Permanent Injunction – Lawful Possession Under Registered Lease – Protection Granted – Plaintiff obtained a mining lease under G.O.Ms.No.48 dated 25.02.2012 for pyrophyllite mineral excavation – Registered lease deed and mining work orders established lawful possession – Held: Possession under lease being lawful, plaintiff is entitled to protection from interference by State authorities through a decree of permanent injunction [Paras 3–4, 16–20].

Forest Land Dispute – Government Lease Overrides Forest Department Objection – No Evidence Led by Defendants – Defendants claimed mining occurred in reserved forest (Madhavaram block), but failed to produce oral or documentary evidence – Held: Mere pleading without proof is insufficient – Defendants did not enter witness box or rebut plaintiff’s evidence – Forest officials’ claims of illegality unsubstantiated [Paras 6–7, 17–18].

Section 80 CPC – Objection Raised for First Time in Second Appeal – Waiver Inferred – Defendants argued lack of notice under Section 80 CPC – Held: No such plea was raised in the written statement or first appeal – Trial court had dispensed with notice under Section 80(2) CPC – Such objection cannot be entertained for the first time in second appeal [Para 19].

Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings Upheld – Held: Both trial and first appellate courts rightly decreed the suit – Appellants failed to raise any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 CPC – Mere reappreciation of evidence or alternate view not permissible – Second appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 13–23].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Concurrent Decrees Affirmed – The High Court refused to interfere with the concurrent findings in favour of the plaintiff – Suit for injunction upheld based on lawful possession – No costs awarded – Pending applications closed [Para 23].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Extra-Judicial Confession and Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal Ordered – The appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC for the alleged murder of his parents based on extra-judicial confessions and recoveries made at his instance – The High Court found that the alleged confessions were made in the presence of police and were not recorded under Section 164 CrPC, making them inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act – Further, the prosecution failed to prove a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, with no forensic report linking the accused to the crime – Held: The conviction was not legally sustainable and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused – The appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted [Paras 4, 16, 21–22, 26–33].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Presence of Police – Inadmissible and Unreliable – The conviction was based largely on extra-judicial confessions allegedly made by the appellant before local witnesses – Held: As confessions were made in presence of police personnel, voluntariness is doubtful and such statements cannot be relied upon – No confession was recorded under Section 164 CrPC – Confession inadmissible as per Section 25 of the Evidence Act [Paras 26–31].

Recovery of Weapons – Non-Compliance with Section 27 Evidence Act – Doubt Cast – Though weapons and blood-stained clothes were allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused, there was no recorded discovery statement – No FSL report to link recovered items with the crime – The prosecution failed to establish nexus between recovery and the alleged offence [Paras 21–22, 27].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain Incomplete – Conviction Not Sustainable – The prosecution failed to prove motive, discovery statement, or forensic link – No eyewitness and no direct evidence – Medical opinion did not support weapon used – Held: Chain of circumstances not complete to exclude every hypothesis other than guilt – Conviction unsustainable in law [Paras 4, 16, 32].

Standard of Proof – Extra-Judicial Confession Requires Greater Scrutiny – Citing precedents including Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and Ramu Appa Mahapatar, court held that extra-judicial confession must be voluntary, reliable, and corroborated – These standards were not met in the present case – Confession not recorded in safe environment – No voluntary or corroborated statement [Paras 11–15, 30].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction Set Aside – Acquittal Ordered – The High Court found serious procedural lapses and gaps in evidence – Benefit of doubt extended to the accused – Conviction and sentence under Section 302/201 IPC set aside – Appellant directed to be released unless wanted in any other case [Para 33].

Income Tax – Section 14A Disallowance – Mandatory Recording of Satisfaction – Disallowance Deleted – The Assessing Officer disallowed ₹5,07,04,000 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D – Held: AO failed to record any dissatisfaction with assessee’s claim of no expenditure incurred in earning exempt income – In absence of proper satisfaction as mandated under Section 14A(2), invocation of Rule 8D not justified – Disallowance liable to be deleted [Paras 9–12].

