Succession – Challenge to Will – Thumb Impression Found Forged – Plaintiff (natural heir) challenged a Will dated 08.08.1985 allegedly executed by deceased mother Smt. Shanti Devi in favour of three sons – First appellate court allowed production of handwriting expert's report under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Expert opined that thumb impression on Will did not match authenticated standard impressions – Defendants led no rebuttal evidence – Held: Will not duly executed – Mutation based on Will is void – Property to devolve equally among all eight children [Paras 7, 8.1, 11–14, 16–17]

Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Non-Registration – False Recitals – Scribe Lacked Experience – Will written by an unknown scribe who had never authored a document before – False recitals about earlier allotment of property to other heirs – Will was not registered despite testator living two months after execution – Held: Surrounding circumstances not satisfactorily explained – Will rightly disbelieved by first appellate court [Paras 8.2, 13–14]

Evidence Law – Opinion of Handwriting Expert – Thumb Impressions from Judicial File – Standard thumb impressions taken from earlier civil suit file authenticated by court – Expert’s unrebutted testimony held reliable – Held: When no rebuttal is offered and document’s foundation is falsified, Will cannot be upheld [Paras 7, 12]

Relinquishment – No Registered Instrument – Deemed Relinquishment Unsustainable – First appellate court erroneously held that respondents 5 to 7, by supporting Will, relinquished their share – Held: Relinquishment of share in immovable property must be through registered instrument or valid family settlement – No such evidence presented – All heirs entitled to equal share under succession law [Paras 15–17]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Will dated 08.08.1985 and Mutation No.1648 dated 23.07.1986 declared invalid – Finding of deemed relinquishment by defendants 5 to 7 set aside – All eight children of deceased to inherit suit property equally (1/8th share each) – First appellate court’s decree modified accordingly – No costs [Paras 16–18]

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal – Appellants convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act for alleged brutal killing of a woman – Trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment – High Court found serious discrepancies in prosecution evidence – FIR silent on gunshot injuries – Medical report shows death by gunshot, but no bullet was recovered and ballistic report was not sought – Contradictions between statements under Sections 161, 164 Cr.P.C and deposition in court by PW2 and PW3 (minor children of deceased) – Inconsistent ocular and medical evidence – Trial court failed to appreciate lack of corroboration and major procedural lapses – Held: Conviction unsustainable, prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt extended to accused [Paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35].

Evidence – Child Witness – Reliability – PW2 and PW3, son and daughter of the deceased, were key eye-witnesses – Their deposition before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C and before the trial court materially contradictory – PW2 claimed shooting as cause of death under Section 164 Cr.P.C., later stated sharp cutting weapons used – PW3 did not state gunshot injury in initial statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C – Medical evidence showed only gunshot wound, no sharp weapon injuries – Evidence of child witnesses not found wholly reliable – No corroboration from other local witnesses – Held: In absence of corroboration, contradictory statements from child witnesses weaken prosecution case [Paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 32].

Criminal Procedure – FIR – Delay – FIR lodged by deceased’s sister only after verifying facts and visiting hospital – Delay in lodging FIR held explained – However, three-day delay in forwarding FIR to Magistrate remained unexplained – Held: Delay in forwarding FIR to court assumes significance in view of discrepancies in eyewitness accounts and possibility of embellishment – FIR appears to be post-deliberation document [Paras 3, 31, 32].

Criminal Procedure – Investigation Lapses – Arms recovered not connected to incident – Recovered in another case and improperly tagged with the present case – No forensic examination to link bullet injury with seized arms – No ballistic expert report obtained – Held: Failure to obtain ballistic opinion and improper arms recovery fatally affect prosecution’s credibility – No clear evidence on who fired fatal shot – Trial court failed to evaluate lapses [Paras 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 32, 33].

Medical Jurisprudence – Ocular vs Medical Evidence – Medical report confirmed death by gunshot, but no exit wound or bullet recovered – FIR did not mention gunshot injury – Eye-witnesses’ version included sharp cutting weapons, which was medically ruled out – Contradictions between medical and ocular evidence not resolved – Held: Medical evidence contradicted eye-witnesses’ version, further undermining prosecution case [Paras 6, 7, 9, 32, 33].

