Succession Law – Probate – Will – Appeal – Probate petition filed by appellant (son of deceased Testatrix) seeking Letters of Administration based on unregistered Will dated 10.05.1989 – Learned Single Judge dismissed probate petition and allowed partition suit filed by other legal heirs – Held: Will proved through attesting witnesses and scribe – Suspicious circumstances found by Single Judge were neither pleaded nor put to witnesses in cross-examination – Suspicion unfounded – Will upheld – Probate granted – Partition suit dismissed [Paras 1, 2(i)-(ii), 4, 35, 38-40]

Execution of Will – Attestation and Proof – Section 68, Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 63, Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Will was attested by two witnesses (PW2 and PW6) and scribed by daughter-in-law (PW5) – All deposed consistently affirming execution of Will in presence of Testatrix – No cross-examination on alleged suspicious circumstances – Held: Due execution proved as per law – No rebuttal by objectors – Testatrix’s second signature not explained as no opportunity was given to witnesses – Burden was on objectors [Paras 10, 21-22, 23-24, 35]

Suspicious Circumstances – Grounds raised suo motu by Court – No foundation laid by objectors – Single Judge doubted Will based on folding of document, lack of prior draft, venue of execution, absence of photographs, and exclusion of daughters – Held: Such grounds not pleaded or proved – Exclusion of daughters not unusual given social context of 1989 – Testatrix had right to bequeath property to any heir – Folding of Will and storage by Class VIII educated scribe (daughter-in-law) not suspicious – Signature mutilation due to folds explained – Absence of birthday photos immaterial in pre-mobile era [Paras 6(i)-(ix), 25-30, 32-34]

Testatrix’s Capacity – Educational Background – Testatrix studied up to Class II – Held: Mere limited formal education not a bar to executing a Will – Document was in Hindi, contained no legal jargon – Scribed by Class VIII educated daughter-in-law – Recitals in Will explained reasons for bequest – Objectors failed to disprove stated reasons [Paras 20, 27-28]

Comparison with Earlier Unproved Will – Will dated 06.02.1989 withdrawn by husband of Testatrix – Single Judge compared signatures of subject Will with that unproved Will – Held: Improper to compare with document not proved in accordance with law – No handwriting expert examined by objectors – Signatures on subject Will not disproved [Paras 5, 26, 36]

Legal Principle – Testamentary Freedom – Testatrix is free to bequeath property to any heir – No legal obligation to divide equally or include all children – Absence of strained relationship does not invalidate selective bequest – Disinheritance of married daughters not uncommon for era – Will reflects genuine last wish of Testatrix – Must be respected [Paras 31-32]

Partition Suit – Not Maintainable – In light of proved Will bequeathing entire property to appellant, suit for partition by other legal heirs fails – Will operates to exclude them – Partition decree set aside [Paras 2(ii), 39]

Conclusion – Will validly executed and proved – Suspicious circumstances not established – Impugned Judgment set aside – Probate granted – Partition suit dismissed – Appeal allowed [Paras 37-40]

Civil Law – Ownership Dispute – Relief of Mandatory Injunction – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff, sole owner of the property by virtue of registered gift deeds dated 6.7.2009 and 9.5.2014 executed by his mother Smt. Santosh Kumari, filed suit seeking possession from his brother (defendant) who was residing in a portion of the house as a licencee – Defendant contested, claiming co-ownership and challenged validity of gift deeds alleging fraud, coercion and undue influence – Trial court decreed the suit for mandatory injunction – Appeal by defendant dismissed – Held: Defendant failed to prove co-ownership or any title – Gift deeds validly executed – Suit for mandatory injunction maintainable post revocation of licence [Paras 1, 2, 5, 13, 14, 45, 49, 66, 73].

Transfer of Property – Valid Gift Deeds – Challenge to Gift by Sibling – Defendant claimed mother was not in sound mind and gift deeds were fraudulently executed – Plaintiff proved execution through attesting witness and documentary evidence – Both gift deeds executed in compliance with Section 123 of Transfer of Property Act – Gift valid even if possession not delivered at the time – Defendant’s allegations of fraud, coercion, and undue influence not proved – No specific pleadings or evidence to substantiate claim – Held: Gift deeds legally valid and enforceable [Paras 50–54, 58–66].