Rule 8D – Precondition of AO’s Satisfaction – Procedural Safeguard – Not Optional – The court reiterated that Rule 8D can be invoked only after AO records dissatisfaction with assessee’s computation of expenditure – Satisfaction must be based on objective analysis, not merely a ritual formality – Lack of such satisfaction renders the disallowance unsustainable in law [Paras 9–11].

Precedent – Reliance on Supreme Court Judgment – Decision Followed – The Court relied on Supreme Court judgment in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT, (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) – Held: AO’s mechanical application of Rule 8D without recording reasons violates settled law [Para 11].

Decision – Disallowance under Section 14A Deleted – Appeal Allowed – The impugned order confirming disallowance set aside – Appeal of assessee allowed with no order as to costs [Para 13].

Civil Law - Succession – Scheduled Tribe – Application of Indian Succession Act – Appeal Dismissed – The appellants challenged judgments declaring the plaintiff/respondent as the successor to agricultural land formerly owned by Tulsabai (widow of Gamna), asserting absence of adoption and claiming title based on ancestral gift and possession – Held: No exemption under Section 3 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 was proved to exclude Bhil tribe – Therefore, succession rightly governed by Sections 24, 28, and 32 of the Act – Plaintiff, as nephew of deceased, was closest kindred entitled to succeed – Second appeal dismissed as no substantial question of law arose [Paras 13-21, 26-30].

Adoption – Custom Not Proved – Succession Upheld on Basis of Kindred – Plaintiff's adoption was not accepted by the courts below for lack of evidence – However, concurrent findings held him to be the nearest surviving relative of the deceased couple – Courts rightly relied on statutory succession principles rather than unproven adoption or custom – Adoption plea immaterial to final outcome [Paras 12-15, 21].

Customary Law – Inapplicability Due to Lack of Exemption – Hindu and Indian Succession Acts Apply – Appellants contended that Bhil tribe is governed by custom and not general succession laws – Court held that without notification under Section 3 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, no exemption applies – Indian Succession Act validly governs devolution of property – Appellants' reliance on Madhu Kishwar distinguished [Paras 18-19].

Mutation and Compensation – No Independent Right Created – Sale by Defendants Invalid – Mutation in favour of defendants and subsequent sale to State under Mahi Canal Project did not create valid title – Original sale deed from 1966 in favour of Gamna remained unchallenged – Courts rightly declared mutation and sale-deed null and void – Compensation declared payable to rightful heir i.e. plaintiff [Paras 5-8, 22-23].

Substantial Question of Law – Not Made Out – Concurrent Findings Not Interfered With – Appellants failed to show any perverse findings or misapplication of law – Legal issues raised regarding adoption, mutation, and compensation did not satisfy threshold under Section 100 CPC – Appeal dismissed in limine [Paras 13, 26-30].

Final Decision – Second Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arose – Plaintiff/respondent declared rightful successor and owner – Defendants’ mutation and sale of land declared invalid – Compensation awarded to plaintiff – Costs not imposed [Paras 29-30].

Bail – Modification of Conditions – Maintainability – Section 528 BNSS – Petition challenging onerous bail conditions restricting foreign travel and requiring deposit of passport – Respondents argued modification impermissible once bail granted – Held: Bail order interlocutory; conditions not final judgment; Court retains inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to alter conditions to secure ends of justice [Paras 12-16].

Right to Travel Abroad – Article 21 – Petitioner, business head engaged in international tyre trade, required frequent travel – Family and residence in India, no flight risk – Held: Right to travel abroad part of personal liberty; restrictions must be reasonable; conditions modified to balance liberty with fair trial [Paras 18-20, 23].

GST Offence – Bail Conditions – Regulation not Deletion – Court distinguished Barun Chandra Thakur and Aparna Purohit cases – Noted petitioner’s case involved GST evasion triable by Magistrate; not grave crimes like POCSO or conspiracy – Conditions for foreign travel regulated with affidavits, disclosures and additional security; not deleted [Paras 21-22, 24].