Judicial Precedents – Application – High Court relied upon multiple Supreme Court rulings – Jagdish v. State of Haryana, Ram Singh v. State of U.P., Siba Nial v. State of Odisha, Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, K. Venkateshwarlu v. State of A.P., among others – Held: Where child witnesses are unreliable, ballistic reports are missing, and ocular evidence inconsistent, conviction cannot be sustained – Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Trial court misapplied principles and ignored crucial discrepancies [Paras 10–30].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act set aside – All nine appellants acquitted – Ordered to be released immediately if not wanted in any other case [Paras 34, 35, 36, 37].

Criminal Law – Revisional Powers – Cognizance Based on Additional Documents – Revisional court accepted additional documents not forming part of the police investigation while setting aside the Magistrate’s rejection of protest petition – Held: Revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction in relying on material outside the investigation record – Magistrate can consider only the final report and materials collected during investigation [Paras 1, 6, 7].

Criminal Procedure – Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. – Relevance and Effect – Statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was not recorded despite issuance of notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. – Held: Non-recording of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not fatal – Victim failed to appear despite repeated notices – Absence of statement does not vitiate the investigation [Paras 4, 5, 7].

Criminal Procedure – Parallel Proceedings – Maintainability of 482 Petition – Victim filed revision against rejection of protest petition and simultaneously moved a 482 application seeking reinvestigation – Held: Once revision was filed, 482 petition was not maintainable – 482 Application No. 1281 of 2015 rendered infructuous after revision allowed and now challenged in fresh 482 Application No. 1314 of 2023 – Petitioner cannot pursue parallel remedies [Paras 8, 10].

Criminal Law – FIR Interpolation Allegation – Allegation of interpolation of time in FIR raised belatedly at revision stage – Held: FIR acknowledged by victim with her signature – No objection raised in earlier proceedings including before High Court – Belated challenge held unconvincing and unsupported by prior record [Para 9].

Criminal Procedure – Cognizance by Magistrate – Basis of Protest Petition – Held: Magistrate can take cognizance only on the basis of police report and materials collected during investigation – If protest petition is filed with extraneous material, proper course is to proceed under Chapter XV Cr.P.C. – Magistrate cannot take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. solely on basis of protest petition and supporting affidavits [Paras 6, 36].

Decision: Matter not finally decided – Directions issued to summon records of protest petition and revision proceedings – Case adjourned to 19/11/2025 for further hearing [Para 12].

Arbitration – Interim protection – Retention of Title Deeds – Arbitral proceedings had already concluded – No subsisting dispute – Commercial Court justified in rejecting interim relief – Petition dismissed [Paras 14–21].

Arbitration – Pendency of Proceedings – No Existing Dispute – Petitioner argued that arbitral proceedings initiated in 2015 were still pending, thereby entitling respondent to retain Title Deeds as security—Court held Arbitral Tribunal had already passed final award; only an application under Section 33 for correction remained, which does not keep arbitral proceedings “pending”—finding supported by respondents’ notices dated 12.08.2015 and 19.08.2015—no subsisting arbitral dispute existed [Paras 14–17].

Retention of Title Deeds – Not Justified Once Arbitration Concluded – Respondent’s continued possession of property documents could not be justified once arbitral process concluded—interim order dated 20.06.2015 stood vacated; Commercial Court rightly held that retention was not legally sustainable—petitioner's reliance on pendency of Section 9/33 proceedings held misconceived [Paras 17–19].

Interim Relief Under Section 34/Article 227 – No Prima Facie Case – Court held that petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case for mandatory injunction—no irreparable injury shown—respondent’s possession arose due to petitioner’s own failure to clear outstanding dues—equity could not be invoked to rewrite obligations [Para 20].

Commercial Court’s Order – No Illegality or Perversity – High Court found Commercial Court’s reasoning sound: existence of concluded arbitration, absence of any operative interim order, and lack of legal basis for retention of documents—no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice warranting interference under Articles 226/227 or Section 34 [Paras 18–21].

Delay and Acquiescence – Petition Filed After Years – Petitioner approached Court nearly nine years after initial dispute—conduct shows acquiescence; writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to unsettle settled contractual/arbitral rights [Para 21].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Commercial Court’s order affirmed – Liberty granted to petitioner to take appropriate steps for recovery of documents in accordance with law.

