Civil Law - Sections 54, 58 and 60 of the Transfer of Property Act - Transfer of Property – Conditional Sale vs. Mortgage by Conditional Sale – Deed Interpreted as Absolute Sale – Deed dated 24.03.1953 executed by Bibi Akikul Nisa was challenged as a mortgage with right of redemption – Trial court and appellate court held deed to be an absolute sale with right to repurchase within five years – Patna High Court upheld this view – Held: Clear recital showed title transfer with no debtor-creditor relationship; no ambiguity to justify inference of mortgage – Redemption suit not maintainable [Paras 3–9, 23–25, 38–43].

Document Construction – Single Document with Repurchase Clause – Not Sufficient for Mortgage – Court noted that presence of repurchase clause alone does not convert a sale into a mortgage – Absence of express mortgage language and exclusive reliance on one deed construed as sale with conditional buyback – Supposition under Section 58(c) rebutted – Key test: intention from the deed itself and absence of ambiguity [Paras 25, 34–35].

Title and Possession – Right to Mutation and Tax Payment Granted – Strong Indicator of Sale – Deed allowed purchaser to mutate name in municipal records and pay taxes – Found incompatible with a mortgage relationship – Held: Mortgagors do not part with right to mutation or relinquish future claims outright – Execution of prior 1950 mortgage deed followed by 1953 deed with higher consideration supported sale intention [Paras 38–39].

Inadequacy of Consideration – Not a Sufficient Test – Plaintiffs claimed inadequacy of sale price indicated mortgage – Court disagreed – Noted upward revision from 1950 mortgage value of ₹3200 to ₹7337 in 1953 justified sale consideration – Emphasized absence of interest and unrestricted possession by purchaser supported outright sale [Paras 11–13, 39].

Oral Evidence – Not Relevant for Clear Deed – Appellants challenged lower courts' rejection of oral evidence – High Court held oral testimony immaterial where deed terms are unambiguous – No fault found in courts’ decision to prioritize documentary terms over oral versions – Order XLI Rule 31 CPC obligations deemed fulfilled [Paras 10, 16, 33].

Precedent Analysis – Distinction from Chunchun Jha Line of Cases – Appellants relied on Chunchun Jha and Srinivasaiah to claim mortgage – Court distinguished based on factual context – Relied instead on Bhoju Mandal and Prakash to hold that document conveyed absolute sale – Held: Each case to be decided on its own terms; surrounding circumstances support sale [Paras 25–32, 41].

Decision – Second Appeal dismissed – Document of 1953 declared a sale deed with option of repurchase and not a mortgage – Findings of lower courts upheld – No error in concurrent findings – Suit for redemption not maintainable [Paras 42–44].

Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Section 304B, 498A, 302, 201 of the IPC – Appeal Against Acquittal - Presumption under Section 113B – Not Attracted – Presumption Rejected - Marriage of the deceased was within 7 years, but prosecution failed to prove cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand – Testimonies of family members lacked consistency, specificity, and corroboration – No direct evidence linking accused to dowry demands – Held: Provisions of Section 113B not applicable, presumption for dowry death not raised [Paras 7–14].

Cruelty – Insufficient Evidence under Section 498A IPC – Acquittal Upheld - Allegations of cruelty primarily directed at in-laws and not the husband – Contradictions in testimonies and absence of independent corroboration weakened prosecution’s case – Held: No sufficient evidence to sustain conviction under Section 498A IPC [Paras 7–10].

Murder Allegation – Circumstantial Evidence – Benefit of Doubt - Prosecution relied on conduct of husband and discovery of weapon – Medical expert could not conclusively confirm homicidal nature of injuries – Injuries possibly from fall in vehicular accident – Held: Circumstantial evidence inconclusive, no unbroken chain of guilt established – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 16–20].

Section 106 Evidence Act – Limited Applicability – Explanation Not Sufficient to Prove Guilt - Prosecution invoked Section 106 to demand explanation from husband last seen with deceased – Court reiterated that burden remains on prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Failure of accused to explain does not dispense with prosecution’s duty to prove case [Paras 20].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope under Section 378 CrPC – No Interference Warranted - Trial Court’s view held to be plausible and based on appreciation of evidence – No perversity found in acquittal – Held: High Court will not interfere with acquittal unless judgment is manifestly erroneous – Appeal dismissed [Paras 21].