Modified Conditions – Passport & Travel – Condition requiring prior permission for each trip substituted with requirement to file affidavit before Trial Court disclosing travel details; prohibition on foreign travel after case fixed for final arguments – Passport deposit condition relaxed; passport to be returned – Additional security of Rs.5 lakhs directed [Para 24].

Decision – Application Allowed in Part – Bail conditions modified to regulate international travel and relax passport deposit requirement – Additional security imposed – Application disposed of [Paras 24-25].

Civil Law - Substitution of Legal Representative – Will Executed by Deceased Plaintiff – Order 22 Rule 3 CPC – Substitution Allowed – Original plaintiff Munni Devi filed suit for declaration and partition claiming 1/3rd share – After her death, petitioner (her son) filed substitution application based on a will executed by her in his favour – Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that other legal heirs named in the will were not impleaded – Held: A legatee under a will represents the estate of the deceased and is entitled to be substituted – No allegation of fraud or collusion was made by the respondents – Application wrongly rejected – Order of Trial Court set aside and petitioner directed to be impleaded as plaintiff [Paras 1–10].

Procedural Lapse by Trial Court – Failure to Declare Suit Abated – Judicial Criticism – Trial Court, while rejecting the substitution application, did not declare the suit abated despite no surviving plaintiff – Instead, the matter was posted for plaintiff’s evidence – Held: Such action reflects lack of basic procedural understanding – Presiding Officer requires training – Order to be forwarded to District Judge, Director of JOTRI, and Registrar General for appropriate action [Paras 12–13].

Final Decision – Misc. Petition allowed – Order dated 08/01/2025 in RCSA No. 233/2021 set aside – Petitioner to be substituted as plaintiff – Trial Court directed to proceed with the suit accordingly [Paras 10–11].

Civil Law - Rejection Of Plaint  - Order VII Rule 11 CPC  - Maintainability of Suit – Tenant Seeking Cancellation of Sale Deed – No Locus Standi – Plaintiff-tenant filed a suit seeking cancellation of a sale deed executed by landlord in favour of a third party, claiming peaceful possession since 2008 – Held: Tenant, not being the owner, cannot challenge the validity of the sale deed merely on the basis of possession – The plaint discloses no cause of action for cancellation of sale deed [Paras 10–14].

Rejection of Plaint – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Allegation of Illegal Transfer Not Sustainable – Trial court allowed defendants’ application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC rejecting the plaint – Held: As per Supreme Court ruling in Himalaya Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., a caretaker or tenant cannot claim ownership or challenge title based on long possession – The suit was rightly dismissed without trial as the plaint failed to disclose a maintainable cause [Paras 12–17].

Pending Litigation – Concealment of Facts – Effect on Maintainability – It was revealed that proceedings between parties were already pending before a Commercial Court and the tenant failed to disclose the same – Held: Material suppression of pending litigation coupled with lack of ownership disentitles plaintiff from equitable relief – Suit not maintainable [Paras 5–6, 12].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No Interference Warranted – Appellate court upheld trial court’s decision rejecting the plaint – Suit found to be barred by law and not maintainable – First Appeal dismissed, trial court judgment sustained [Paras 18–19].

Matrimonial Law – Adultery Allegations – Impleadment of Paramour – Privacy and Disclosure – Divorce Proceedings – Interlocutory Orders – Admissibility of Electronic Evidence – Right to Fair Trial – Family Court Powers

Impleadment of Paramour – Necessity in Divorce Proceedings – Order I Rule 10 CPC – Impleadment Upheld – The alleged paramour (R-2) challenged her impleadment in the divorce proceedings initiated by the wife on grounds of adultery – The Court held that impleadment of the person accused of adultery is both statutorily mandated and necessary to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice – Presence of specific averments regarding intimacy, travel, and association were found sufficient – Held: The impleadment was valid, and R-2’s application for deletion from array of parties was rightly dismissed [Paras 12-23].