Railway Accident Claims – Untoward Incident – Unauthorized Crossing of Railway Tracks – Liability under Section 124-A – Tribunal’s dismissal set aside – Victims (two adults and one 3-year-old child) run over by Train No. 19051 at Maihar Station – Railway contended that victims were not bonafide passengers and were illegally crossing tracks – Held: Even if victims were crossing tracks unauthorizedly, compensation under Section 124-A is maintainable unless case falls within explicit statutory exceptions such as suicide, self-inflicted injury, intoxication, etc. – Railway failed to demonstrate that adequate preventive measures (fencing, barricades, warnings, announcements) were provided – Ease of access to tracks, especially for a child, indicates systemic failure – Deaths held to be result of “untoward incident” – Tribunal erred in rejecting claim [Paras 8-11].

Railway Safety – Duty to Prevent Track Crossing – Failure of Railway Administration – Loco Pilot’s testimony showed that child suddenly came on track and women rushed to save him – No evidence of deliberate or criminal act – Railway failed to prove implementation of preventive systems to stop unauthorized crossing – Absence of such measures constitutes breach of statutory duty – Liability for compensation arises [Paras 9-10].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Claimants established circumstances of accident – Railway’s reliance on DRM report insufficient to rebut evidence – Finding that Train No. 51672 did not pass through Maihar does not absolve Railway when deaths occurred due to another train (19051) at same location – Tribunal erred in rejecting claims based solely on train-number discrepancy [Paras 8-9].

Appellate Intervention – High Court’s Power – Tribunal’s refusal to award compensation based on incorrect appreciation of statutory scheme – High Court sets aside Tribunal’s order and directs award of compensation in accordance with applicable rules and rates [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Tribunal’s judgment dated 23.12.2016 set aside – Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal directed to award statutory compensation to claimants as per prevailing rules – All appeals disposed of [Paras 11-13].

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Territorial Jurisdiction – Petitioners/Defendants sought rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC claiming no part of cause of action arose in Delhi – Trial Court rejected application, finding that goods were dispatched from Delhi, payments made to plaintiff’s Delhi bank account, and issue on territorial jurisdiction had already been framed – Held: Where disputed facts regarding jurisdiction exist and trial is at an advanced stage, plaint cannot be rejected but can only be returned if jurisdiction is ultimately not proved – Rejection not permissible at this stage [Paras 5, 7–9, 10.2–10.3].

Civil Procedure – Filing of Additional Documents – Bank Certificate – Plaintiff relied on post-suit bank certificate showing payments received in Delhi – Objection raised that document was filed without leave under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC – Held: Trial Court justified in accepting the document as it did not exist at the time of suit filing and leave may be oral – No formal application needed if reasonable cause explained and accepted by Court [Paras 6–6.3].

Delay Tactics – Abuse of Process – Defendants filed counterclaim, delayed court fee, and repeatedly sought adjournments – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed late in trial, after issues were framed and evidence concluded – Held: Application a strategy to delay and frustrate plaintiff – Rejected with costs [Paras 10.3, 11].

Procedural Law – Supreme Court Precedent – Applied M/s Bhagya Estate Benchers Pvt. Ltd. v. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd. (2023) – Held: Order VII Rule 11 CPC is meant for threshold scrutiny and cannot be invoked at advanced stages of trial where merits are already under consideration – Delay defeats the object of Rule 11 and wastes court resources [Para 10.2].

Decision:

Petition dismissed – No merit found in plea of lack of jurisdiction – No perversity in trial court order – Costs of Rs. 25,000 imposed on petitioners to be paid within one week [Para 11].

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Agreement to Sell – Admission of Signatures and Receipt of Consideration – Defendant admitted encashment of ₹16 lakh via cheques forming part of earnest money – Agreement bore his signatures on all pages including reverse of stamp papers – Held: Once execution and consideration admitted, burden shifted to defendant to prove fraud or incapacity – No cogent evidence led to discharge burden – Defence of intoxication and fraud rightly rejected by both courts below [Paras 2–4, 8]

Contract Law – Fraud and Incapacity – Mere Plea Without Evidence – Defendant claimed agreement obtained under intoxication and fraud – No medical or documentary proof filed – Testimony of wife (DW2) and own cross-examination failed to support plea – Held: Defence was a mere afterthought and lacked credibility – Concurrent findings based on record require no interference [Paras 4, 8]

Procedural Law – Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Both trial and appellate courts held that plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part and that defendant defaulted without justification – Held: No substantial question of law arises – Second appeal lies only where there is perversity or misapplication of law, not mere reappreciation of facts [Paras 7, 12–13]

Equity – Hardship and Discretion – Defendant claimed hardship and offered to refund double earnest money – Held: No hardship proved – Defendant had history of selling land, was financially sound, and had no equitable claim – Offer to refund does not override valid contractual obligation – Plaintiffs entitled to specific performance based on established readiness and willingness [Paras 10–11]