Civil Writ - Employment Law - Assistant Teacher Recruitment – Judicial Review of Answer Key – Limited Scope – Petitions Dismissed – Petitioners alleged erroneous evaluation and incorrect answers in ATRE-2018 and sought rectification – Held: Judicial review in academic matters is restricted to rare and exceptional cases with demonstrable, patent error – Courts must defer to the opinion of expert committees unless answers are clearly incorrect on the face of record – Majority of petitions dismissed for failure to meet qualifying marks even upon re-evaluation [Paras 2–6, 9–11, 12–13].

Evaluation Criteria – Minor Grammatical or Unit Errors – No Interference Where Substantive Answer is Incorrect – Petitioners contended that omission of units such as 'Rs.' or 'cm²' unfairly led to denial of marks – Held: Omission may be condonable in general language-based questions but not in scientific or mathematical subjects where units determine correctness – No relief where substantive answer failed evaluation standards [Paras 4, 5, 14–16].

Answer Key Disputes – Deference to Experts – Courts Not to Act as Academic Authorities – Petitioners questioned the correctness of several model answers – Held: As per law laid down by the Supreme Court, correctness of model answers certified by subject experts cannot be interfered with unless patently wrong – In absence of blatant error, Court declined to interfere [Paras 12–13].

Relief Limited to Potential Qualifiers – Cut-off Applied as Filter – Only those petitioners who, upon allowing their objections, could cross the qualifying marks (General: 67, SC: 60) were considered on merits – Rest of the petitions dismissed without detailed examination as academic exercise [Paras 9–11].

Re-evaluation Direction – Examination Authority to Verify Three Petitioners’ Claims – In three cases, petitioners potentially qualified upon rectification of answers – Held: Examination Regulatory Authority directed to re-examine answer scripts and update marks, subject to vacancy availability and verification [Para 16, Conclusion].

Civil Law - Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2 and Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Mandatory Injunction - Possession and Encroachment – Longstanding Possession – Plaintiff’s Access Blocked – Possession Protected - Plaintiff, in settled possession of Plot No. D-1 since 1998, was dispossessed of 92 sq. yds. by defendant’s unilateral demolition of the boundary wall in April 2022 – Held: Such action amounts to unlawful dispossession – Mandatory injunction granted for restoration of original boundary and access [Paras 9–13, 29–32, 56–59].

Layout Plan Validity – Unauthorized Colony – Binding Effect of RWA-submitted Plan – Encroachment Unjustified – Colony's layout submitted in 2010 to GNCTD identified plaintiff’s and defendant’s plots distinctly – Defendant no. 1’s acquisition and actions contravened the certified layout – Held: Layout plan binding on all plot holders; unilateral changes not permissible [Paras 13–15, 26–28, 43–50].

Sale Deed Ambiguity – Deficiency in Description – Sale Deeds Invalid under Registration Act – Defendant’s Title Weak – Sale deeds executed in 2021 by defendant failed to describe plot boundaries or attach a site plan – Violation of Section 21 of the Registration Act, 1908 – Held: Defendant’s reliance on vague sale deed rejected [Paras 21–25].

Urbanisation and Jurisdiction – Mehrauli Not Under Revenue Authorities – SDM Demarcation Invalid – Mehrauli urbanised under DMC Act, 1957 – Held: Revenue demarcation dated 01.08.2022 illegal, SDM lacked jurisdiction over subject land post-urbanisation – Layout plan governs property identification [Paras 42–44].

Title Challenge by Defendant – Plaintiff’s Deed Partially Valid – Challenge Does Not Defeat Possession – Defendant questioned plaintiff’s title due to prior alienation – Held: Even if partial title defective, co-owner (husband of vendor) must bear consequences, plaintiff’s share unaffected – Encroachment cannot be justified on title dispute [Paras 35–38].

Access Rights – Land-Locking – Alternate Access Not Justified – Defendant claimed plaintiff could access land via co-owner’s plot – Held: Each plot entitled to independent access – Blocking ingress from Mata Marg unacceptable – Access restored [Paras 16, 46].