License – Nature of Possession – Permissive Possession of Defendant – Plaintiff’s brother allowed to stay as licencee – Relationship of licensor and licencee existed post-execution of gift deeds – Licence revoked via legal notice dated 4.8.2014 – Defendant failed to vacate – Held: Defendant's occupation was permissive and post-termination, plaintiff entitled to seek possession through mandatory injunction – Plaintiff rightly proceeded under Specific Relief Act and not for recovery of possession – Apex Court precedents relied upon [Paras 67–79].

Construction by Licencee – Irrevocability of Licence – Defendant alleged raising permanent structure in suit premises – No sanctioned plan or evidence produced – Plaintiff filed sanctioned plans in name of mother – Held: Defendant failed to prove that any construction raised by him – Licence not rendered irrevocable [Paras 80–81].

Registered Documents – Allegation of Interpolation – Defendant alleged manipulation in sale and gift deeds – Plaintiff produced originals – Every cutting signed – Held: No adverse inference – Registered documents carry presumption of genuineness – Defendant failed to rebut it [Paras 82–84].

Non-Exhibition of Documents – Procedural Lapse – Documents submitted in sealed cover for safe custody – Trial court failed to mark exhibits – Defendant did not object before trial court – Held: Procedural lapse by court – No prejudice caused – Plaintiff proved documents and execution through oral and documentary evidence – Decree not liable to be reversed merely for non-exhibition [Paras 85–95].

Mesne Profits – Appellate Court's Power Under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC – Trial court denied mesne profits @ ₹30,000/month for lack of proof – During appeal, stay granted on condition of ₹10,000/month deposit – Held: Appellate court can award mesne profits at ₹10,000/month as condition of stay – Defendant bound by the order – Plaintiff entitled to receive damages for use and occupation till actual handover of possession [Paras 96–100, 106].

Caretaker/Trespasser – No Title by Long Possession – Defendant residing gratuitously – No tenancy or lease established – Apex Court in Maria Margarida and Behram Tejani reiterated caretaker acquires no right – Held: Long possession does not confer any right – Defendant must vacate [Paras 101–103].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 01.07.2019 upheld – Plaintiff entitled to possession via mandatory injunction and damages @ ₹10,000/month from 01.07.2019 till delivery of possession – Interim orders vacated [Paras 104–109].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of trial court affirmed – Defendant to hand over vacant possession to plaintiff – Plaintiff entitled to ₹10,000 per month as damages from date of decree till possession is handed over.

Criminal Law – Rape and Murder – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Death Penalty Commuted – Five-month-old infant abducted by maternal cousin from a marriage function – Later found severely injured and unconscious in a nearby vacant plot – Died during treatment – Convict last seen with victim – Recovery of victim and circumstantial evidence including forensic analysis supported prosecution – Conviction upheld but death sentence commuted to life imprisonment till natural life without remission – Held: Brutality alone cannot justify capital punishment in absence of premeditation or ruling out reform [Paras 1, 4, 35–39, 47–48, 57–58, 62, 63–72].

Evidence Act – Last Seen Theory – Circumstantial Evidence – Forensic Linkage – Accused seen taking child from mother at 7 p.m. – Found hours later with injuries consistent with sexual assault and blunt force trauma – Biological fluid of female origin found on accused’s clothing – No credible alternative hypothesis – Chain of circumstances complete – Theory of enmity rebutted – Held: Conviction sustainable even without DNA match where other links are firmly established [Paras 39, 48–50, 57–58, 60, 62].

Criminal Procedure – Capital Punishment – Rarest of Rare Doctrine – Commutation to Life Imprisonment Without Remission – Though trial court imposed death penalty, High Court held that since conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, and there was no premeditated intent, past criminal record, or evaluation from Probation Officer or psychologists, death penalty not justified – Reformation potential not ruled out – Life imprisonment without remission ordered [Paras 63–72].

Criminal Law – Investigation Lapses – Non-Fatal to Prosecution Case – CCTV footage procured but not produced in original Pen Drive – Compact Disc version unavailable – However, oral testimony of Investigating Officer and other witnesses, along with physical and forensic evidence, sufficient to prove guilt – Held: Investigation lapses alone cannot override substantive evidence [Paras 31–32, 60–61].

