie lawful and where no party is shown to have title – Where property stands recorded in name of Endowment/Mutt, presumption cannot be invoked in favour of plaintiffs claiming declaration of title without proving ancestral ownership [Paras 38-47, 54(iv)-(v)].

Ancestral Property – Proof of Pedigree and Title – Plaintiffs claimed ancestral title based on common surname “Matam” – No documentary evidence produced to prove that their ancestors were owners of suit lands – Mere similarity of surname insufficient to establish title – Held: Ancestral title must be proved by cogent documentary evidence [Paras 26, 30-33, 54(vi)].

Pleadings – Alleged Admission – Denial by Pleading Ignorance – Defendants pleaded ignorance regarding certain revenue documents and loans – Held: Pleadings must be read as a whole – Plea of “not aware” regarding collateral facts does not amount to admission of title or possession – No admission relieving plaintiffs of burden of proof [Paras 34-36].

Endowment Property – Title of Religious Institution – Evidence showed suit lands recorded in name of Sri Pothuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamy Mutt – Plaintiffs failed to rebut revenue and endowment records – Held: Trial Court rightly held property belonged to religious institution and not to plaintiffs [Paras 28, 31-32, 54(v)].

Decision: First Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 28.07.2011 of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal affirmed – Plaintiffs not entitled to declaration of title or injunction – No order as to costs.

Rent Control – Leave and Licence – Residential or Commercial Use – Registered leave and licence agreement contained multiple clauses expressly restricting use of flat to residential purpose only – Revisional Authority selectively relied on clauses permitting “residence-cum-office” use while ignoring clauses mandating residential use – Held: Licence granted for residential purpose; application under Section 24 MRC Act maintainable – Revisional finding held perverse [Paras 8–10, 17–18].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 44 MRC Act – Scope – Revisional Authority relied on film production contract and alleged lien/charge over flat arising therefrom – Held: Consideration of contractual liabilities, arbitral award and alleged charge over property is beyond jurisdiction under Sections 24 and 44 of MRC Act – Revisional Authority exceeded its statutory limits [Paras 11–14].

Evidence – Commercial User – Effect – Photographs, fixtures and electricity bills showing commercial use relied upon by Revisional Authority – Held: Such evidence may show occupation or user but not the authority or purpose under which premises were licensed – Commercial use cannot legalise deviation from residential licence – Reliance held erroneous [Paras 15, 20].

Possession – Undated Possession Letter – Evidentiary Value – Undated possession letter without witnesses relied upon by Respondent – Competent Authority rightly disbelieved the document – Revisional Authority’s contrary inference held unsustainable, particularly when Respondent admittedly remained in possession and avoided witness box [Paras 16, 29].

Arbitration Award – Subsequent Setting Aside – Effect – Revisional Authority relied on alleged arbitral award to hold existence of lien/charge – Award already set aside by High Court and confirmed in appeal – Reasoning based on non-existent award rendered invalid [Para 19].

Conduct of Party-in-Person – Abuse of Process – Respondent repeatedly sought adjournments before multiple Benches, consumed extensive judicial time and filed voluminous written submissions containing unverifiable and non-existent case law – Court deprecated unverified use of AI-generated material – Held: Such conduct obstructs justice delivery and warrants costs [Paras 21–22, 26].

Perjury and Contempt – Interim Application – Rejection – Allegations of perjury, suppression and forged documents not substantiated – Reliefs sought beyond scope of writ petition and Section 24 proceedings – Interim Application dismissed as vexatious and coercive [Paras 23–26, 33].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Interference Justified – Though scope under Article 227 is limited, interference warranted where revisional order is perverse, ignores material clauses, relies on extraneous considerations and suffers from patent error on face of record [Paras 30–32].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned revisional order dated 02.09.2009 set aside – Eviction order dated 15.04.2009 passed by Competent Authority restored and confirmed – Interim Application No. 6969 of 2025 dismissed – Respondent directed to hand over possession forthwith – Costs of Rs.50,000/- imposed, payable to High Court Employees Medical Fund.

Criminal Law - Execution Proceedings – Alleged Impersonation of Surety – Offence Relating to Court Proceedings – In execution of money decree, part decretal amount disbursed on furnishing of solvent surety – Allegation that surety was furnished through impersonation and real person never stood as surety – Application filed under Section 379 BNSS seeking prosecution for offences affecting administration of justice [Paras 1–3, 7].