Mandatory Injunction – Restoration of Status Quo – Strong Prima Facie Case – Plaintiff shown to have strong case, irreversible harm from blocked entry – Held: Restoration of original wall and access ordered – Police protection granted for execution [Paras 51–55, 59–61].

Decision: Suit – Mandatory Injunction – Restoration Ordered – Status Quo Ante Directed - Court held that the plaintiff had been in settled possession of Plot No. D-1 since 1998 and was unlawfully dispossessed of 92 sq. yds. by the defendants in April 2022 – Ordered demolition of the new wall constructed by defendants and restoration of the original boundary wall and access to internal road (Mata Marg) – Defendant restrained from further altering or disturbing the property – Court appointed a Local Commissioner and directed police protection for enforcement of the order [Paras 59–61].

Service Law – Lokayukta Enquiry – Preliminary Memorandum Issued by Deputy Registrar – Not Invalid – Petitioner challenged departmental enquiry alleging procedural illegality under Section 9(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, contending only Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayukta could issue preliminary notice—Held: Though issued by Deputy Registrar, it was under Upa-Lokayukta’s direction—Lack of direct challenge to 2018 memorandum fatal to plea—Writ dismissed [Paras 7–11, 45–47].

Property Mutation – Gift Deed Dispute – Civil Nature – Not a Bar to Disciplinary Proceedings – Petitioner accused of tampering with municipal property register to change site number and facilitate transfer to husband—Civil suit regarding ownership pending—Held: Pendency of civil suit does not bar disciplinary action based on misuse of official position—Departmental proceedings independent of title dispute [Paras 3–6, 12–13, 27–28].

Government Procedure – Compliance with Transaction of Business Rules – Substantial Compliance Sufficient – Petitioner argued entrustment and show cause notice violated Rules 18 & 19 by not being issued in Governor’s name—Held: Entrustment order was issued “by order and in the name of the Governor” and signed by competent authority—Substantial compliance upheld—Challenge meritless [Paras 17–18, 34–36].

Delay and Participation – Acquiescence to Proceedings Bars Belated Challenge – Petitioner participated in departmental enquiry without protest, sought time for reply to show cause notice—Held: Challenge to process belated and barred by acquiescence—Court declined to interfere at final stage [Paras 9, 46–48].

Natural Justice – Sufficient Opportunity Given – No Prejudice Demonstrated – Petitioner failed to demonstrate breach of natural justice or denial of opportunity—Court found full participation in proceedings—Held: No grounds to interfere under Articles 226 or 227 [Paras 42–44].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Departmental enquiry upheld – Show cause notice and entrustment order found valid – No costs awarded [Final Para].

Civil Suit – Recovery Based on Ledger – Acknowledgment of Debt – Plaintiff claimed ₹1,06,569/- including principal and interest for unpaid amounts related to apple crop material—Defendant signed ledger acknowledging ₹77,504/-—Held: Concurrent findings by trial and appellate courts supported by evidence—Signature on ledger not disputed during cross-examination—Appeal dismissed [Paras 1–3, 5–8].

Pleading and Evidence – Signature Not Denied – Inference of Admission – Defendant alleged signatures obtained under pretext of cooperative bank resolution, but never denied signing the ledger—No explanation for non-response to legal notice—Held: Conduct of defendant indicated tacit admission—Courts rightly accepted plaintiff’s claim [Paras 4–7].

Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings – No Perversity – Appellate court affirmed decree of ₹77,504/- with 6% interest—High Court found no illegality or perversity—Held: No interference warranted under Section 100 CPC—Substantial question answered against appellant [Paras 9–11].

Money Lending Act – No Bar on Recovery – Defendant pleaded that plaintiff lacked license under Money Lending Act—Held: Not substantiated—Claim was based on goods and services exchanged, not a money lending transaction per se—No bar to decree [Para 3].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of trial and first appellate court affirmed – No costs awarded – Decree to be prepared accordingly [Para 11].

