Civil Law - Specific Relief – Restoration of Possession – Possession Proven – Ownership Irrelevant – Trial Court rightly decreed suit under Section 6 where plaintiffs (widow and children of deceased son) proved possession and illegal dispossession – Held: Title is immaterial under Section 6 – Possession alone suffices, and oral family settlement defence lacked credibility [Paras 5–7, 24–27].

Dispossession – Family Property Dispute – Oral Settlement Not Accepted – Alleged voluntary handover of possession by plaintiff pursuant to oral settlement held improbable – Court observed that history of prolonged litigation between parties rendered such claim untenable – Oral version unsupported by written proof or actions (e.g. appeal withdrawal) [Paras 17–25].

Date of Dispossession – Precise Date Not Fatal – Suit Within Limitation – Plaintiff’s slight discrepancy in date (August vs. September 2021) immaterial as suit was filed within 6 months – Held: Substantial compliance with Section 6(2); technical objections rejected [Paras 15, 26].

Jurisdiction – Limited Interference in Revision – No Jurisdictional Error – Held: Trial Court applied correct legal principles, appreciated evidence properly – No perversity or jurisdictional infirmity found – Revision jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC not attracted [Paras 27–29].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Possession of plaintiffs restored – Trial Court’s decree upheld – No jurisdictional error or perversity found warranting interference under Section 115 CPC [Para 29].
 

Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 302 IPC Modified to 304 Part II IPC – Sentence Reduced – Appellant Jage Ram, aged 77 at the time of the incident, was convicted for causing a fatal lathi blow on the head of the deceased—High Court held: The occurrence was sudden, and the appellant used a lathi, a non-lethal weapon—Considering his advanced age and absence of repeated blows, conviction modified to Section 304 Part II IPC—Sentence reduced to 5 years RI [Paras 42-43].

Common Intention and Unlawful Assembly – Section 149 IPC – Acquittal of Co-Accused Weakens Prosecution Case – Co-accused Rajesh was acquitted due to inconsistencies in witness statements—Prosecution failed to establish that all accused acted with common intention—Held: With some accused acquitted and others found guilty of lesser offences, Section 149 IPC could not be sustained against all accused—Convictions under Section 302/149 IPC set aside for Shree and Ram Bhaj [Paras 40-41].

Evidentiary Discrepancies – Inconsistent Witness Testimonies – Partial Disbelief of Prosecution Case – Prosecution’s key witness (PW4) changed his version regarding which accused inflicted the fatal injury—PW5’s testimony about the attack inside the house was held unreliable as he witnessed the incident from a rooftop—Held: Prosecution case partially disbelieved, requiring independent corroboration, which was absent—Rajesh acquitted on benefit of doubt [Paras 38-39].

Sentencing Considerations – Age and Nature of Offence – Reformative Approach Taken – Jage Ram, over 100 years old at the time of the High Court’s decision, was given a reduced sentence of 5 years RI—Shree and Ram Bhaj, convicted under Section 323 IPC for causing simple injuries, had already served 1 year 8 months and 2 years 4 days respectively—Sentence reduced to time already served [Paras 42-44].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Jage Ram’s conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to 304 Part II IPC with a sentence of 5 years RI – Rajesh acquitted – Shree and Ram Bhaj convicted only under Section 323 IPC with sentences reduced to time served – Other convictions and fines maintained [Para 44].
 

Service Law – Judicial Officers – Discharge from Service – Challenge to Termination – Petitioners, who were appointed as Civil Judges (Junior Division) in 2013, were discharged from service under Rule 24(4) of the U.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2001 – The discharge order was based on a Full Court resolution after an inquiry into an altercation involving probationers during training – Petitioners contended that the order, though couched as simpliciter, was punitive in nature and violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution – Held: The termination, though worded as simpliciter, was based solely on misconduct alleged in an inquiry report, making it punitive in nature – The order was quashed, and reinstatement with consequential benefits was directed [Paras 4, 10, 12, 14, 22, 43, 54].