Sections 215 and 379 BNSS – Bar on Police Taking Cognizance – Mandatory Role of Court – Offences alleged to have been committed in relation to proceedings of Court fall within Section 215 BNSS – Police cannot suo motu register FIR for such offences – Court must first form an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into the offence and then follow procedure under Section 379 BNSS [Paras 6–8].

Duty of Court – Preliminary Enquiry and Application of Judicial Mind – Executing Court directed police to investigate and register FIR if offence found, without conducting preliminary enquiry or recording prima facie satisfaction – Held: Court may seek assistance of police for enquiry, but discretion to register FIR cannot be delegated to police authorities – Registration of FIR must follow judicial determination by Court [Paras 8–9].

Modification of Order – Police Investigation Subject to Court’s Direction – Impugned order modified – Police permitted to investigate and submit report – FIR to be registered only upon express orders of Executing Court and not suo motu by police – Compliance with Sections 215 and 379 BNSS ensured [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Impugned order dated 18.11.2025 modified – Police investigation permitted subject to report before Executing Court – FIR to be registered only on direction of Court – Petition disposed of.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Discharge and Framing of Charge – Scope of Judicial Review – Petitioner, Director of contractor company, challenged rejection of discharge and framing of charge under Section 3 PMLA – Allegations of submission of 26 fake and forged bitumen invoices leading to generation of proceeds of crime worth Rs. 1,08,95,583/- – Investigation revealing receipt, layering and investment of proceeds of crime through subsidiary and associate companies controlled by petitioner – Held: At stage of discharge and framing of charge, court required only to see existence of prima facie material and not conduct a mini trial – Strong suspicion founded on material sufficient to frame charge – No perversity or illegality in impugned orders [Paras 20–21, 56–60, 100].

Money Laundering – “Proceeds of Crime” – Interpretation of Section 2(1)(u) PMLA – Explanation inserted by Act 23 of 2019 – Scope widened to include property directly or indirectly derived or obtained from criminal activity relatable to scheduled offence – Held: Proceeds generated through fake invoices and subsequently invested in subsidiaries constitute proceeds of crime – Identification of exact amount sufficient at prima facie stage [Paras 25–29, 98–100, 114].

Offence under Section 3 PMLA – Continuing Nature – Involvement Not Limited to Predicate Offence – Petitioner not only linked with scheduled offence but also actively involved in acquisition, possession, use and projection of proceeds of crime as untainted – Held: Person need not be named as accused in predicate offence to be prosecuted under PMLA – Knowingly assisting or being party to laundering activity sufficient [Paras 102–108, 112–113].

Criminal Conspiracy – Role of Director – Vicarious Liability under Section 70 PMLA – Evidence showing petitioner as key decision-maker and controller of day-to-day affairs of parent and subsidiary companies – Statements under Section 50 PMLA and documentary evidence relied upon – Held: Prima facie case of consent, connivance and active role established against petitioner as Director [Paras 93–97].

Discharge – Legal Principles – Court Not to Act as Post Office – Defence Not to be Considered – Revisional Court’s Limited Jurisdiction – Held: Revisional jurisdiction cannot be equated with appellate power – Interference justified only in rare cases of patent illegality or jurisdictional error – No ground made out to interfere with rejection of discharge or framing of charge [Paras 117–123].

Economic Offences – Need for Full Trial – Serious Allegations of Money Laundering – Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents – Held: Economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and financial ramifications require thorough trial – Discharge at nascent stage impermissible [Paras 115–116].

Decision: Criminal Revision No. 648 of 2025 and Criminal Revision No. 529 of 2025 dismissed – Orders rejecting discharge and framing charge under Sections 3 and 4 PMLA affirmed – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

SARFAESI Act – Statutory Appeal – Mandatory Pre-deposit – Section 18 – Borrower challenged dismissal of Securitisation Application by DRT by filing writ petition under Article 226 – Single Judge directed deposit of amounts before Bank and treated same as statutory pre-deposit – Held: Second proviso to Section 18 mandates deposit of 50% of debt due, reducible only up to 25% by DRAT for recorded reasons – Pre-deposit is a condition precedent for entertaining appeal – No provision under SARFAESI Act permitting deposit before secured creditor to be treated as statutory pre-deposit before DRAT – Deposit has to be made with Appellate Tribunal only – Direction of Single Judge treating bank deposit as statutory pre-deposit held unsustainable [Paras 10, 15-21].

Writ Jurisdiction – Alternative Statutory Remedy – SARFAESI proceedings – Borrower has efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 18 against DRT order – Writ petition filed to circumvent statutory appeal and mandatory pre-deposit – Held: High Court should not entertain writ petition under Article 226 when effective statutory remedy exists, particularly in matters relating to recovery of bank dues – None of the exceptional circumstances (lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, defiance of statutory provisions, or repealed law) made out – Writ petition not maintainable [Paras 14, 22-28].