Constitutional Law – Sentencing – Consideration of Mitigating Factors Mandatory Before Awarding Death Penalty – Trial court did not obtain reports from Jail Administration, Probation Officer, or psychologist – Convict was 27 years old with no criminal antecedents – Death penalty must only be imposed when reform is unquestionably ruled out – Commutation appropriate in absence of full inquiry [Paras 63–71].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction upheld – Death penalty under Sections 302 and 376(Ka)(Kha) IPC read with Section 6 POCSO Act commuted to life imprisonment for natural life without remission – Sentence under Section 364 IPC and fines confirmed – Reference in Capital Case No. 4 of 2021 not confirmed.

Service Law – Reinstatement – Notional Increment – Tribunal directed refixation of pay with notional increment for period when employee was out of service – Respondent reinstated without back wages pursuant to Labour Court order upheld by High Court – Held: In absence of specific direction for consequential benefits or notional increments, such benefits cannot be claimed for the period of absence – Reinstatement without back wages does not automatically confer right to notional increment [Paras 1, 7, 10] –

Continuity of Service – Scope and Limitation – Respondent claimed full pay fixation from date of initial ad hoc appointment in 1985 – Terminated in 1997, reinstated in 2012 without back wages – CAT granted benefit of one notional increment for intervening period – Held: Continuity of service in such reinstatement is only for limited purpose (e.g., pension/seniority), not for monetary or incremental benefits unless specifically directed – [Paras 2, 6, 10] –

Binding Precedents – Applicability of Supreme Court Rulings – Court relied on Andhra Pradesh SRTC v. Abdul Kareem, (2005) 6 SCC 36 and V.V.G. Reddy v. A.P. SRTC, (2009) 2 SCC 668 – Held: Supreme Court has consistently ruled that increments are not earned during periods of absence from duty unless explicitly granted as consequential benefit – Deepali Gundu’s case does not overrule Abdul Kareem and is distinguishable [Paras 5-7] –

Increment – Not Earned in Absence – Increment can only be earned when employee is actually in service with good conduct – It is not automatic upon reinstatement unless backed by specific order or rule – Held: CAT erred in granting notional increment retrospectively for period of non-service – [Paras 9-10] –

Decision: Petition allowed – CAT’s order set aside – Original Application filed by respondent before CAT dismissed [Final Para].

Child Custody – Interim Custody – Appeal – Appellant-father challenged Family Court order granting interim custody of two minor children to respondent-mother – Alleged failure of Family Court to apply welfare principle and omission to record children’s wishes – Held: Family Court rightly prioritised emotional and psychological well-being of children over material considerations – Welfare of child is paramount – No ground for interference in appeal [Paras 1, 7, 26-27]

Welfare of Child – Paramount Consideration – Family Court applied Section 17 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and relevant case law – Assessed stability, caregiving capacity, emotional needs of children – Held: Welfare principle was correctly applied – Physical custody alone not determinative – Emotional nurturing and continuity of care weighed over financial stability [Paras 17-20.1, 23]

Custody – Unilateral Removal by Father – Appellant took both children to Gurugram without mother’s consent – Claimed to be primary caregiver since 2023 – Held: Temporary unilateral custody cannot override long-standing caregiving role of mother – Family Court merely restored prior custody status – No vested right created by father’s self-assumed custody [Paras 5, 20.2, 20.3]

Child’s Preference – Daughter’s Choice to Reside with Mother – Court found elder child to be mature, articulate, and clear in expressing desire to live with respondent-mother – Held: Preference is genuine and not result of coercion or inducement – Supported by confidential in-camera interactions and continued voluntary residence with mother [Paras 13, 20.6, 21, 24]

Allegations Against Mother – Claims of Extra-marital Affairs – Appellant alleged respondent was unfit due to alleged extra-marital relations and erratic behaviour – Held: Allegations were unsubstantiated and speculative – No adverse impact on children’s welfare established – Custody decisions cannot be based on conjecture or moral assumptions [Paras 15.4, 20.4, 20.5]

Parental Alienation – No Proof of Manipulation – Appellant claimed daughter was alienated by respondent – Held: No credible evidence of such alienation – Court interactions showed daughter’s discomfort in father’s exclusive custody – Continued residence with mother based on her own volition [Paras 20.6, 21]

Violation of Visitation Orders – Appellant Took Children Abroad – Appellant took children to Dubai in March 2024 despite court’s visitation orders – Held: Conduct frustrated court’s directions and reflects disregard for legal process – Undermines claim of being responsible custodial parent [Paras 6, 22]