Probationary Judicial Officers – Scope of Discharge – Lifting the Veil – Petitioners argued that their termination was not based on an overall assessment of suitability but only on a single incident of altercation during training – Inquiry report dated 12.09.2014, which formed the basis of termination, attributed misconduct to the petitioners without affording them an opportunity to be heard – Court applied the doctrine of "lifting the veil" to examine whether misconduct was the foundation of termination – Held: Termination based on misconduct required adherence to principles of natural justice, and mere labeling of an order as "simpliciter discharge" would not suffice where misconduct is the basis [Paras 38, 41, 43, 48, 51].

Natural Justice – Right to Hearing – Article 311(2) of the Constitution – Petitioners contended that they were denied an opportunity to defend themselves before being discharged – Inquiry report was relied upon without furnishing a copy to the petitioners or allowing them to rebut findings – Held: Discharge orders were punitive and violative of Article 311(2), as petitioners were removed on grounds of misconduct without inquiry – Order of discharge set aside, and reinstatement directed with full benefits [Paras 22, 42, 45, 49, 52].

Judicial Officers – Higher Standard of Conduct – Discretion of Full Court – Respondents argued that judicial officers are held to a higher standard of conduct, and even a single incident of misconduct during probation could justify discharge – Full Court has discretion to assess suitability for confirmation – Held: While high standards of conduct are expected, termination must still conform to legal principles, including natural justice – Full Court’s resolution failed to consider overall performance and was based solely on an isolated incident, rendering the termination unsustainable [Paras 29, 31, 32, 55, 56].

Decision – Discharge Orders Quashed – Reinstatement Ordered – Petition allowed – Discharge orders set aside – Petitioners reinstated with all consequential benefits – Held: Misconduct was the foundation of termination, requiring inquiry and due process, which was not followed [Paras 57, 59].

Motor Accident Claim – Compensation for Widow Despite Remarriage – Legal Entitlement Recognized – The Tribunal had denied compensation to the widow of the deceased on the ground of her remarriage with the deceased’s younger brother – The High Court held that remarriage does not disqualify a widow from compensation for the loss suffered due to her husband’s death – Reference made to Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni & Ors., FAO-2917 of 2014 (P&H), which recognized the widow’s right to claim compensation despite remarriage – Held: Widow entitled to compensation along with other dependents [Paras 6, 22].

Enhancement of Compensation – Correct Multiplier Applied – Future Prospects Considered – The Tribunal erroneously applied a multiplier of 8 instead of 17, considering the deceased’s age as 28 years – The High Court applied the correct multiplier of 17 as per Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 – Future prospects of 50% were added in accordance with Pranay Sethi – Loss of estate, consortium, and funeral expenses were also revised – Held: Compensation enhanced from ₹2,68,000 to ₹19,06,248 with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition [Paras 7, 10, 23-24].

Consortium – Each Dependent Entitled to Separate Award – Following Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, the court recognized spousal, parental, and filial consortium – Compensation of ₹48,000 awarded to the widow (spousal consortium) and ₹48,000 each to the parents (filial consortium) – Held: Consortium to be awarded individually to each claimant, not as a lump sum [Paras 11-12, 19].

Interest on Enhanced Compensation – 9% Per Annum Granted – The Tribunal had awarded interest at 6% per annum – The High Court increased it to 9% per annum, following Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara v. Shyam Singh Varma, 2019 ACJ 3176 – Held: Enhanced compensation payable with 9% interest from the date of claim petition till realization [Para 24].

Decision: The appeal is allowed. The compensation is enhanced to ₹19,06,248, payable with 9% interest per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. The widow is held entitled to compensation despite her remarriage, and consortium is awarded individually to each claimant. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within two months.
 

Murder Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – Identity of Body Unproven – Acquittal Upheld – Trial Court acquitted respondents citing prosecution’s failure to establish identity of the deceased through DNA or credible testimony – Postmortem report relied solely on name mentioned in inquest – No direct evidence linking accused to crime – Acquittal not found perverse [Paras 3–4, 16–17].