Civil Law - Res Judicata – Declaration And Injunction Over Ancestral Property - Previous Suit Involving Same Parties and Property – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff-appellants filed suit claiming coparcenary rights over 1/5th share of land through inheritance from Satnam Singh – Defendants contended suit barred by res judicata due to prior litigation involving same dispute and parties – High Court upheld findings of both courts below that earlier suit filed by legal representatives of Amar Singh (including present plaintiffs) had been dismissed finally – Held: Re-litigation on same grounds not maintainable [Paras 3, 6, 10].

Coparcenary Property – No Evidence of Joint Hindu Family Ownership – Concurrent Findings Affirmed – Plaintiffs failed to prove that the property was ancestral or part of joint Hindu family – Courts below found Satnam Singh had executed valid transfer deed during lifetime – High Court noted complete absence of material to establish coparcenary status – Mere assertion insufficient to rebut registered conveyance [Paras 2, 7, 10].

Unsoundness of Mind – No Proof to Invalidate Deed – Claim Rejected – Plaintiffs alleged Satnam Singh was of unsound mind and incapable of executing document – No medical or legal evidence produced to support this claim – Deed held validly executed and registered – Allegation of forgery or incapacity held baseless [Paras 2, 3].

Substantial Question of Law – None Arises – Appeal Not Maintainable – High Court held that no substantial question of law was raised or established – Findings of fact by both courts conclusive and consistent – Appeal dismissed as meritless [Paras 10–11].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – No Question of Law – Regular second appeal found devoid of merit – Dismissed with pending applications disposed of – No interference warranted [Para 11].

Service Law - Disability Pension – Injury Sustained During Active Service – Entitlement Under CCS (EOP) Rules – Lump Sum Compensation Awarded - The petitioner, a retired BSF Sub-Inspector, sought disability pension for a gunshot wound sustained in active duty in 1993 resulting in permanent disability of 30% – The injury was acknowledged as attributable to service by the Medical Board – Held: Though not invalidated from service, petitioner is entitled to lump sum compensation in lieu of disability pension under Rule 9(3) of CCS (EOP) Rules [Paras 1, 3, 6, 28-31].

Delay and Laches – Continuing Cause of Action – Pensionary Claims – Not Time-Barred - Respondents opposed the petition on grounds of delay, as it was filed 14 years post-superannuation – Held: Delay not fatal since pension claims are continuing in nature and do not impact third-party rights – Relief granted despite lapse of time [Paras 20-22].

Legal Entitlement – Causal Connection to Service – Rule 3-A of CCS (EOP) Rules – Disability Attributable to Government Service - The gunshot injury suffered during anti-militancy operations in J&K was clearly attributable to service – Petitioner was recommended for gallantry medal – Held: Injury satisfies criteria under Rule 3-A for attributability and entitlement to compensation [Paras 5, 24-26].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Compensation with Interest Directed - Court held that petitioner is entitled to lump sum compensation in lieu of disability pension – Directed respondents to compute and release the compensation with 6% interest within 3 months [Paras 31-33].

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice – Conflict of Jurisdiction – JJ Act Overrides NIA Act – Trial by Children’s Court – Juvenile charged under UAPA and other severe laws—Despite being tried as adult under Section 18(3) JJ Act, Court held: JJ Act, 2015 has overriding effect over all laws including NIA Act—Trial must proceed before Children’s Court, not Special NIA Court—Section 1(4) JJ Act is broad and unambiguous [Paras 10–11, 19–26].

Statutory Interpretation – Non-Obstante Clause – Later and Specific Law Prevails – Section 1(4) JJ Act overrides all conflicting statutes—In contrast, Section 13 NIA Act overrides only CrPC—Court relied on principles of statutory construction and later-in-time doctrine to affirm that JJ Act governs juvenile cases exclusively [Paras 12–17, 21–24].

Human Rights – Juvenile Protection – Purpose of JJ Legislation Emphasized – Court reiterated that JJ Act is beneficial and remedial in nature—Intended to protect children’s dignity and promote reintegration—Trial of juvenile under NIA would defeat purpose—Only Children’s Court has jurisdiction under such circumstances [Paras 6–9, 25].

Decision – Reference answered – Trial of juvenile under UAPA to be conducted by Children’s Court as per Section 18(3) JJ Act – Not by Special Court under NIA Act – MCrC disposed accordingly [Paras 26–28].