Sibling Bond – Split Custody Arrangement – Daughter residing with mother, son with father – Court observed such split is not ideal – Directed Family Court to explore ways to preserve sibling bond and ensure gradual transition if appropriate [Paras 25, 29]

Judicial Role – Parens Patriae Jurisdiction – Court emphasised its duty to protect minors’ welfare over adversarial rights of parties – Approach must be child-centric, not parent-centric – Reaffirmed from Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal [Paras 18-19]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned Family Court order upheld – Interim custody arrangements to continue for 8 weeks – Parties permitted to seek modification from Family Court – All pending applications closed [Paras 27-30]

Administrative Law – Termination of License – Writ Against APTDC – Maintainability – Petitioner challenged termination of license granted under agreement dated 03.10.2020 for operation of shop at Rushikonda Beach – Held: Though APTDC is ‘State’ under Article 12, disputes arising from license agreements are contractual and remedy lies in civil suit for damages – Writ not maintainable to challenge termination of license [Paras 9, 16]

Contract Law – License Agreement – Nature of Rights – Licensee Cannot Seek Interim Relief Against Termination – Petitioner admitted arrears of rent and operational default – Clause 7 of license agreement permits termination for non-compliance – Law well settled that licensee has no vested right to prevent termination – Once terminated, continued occupation is unlawful – Licensee may claim compensation but cannot seek injunction or continuation [Paras 4, 9-14, 16]

Distinction Between Lease and License – License Does Not Confer Interest or Possession – Agreement was clearly a license and not a lease – Reference to “lease” in correspondence was casual – Legal possession remains with licensor – Licensee has only a personal right which ceases upon termination – Petitioner cannot assert tenancy-like rights after expiration or cancellation [Paras 7, 12-14]

Writ Jurisdiction – Commercial Contract Disputes – No Public Law Element – Alternative Remedy Available – Court held that licensee’s grievance is private in nature – Remedy lies in filing a civil suit for compensation – No violation of constitutional or public duty shown – Writ jurisdiction not to be invoked for enforcing purely contractual rights [Paras 16-17]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Termination of license upheld – Interim order dated 06.10.2025 vacated – Petitioner may seek compensation by filing civil suit – No costs [Paras 17-18]

Criminal Law – Section 498A IPC – Applicability to Void Marriages and Live-In Relationships – Petitioner contended that Respondent No. 2 could not claim protection under Section 498A as the marriage was void owing to his subsisting marriage with another woman – Held: Section 498A covers not only legally valid marriages but also void or voidable marriages and relationships in the nature of marriage – A man who induces a woman into cohabitation under the false pretense of marriage cannot escape liability under Section 498A – Relationship with trappings of marriage falls within scope of the section [Paras 13.1–13.16].

Criminal Procedure – Section 498A – Parallel Proceedings – Two separate criminal cases pending against petitioner for offence under Section 498A in Shivamogga and Bengaluru arising out of related facts – Held: Permitting parallel trials under Section 498A in different fora would lead to conflicting judgments – Directed: Case pending in Shivamogga transferred to Bengaluru court for joint trial with pending proceedings [Paras 14.1–14.3].

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Admissibility of Statement by Surviving Complainant – Petitioner challenged statement recorded by Head Constable as not fulfilling requirements of dying declaration under Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act – Held: Respondent No. 2 survived – Statement is not a dying declaration but a regular witness statement – Evidentiary value to be tested at trial – Procedural irregularities in MLC registration not grounds for quashing proceedings at pre-trial stage [Paras 15.1–15.13].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Petitions filed to quash proceedings in two FIRs alleging dowry harassment and attempt to murder – Allegations include setting complainant on fire and suppression of prior marriage – Held: Allegations are serious and require full trial – No grounds made out for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Petitions dismissed [Paras 16.1].

Decision: Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed – Proceedings in CC No. 630/2019 pending before III Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Divn) and JMFC, Shivamogga transferred to 24th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru to be tried along with CC No. 28129/2023 – Criminal proceedings to proceed in accordance with law.