Motive – Alleged Illicit Relationship – No Corroborative Proof – Mobile Call Detail Records Not Backed by 65B Certificate – Prosecution relied on CDRs to show frequent communication between accused and deceased’s wife – Court held that without proof of content or Section 65B compliance, motive remained speculative – Relationship as motive not proved beyond doubt [Paras 4, 16].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Presumption of Innocence Reinforced – High Threshold for Interference – Court cited binding precedents (Sharad Goswami, Shera Ram, Kali Ram) to reiterate limited scope in government appeals against acquittal – Interference only justified where trial court’s findings are perverse or wholly untenable – None found here [Paras 8–15].

Reasonable Doubt – Benefit to Accused – Standard Reaffirmed – Court emphasized that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof – When two views are possible, view favouring accused must prevail – Trial court's view deemed plausible on facts and evidence [Paras 14–15, 23].

Decision: Leave to appeal dismissed – Government appeal rejected – Trial court’s well-reasoned acquittal found sustainable – No perversity or legal error warranting interference [Paras 17–18].
 

Civil Procedure – Summary Judgment – Rejection of Application – Order XIII-A CPC – Requirement of No Real Prospect of Defense – Delhi High Court judgments relied upon – Summary judgment can be granted where there is no real prospect of success or defense – Court must ensure just disposal without unnecessary trial – Court held that since the issue of limitation required oral evidence, summary judgment was not appropriate [Paras 46-49, 92-94].
Pledged Shares – Fiduciary Obligation of the Bank – Shares initially pledged for overdraft facility – Plaintiff settled dues under a One-Time Settlement (OTS) and obtained a No Dues Certificate – Defendant failed to return shares – Defendant claimed shares were pledged for additional dues related to share trading transactions – Held: Since prior arbitration and court decisions rejected the claim that shares were pledged for share trading dues, defendant could not raise the same argument again [Paras 23-25, 60-63].
Res Judicata – Issue Estoppel – Defendant’s defense regarding pledge of shares previously adjudicated – Arbitration Tribunal, Bombay Stock Exchange Appellate Tribunal, Bombay High Court, and Supreme Court all ruled that there was no evidence supporting Defendant’s claim that the shares were pledged for share trading dues – Held: Defendant estopped from raising the same issue again [Paras 61-69].
Limitation – Section 14 of the Limitation Act – Exclusion of Time Spent in Bona Fide Litigation – Plaintiff diligently pursued proceedings before the National Consumer Commission and Supreme Court – Proceedings dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, but liberty granted to approach the appropriate forum – Held: Plaintiff must establish through oral evidence that the earlier proceedings were pursued in good faith and with due diligence for the benefit of Section 14 to apply [Paras 50-58, 97-103].
Limitation – Section 10 of the Limitation Act – Breach of Fiduciary Duty – Bank acted as trustee for pledged shares – Failure to return shares upon fulfillment of OTS – Held: Where property is held in trust, no limitation applies under Section 10 of the Limitation Act – However, Plaintiff still required to lead evidence [Para 60].
Court’s Decision – Summary Judgment Denied – Defendant’s defense of limitation required oral evidence – Plaintiff needed to prove good faith under Section 14 – Summary judgment not appropriate under Order XIII-A CPC – Case to proceed to trial [Paras 88-90, 103-108].
 

Murder – Common Intention – Section 149 IPC – Conviction Upheld – The appellants were part of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons—The deceased was attacked with swords, gandasis, and datars, sustaining fatal injuries—The High Court held that the attack was premeditated and all accused shared a common intention—Held: Conviction of Ajit Singh, Baljit Singh, Baldish Singh, and Balbir Singh under Section 302 IPC upheld [Paras 19-20, 29].

Acquittal of Co-Accused – Contradictory Evidence – Jagtar Singh Acquitted – Jagtar Singh was convicted for causing head injuries to Chain Singh, but medical records indicated only one injury instead of three attributed to different accused—Complainant and other witnesses gave inconsistent testimonies—Held: Benefit of doubt given—Conviction of Jagtar Singh set aside [Paras 25-26].