Pre-deposit – Nature and Scope – Amount to be deposited is “debt due” inclusive of interest under Section 2(g) of RDB Act – Complete waiver of pre-deposit impermissible – DRAT’s discretion limited between 50% and 25% of debt due – Amount deposited pursuant to interim orders before Bank cannot be appropriated or adjusted as statutory pre-deposit unless statute so provides – Borrower cannot claim adjustment to avoid compliance with Section 18 [Paras 16-21].

Judicial Discipline – Interference under Article 226 in SARFAESI matters – Apex Court consistently cautioned High Courts against bypassing statutory remedies under SARFAESI/RDB Acts – Held: Learned Single Judge failed to consider binding precedents and statutory scheme – Impugned judgment liable to be set aside [Paras 23-29].

Decision: Writ appeal allowed – Judgment dated 14.08.2024 in WP(C) No.21833 of 2024 set aside – Writ petition dismissed – Borrowers relegated to statutory remedy under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act [Para 29].

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Pre-2015 Claims – Petitioner sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds in 2013, 14 years before superannuation, and applied for compassionate appointment of his physically disabled son – Claim rejected in 2017 on grounds that 2015 scheme was inapplicable to cases before 05.08.2014 and that no medical incapacitation certificate was submitted – Held: Petitioner’s application dated 09.04.2014 fell within Clause 24 of 2015 Scheme and had to be considered under Circulars of 2005 and 2007 – Circular dated 24.09.2007 provided for ex gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment for employees retiring before age 55 due to incapacitation – Bank erred in insisting on certification by medical board where scheme did not so require [Paras 4, 24–34, 36–37]

Ex Gratia Compensation – Eligibility under 2007 Circular – Employee voluntarily retired before 55 due to incapacitation and made timely application – Circular B(iii) of 24.09.2007 provides entitlement to ex gratia payment without need for medical board certification – Bank’s denial based on technicalities rejected – Petitioner's medical retirement accepted without objections, indicating implied recognition of incapacitation – Rejection of benefit arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 25–33]

Policy Interpretation – Clause 24 of 2015 Scheme – Applications pending as on 04.08.2014 or made before that date must be dealt with under earlier circulars – Bank’s failure to apply Clause 24 and denial of relief under 2007 Circular was unjustified – Bank directed to process ex gratia compensation within 12 weeks [Paras 26, 36–38]

Compassionate Appointment – Financial Hardship – Bank’s argument that petitioner was receiving pension and retiral benefits not relevant – Held: Financial need not sole determinant – Purpose of compassionate appointment includes broader social obligation – Case law in Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar and Malaya Nanda Sethy applied [Paras 12–13, 35]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned communication dated 16.01.2017 set aside – Respondent Bank directed to consider petitioner’s application for appointment of son on compassionate grounds and grant ex gratia compensation under Clause B(iii) of Circular dated 24.09.2007 – Payment to be processed within 12 weeks [Para 38]

Cheque Dishonour – Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act – Rebuttal by Accused – Standard of Proof – Accused admitted signature on cheque but set up defence that cheque was part of multiple cheques issued for chit transaction to a third party – Defence supported by reply notices and contemporaneous documents – Held: Accused need only raise a probable defence and not prove it beyond reasonable doubt – Presumption successfully rebutted on preponderance of probabilities [Paras 12, 15–19].

Cheque Dishonour – Financial Capacity of Complainant – Onus on Complainant – Complainant claimed cash loan of ₹5,00,000/- without documentary proof – Failure to disclose source of funds in statutory notice – Contradictory deposition regarding who sought the loan – Held: Once financial capacity is disputed, burden shifts back to complainant – Failure to prove capacity weakens prosecution case [Paras 7, 12, 19].

Evidence – Non-Examination of Material Witness – Adverse Inference – Transaction allegedly routed through intermediary (R. Venkateshappa) – Complainant admitted no difficulty in examining said person – Same counsel represented complainant and intermediary in connected proceedings – Held: Non-examination of crucial intermediary, despite defence specifically alleging misuse of cheque, is a material omission attracting adverse inference and probabilising defence [Paras 18–19].