Criminal Law – Bail – POCSO and JJ Act Offences – Parity with Co-Accused – Petitioner charged under multiple IPC, JJ Act and POCSO provisions for alleged torture and abuse of a 3-year-old foster child – Other co-accused including petitioner’s husband (prime accused) granted bail – Held: On ground of parity and similar footing in charges, petitioner entitled to bail [Paras 5, 35]

Criminal Procedure – Illegal Arrest – Violation of Sections 50, 50A, 41B(b)(i), 46(4) CrPC – Arrest made without furnishing grounds, informing relatives, attesting arrest memo or obtaining prior judicial permission for arrest of woman at night – Held: Cumulative procedural lapses render arrest illegal – Fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) violated – Arrest unsustainable [Paras 26–32]

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Prolonged Incarceration – Right to Speedy Trial – Petitioner in custody for over 2½ years, with only 15 of 74 witnesses examined and trial expected to take further considerable time – Held: Long incarceration violates right to liberty under Article 21 – Bail granted to prevent injustice and safeguard constitutional rights [Paras 22–24]

Interpretation of Precedent – Pankaj Bansal and Mihir Rajesh Shah Cases – Mandate to inform arrestee of grounds in writing applicable irrespective of arrest date – Argument that Pankaj Bansal applies only prospectively rejected – Section 50 of CrPC pre-existed and must be followed – Non-compliance affects validity of arrest [Paras 33–34]

Bail Conditions – Stringent Safeguards Imposed – Accused directed to furnish ₹1 lakh bond with two sureties (one government servant), surrender of official documents, non-contact with victim or witnesses, restriction on travel without court permission and cooperation in trial mandatory [Para 36]

Decision: Bail granted – Petitioner Dr. Sangeeta Dutta directed to be released in connection with Sessions (Special) Case No. 112/2023 on furnishing bond and fulfilling strict conditions – Court noted gross procedural violations during arrest and prolonged custody with pending trial – Petition allowed with liberty to State to seek cancellation in case of violation of conditions [Paras 35–37]

SARFAESI Act – Redemption of Mortgage – Right extinguished – Appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging sale of mortgaged property by bank under SARFAESI Act – Appellants contended undervaluation and fraudulent sale of property worth ₹15 crore at ₹5.78 crore – Bank had attempted sale on four occasions and reduced reserve price due to lack of bidders – High Court held: Once sale certificate is registered, mortgagor's right of redemption extinguished – No procedural lapse or fraud established – Writ petition rightly dismissed – Appeal rejected [Paras 1–19]

SARFAESI Act – Compliance with Statutory Procedure – Bank had issued notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) – Symbolic possession taken – Physical possession obtained under Section 14(1) – Repeated attempts made to auction the property – Proper valuation, publication and notice of auction conducted – Sale held on 29.09.2021 after 4 failed attempts – Sale certificate issued and registered in favour of respondent No.4 – No procedural violation found – Borrowers' contention of fraud and undervaluation rejected [Paras 7–8, 18–19]

SARFAESI Act – Section 13(8) – Right of Redemption – Appellants sought to redeem property after sale certificate was issued – Held: Right of redemption under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act is overridden by amended Section 13(8) of SARFAESI Act – Right to redemption ceases upon publication of auction notice – Writ petition filed after sale certificate was registered – No right of redemption remained [Paras 9, 12, 13, 14, 16–17]

Writ Jurisdiction – Availability of Alternate Remedy – High Court reiterated settled law that writ petition under Article 226 should not be entertained when effective alternate remedy under SARFAESI Act exists – Appellants had already approached DRT twice (S.A. No.174/2018 and S.A. No.212/2019), both dismissed – No exceptional ground shown for invoking writ jurisdiction – Reliance placed on Satyawati Tondon and Mathew K.C. – Writ rightly dismissed by Single Judge [Paras 9–11]

One-Time Settlement (OTS) – Borrower’s Entitlement – Appellants sought mandamus to consider OTS proposal – Held: No legal right to claim OTS – Grant of OTS lies within commercial wisdom of the bank – Writ of mandamus cannot be issued to enforce OTS – Borrower must satisfy eligibility criteria under scheme – Reliance placed on Bijnor Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Meenal Agarwal – Request for OTS rightly rejected [Paras 5, 7, 15]

Undervaluation Allegation – Reduction of Reserve Price – Appellants alleged fraudulent undervaluation – Bank demonstrated that reserve price was reduced proportionally after repeated failed auctions – Final sale fetched higher than reserve price – Court found no mala fides or irregularity in sale process – Allegation of collusion between bank and purchaser not substantiated [Paras 8, 19]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No procedural violation or fraud by bank – Right of redemption extinguished after registered sale – No entitlement to OTS – No error found in Single Judge’s order – Writ petition and intra-court appeal devoid of merit [Paras 17–19]