Eye-Witness Testimony – Medical Evidence Corroboration – Reliability of Prosecution Case – The complainant and another injured eye-witness consistently deposed against the accused—Their testimonies were corroborated by medical evidence, post-mortem reports, and forensic findings—Held: Prosecution version found credible—No infirmity in the trial court’s findings [Paras 20-22].

Self-Defence Plea – Rejected Due to Lack of Supporting Evidence – The accused claimed that the complainant’s party had initiated the attack and the injuries to the deceased were accidental—However, no substantial evidence was presented to support this claim—Held: Defence plea rejected—Conviction sustained [Para 28].

Recovery of Weapons – FSL Report Supporting Prosecution Case – The accused led to the recovery of blood-stained weapons—FSL reports confirmed the presence of human blood—Held: Recovery corroborated the prosecution’s version and lent further credibility to the case against the convicted appellants [Para 27].

Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction of Four Accused Upheld – One Acquitted – The High Court dismissed the appeals of Ajit Singh, Baljit Singh, Baldish Singh, and Balbir Singh—Conviction and sentence upheld—Jagtar Singh acquitted due to inconsistencies in evidence—Criminal revision dismissed as findings on acquittal were not interfered with [Para 29].
 

Civil Writ - Education – Provisional Selection – Right to Admission – A student was provisionally selected for admission to Class VI but later denied admission due to an age eligibility issue, despite official notices not being specifically addressed to her guardian – Held: The selection process was flawed due to omissions by school authorities – Student should not suffer for administrative lapses – Extraordinary writ jurisdiction exercised to grant admission as a special case [Paras 5-6].

Administrative Lapses – Failure to Verify Eligibility – The school authorities failed to verify the student's date of birth before including her in the selection list – A general notice was issued for corrections, but no individual intimation was given to the guardian – Held: The failure to ensure due diligence cannot be used to deny admission after issuance of a selection notice – Admission directed [Paras 4-6].

Extraordinary Writ Jurisdiction – Judicial Intervention in Administrative Decisions – The court exercised its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to rectify an unfair situation where the student, based on school authorities’ assurances, had already obtained a Transfer Certificate (TC) from her previous school – Held: Courts can intervene in exceptional cases to prevent injustice, without setting a precedent affecting general admission policies [Paras 6-7].

Final Decision – Appeal dismissed – Admission granted to the student in Class VI for the next academic year to prevent further academic loss – No interference with general age eligibility policy, as this case is treated as an exception based on its peculiar facts [Paras 7-8].

Family Law – Divorce Petition – Territorial Jurisdiction – Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act – The wife objected to the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Cuttack, stating that the couple last resided together in June 2017, whereas the husband filed for divorce in February 2019 when he was no longer residing in Cuttack – Held: The plea of lack of jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity – Since the wife raised the objection belatedly, after five years and after recording of evidence had commenced, the objection was deemed waived – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 5-8].

Civil Procedure – Objection to Jurisdiction – Waiver – Section 21 of CPC – The petitioner failed to object to jurisdiction at the initial stage and instead participated in proceedings for five years – Held: An objection to territorial jurisdiction can be waived, expressly or impliedly, by conduct – Raising it after substantial proceedings amounts to an implied waiver – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 7-8].

Judicial Precedents – Timing of Jurisdictional Challenge – The Court referred to Hawkins Cookers Ltd. v. Jagannath Traders, 2013 (Supp.-1) OLR 73, and G. Ayyappan Pillai v. State of Kerala, 2010 (28) VST 411 (Kerala), to affirm that objections to territorial jurisdiction should be raised at the earliest – Held: Raising such objections belatedly, after trial proceedings have commenced, is impermissible [Paras 6-7].

Final Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Objection to jurisdiction held inconsequential due to delay – Petitioner not precluded from filing a fresh petition in the appropriate forum if required [Paras 8-9].