Appreciation of Evidence – Perverse Findings – Courts below proceeded solely on admission of signature on cheque – Ignored contradictions in complainant’s testimony, reply notices and defence evidence – Held: Failure to consider entire material on record renders findings perverse and unsustainable in law [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition allowed – Judgments of conviction and sentence dated 06.04.2016 and 17.04.2021 set aside – Petitioner/accused acquitted of offence under Section 138 NI Act – Bail and surety bonds discharged.

Maintainability – Writ Appeal by Statutory Committee – Quasi-judicial authority not “aggrieved” – Admission Supervisory Committee constituted under Section 3 of Act 15 of 2017 passed orders withholding and cancelling admission under OBC category – Single Judge set aside Committee’s orders and declared student eligible – Committee filed writ appeal – Held: Committee’s functions under Section 8 are adjudicatory with Civil Court-like powers under Section 8(3) – Beneficiaries/adversely affected persons are third parties and not the adjudicator – Adjudicating authority cannot challenge superior court’s interference with its quasi-judicial orders – allowing such appeals would undermine judicial discipline and create anomalous situation of adjudicators routinely appealing adverse decisions – Writ appeal dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 1, 5, 9, 13, 17-18, 20].

Medical Education Admissions – Admission Supervisory Committee – Nature of powers – Section 8 Act 15 of 2017 – Committee’s role includes inquiry into complaints/suo motu action and recommendations including declaration of admissions invalid – powers of Civil Court while conducting inquiry – Held: such statutory scheme indicates adjudicatory and not ministerial character – Committee’s decisions under Section 8 operate as quasi-judicial orders [Paras 9, 13, 17].

Judicial Discipline – Adjudicating authority’s locus to litigate – Proper party vs aggrieved party – Committee was arrayed as respondent in writ petition challenging its orders – Held: mere impleadment does not create duty/right in adjudicator to defend its own decision through appeal – decision may be supported/challenged by persons benefited/adversely affected or by appropriate official respondents having duty to ensure fair admissions – Committee itself cannot be appellant against setting aside of its orders [Paras 18-19].

Statutory Appeal under Section 12 Act 15 of 2017 – Practical filing as writ petitions due to procedural vacuum – Court noted administrative history: nomenclature MFA(KME) introduced, but Division Bench earlier directed return of such appeals due to absence of rules on certified copy/court-fee etc – despite 2021 Rules, appeal procedure still not provided – hence writ petitions continue to be treated as maintainable against committee orders and are rostered to Single Bench under education subject codes – However, this does not confer appellate locus on Committee as adjudicator [Paras 14-16, 18].

Decision: Writ appeal dismissed as not maintainable [Para 20].

Civil Writ - Fair Price Shop – Misappropriation of Food Grains – Scope of Revision under Clause 24 – Respondent No.5 was found guilty by District Supply Officer (DSO) of misappropriating wheat (22.6 quintals), rice (11.36 quintals), and pulses, and violating other regulatory requirements – DSO passed order cancelling authorization and forfeiting security deposit – Revision before Deputy Commissioner dismissed, confirming findings of irregularity – Second revision allowed by Hon’ble Minister without recording finding on legality or propriety – Held: Minister exceeded revisional jurisdiction under Clause 24(1) by setting aside findings without examining their correctness – Matter remanded for reconsideration [Paras 3–5, 13–16]

Consumer Rights – Locus of Complainants – Preliminary objection raised that original complainants (ration cardholders) have no locus to challenge Minister’s order – Rejected – Held: Under Distribution Order, 1975, complainants have standing to challenge revisional orders unlike under Licensing Order, 1979 – Judgment in Shivaji Tulshiram Thakre followed – Supreme Court ruling in Vishvas not applicable as it related to Licensing Order [Paras 6–10]

Revisional Powers – Jurisdictional Error – Hon’ble Minister ordered fresh enquiry and reinstatement of authorization based on general statements from cardholders and respondent’s long-standing service – Held: Revisional authority must record findings on legality, propriety, or irregularity of prior orders – Failure to do so renders order unsustainable and beyond jurisdiction [Paras 14–16]

Subsequent Events – Fresh Enquiry – Respondent No.5 relied on post-order enquiry showing no current complaints – Held: Subsequent developments irrelevant where earlier findings of misappropriation were unaddressed by revisional authority – Fresh material not part of record and cannot justify flawed revisional order [Para 12]

Decision: Writ Petition partly allowed – Order dated 19/07/2021 passed by Hon’ble Minister quashed and set aside – Matter remanded to Hon’ble Minister to decide revision afresh after recording findings on allegations of misappropriation – Respondent No.5 to continue operating fair price shop unless otherwise barred – Revision to be decided preferably before 31/05/2026 [Para 17]