Right to Privacy – Disclosure of CDRs and Tower Location – Section 151 CPC – Disclosure Directed with Safeguards – Alleged violations of privacy under Article 21 were raised against the Family Court’s direction to produce call detail records (CDRs) and tower location of the husband and R-2 – The Court held that such data is relevant circumstantial evidence in adultery cases – However, proportionality requires restriction of scope and strict confidentiality – Held: Disclosure upheld with direction to produce in sealed cover with confidentiality safeguards [Paras 24-33].

Document Discovery – Hotel Stays, Chats, and Travel Records – Order XI Rule 14 CPC – Partial Rejection Set Aside – The Family Court had rejected the wife’s prayer for production of certain documents (e.g., hotel bookings, WhatsApp/Facebook/Microsoft chats, FASTag records, travel details) terming it a “fishing enquiry” – The Court held that documents specifically mentioned and tied to pleaded facts (e.g., hotel stays) were admissible – Held: Rejection of documents at Serial Nos. (xvii) to (xxiv) set aside; production directed with safeguards [Paras 35-44].

Financial Disclosure – Bank and Investment Records – Order XI Rule 14 CPC – Partial Disclosure Upheld – The husband challenged the order directing him to disclose financial documents, contending that they were premature – The Court found that only relevant and specific documents were directed for production, and broader speculative disclosures had been rightly excluded – Held: Order allowing production of documents at Serial Nos. (i) to (viii), (x), (xii), and (xiii) sustained [Paras 45-51].

Final Decision – Appeals Disposed – Impugned Order Partly Modified – Impleadment of R-2 and disclosure of CDRs/tower location data upheld – Financial documents and hotel/travel records to be produced under confidentiality safeguards – All four appeals dismissed with modifications in discovery directions [Paras 52-54].

Civil Law – Ex-Parte Order Passed Without Service of Summons – Recalled Subject to Cost – The petitioner-defendant challenged an ex-parte order passed in a suit where no summons was served on him under Order 5 Rule 1 CPC – Despite entering appearance via caveat and participating in injunction proceedings, the court had not recorded his appearance or fixed a date for filing written statement – Held: Mere appearance in interim application does not imply waiver of formal summons – Ex-parte order against petitioner liable to be recalled [Paras 1, 7–10, 12–15].

Appearance via Caveat – Not Equivalent to Service of Summons – Order 5 Rule 1 Mandatory – The defendant had lodged a caveat under Section 148A CPC and appeared in the injunction proceedings – Held: In absence of a recorded appearance and fixed date for written statement, service of summons remains mandatory – Time limit for filing written statement cannot begin without such recording – High Court distinguished cases where service was waived voluntarily or by conduct [Paras 8–12, 15–16].

Doctrine of Waiver – Inapplicable When Court Fails to Fix Date for Written Statement – The trial court failed to fix a date for filing written statement or to treat appearance as effective under Order 5 – Held: Waiver must be explicit or inferred from conduct along with court direction – Absence of such record precludes implication of waiver – Trial court’s refusal to recall the ex-parte order was procedurally flawed [Paras 11, 15].

Delay Tactics vs Procedural Fairness – Negligence of Defendant Acknowledged but Court’s Role Also Criticised – Though the High Court noted the petitioner’s inaction and intent to delay proceedings, it held that procedural fairness required proper service and recording of appearance – The trial court erred by not issuing or recording summons before treating the defendant as ex-parte – Balance of procedural compliance and fairness maintained [Paras 13, 16].

Decision – Revisional Application Allowed – Ex-Parte Order Set Aside – Written Statement Permitted – High Court set aside the trial court’s order refusing recall – Directed petitioner to pay ₹25,000 as cost to the plaintiff and file written statement within 15 days – Failure to comply would entitle trial court to proceed ex-parte – Urgent certified copy permitted [Paras 17–19].