Evidence – Non-Examination of Scribe – One Attesting Witness Related to Plaintiff – Held: Mere relationship or non-examination of scribe does not vitiate execution once document is proved by party admission and testimony of other attesting witnesses – No inconsistency or contradiction shown – Place of execution and rate variation irrelevant [Paras 5, 9]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Judgments and decrees of both lower courts affirmed – Pending applications disposed of [Para 13]

Family Law – Maintenance – Interim Maintenance – Standard of Living – Husband Part of Wealthy Family Business – Suppression of Means – Wife Entitled to Maintenance Reflective of Marital Lifestyle – Husband’s claim of earning only Rs. 6 lakhs annually held prima facie false – Business-family finances inextricably interlinked – Court must consider de facto financial capacity and actual lifestyle, not merely taxable income – Wife after 16 years of marriage cannot be relegated to survival-level maintenance – Held: Maintenance of Rs. 3,50,000 per month awarded as interim measure [Paras 16-20, 22-29, 39-47, 62-66, 69-72].

Maintenance Proceedings – Conduct of Husband – Unclean Hands – Material Suppression – Contrived Ownership Transfers – Prima Facie Manipulation of Shareholdings to Depict Penury – False Pleas of Poverty While Living Lavish Lifestyle – Non-disclosure of properties and bank accounts – Adverse inference drawn – Husband’s claim for cancellation of maintenance rejected [Paras 21-24, 30-38].

Marital Standard of Living – Business Family Dynamics – Income Tax Returns Not Sole Measure – Court must consider entire family business structure; partnership assets not separate from partners – Spouse of family-business member entitled to lifestyle commensurate with integrated business wealth – Narrow focus on taxable income inappropriate [Paras 17-20, 45-47].

Child’s Right to Maintenance – Expenses for Daughter’s Education and Development – Father cannot avoid responsibility merely because mother works multiple jobs – Criticism of daughter’s reasonable expenses (fitness, violin, baking, education) unjustified – Standard of living of child must match the father’s means and prior matrimonial lifestyle [Paras 42-43, 51-54].

Wife’s Income – Not Ground to Deny Maintenance – Wife earning through tutoring and minimal horticulture activity does not negate her right to maintenance – No material showing substantial independent earnings – Husband cannot exploit wife’s struggle to deny statutory support [Paras 48-51].

Maintenance Law – HAMA vs. HMA – Technical Plea Rejected – Application for maintenance under HAMA can be treated as one under HMA in matrimonial proceedings – Welfare legislation to be construed purposively – Incorrect invocation of statute not fatal [Paras 67-68].

Interim Order – Prima Facie Findings – No Set-Off – Claim of set-off based on alleged loan to wife’s uncle rejected as misconceived and patriarchal – Maintenance is not a commercial transaction [Paras 7, 23, 60-61].

Decision – Husband directed to pay Rs. 3,50,000 per month as interim maintenance (Rs. 3 lakhs enhancement + Rs. 50,000 existing) – Husband to deposit Rs. 42,00,000 towards 12 months’ maintenance within four weeks – Both IAs disposed of [Paras 69-72].

Family Law – Maintenance to Daughter – Adult unmarried daughter sought past and continuing maintenance and marriage expenses from father – Family Court granted Rs.15,000 per month for 3 years prior to petition and Rs.17,000 thereafter, with Rs.20 lakhs for marriage expenses – High Court held maintenance claim from birth maintainable as petitioner was minor at filing – Applied Section 6 of Limitation Act to override limitation bar – Award of past maintenance from 03.01.2004 allowed – Monthly maintenance revised and apportioned between parents [Paras 4, 16, 22].

Family Law – Quantum of Marriage Expenses – Respondent sought Rs.50 lakhs for marriage expenses based on alleged wealth of father – Family Court granted Rs.20 lakhs – High Court found lack of evidence justifying this sum – Held: Marriage expense award revised to Rs.15 lakhs, balancing reasonable provision with financial position of both parents – No obligation to provide for extravagant expenses [Paras 17–19, 23(a)].

Maintenance – Ability of Father – Impecuniousness Plea – Appellant claimed he earned only Rs.10,000 per month and had no self-acquired property – However, he admitted inheriting substantial ancestral property and failed to disclose full details – Court found no proof of legal encumbrances under Land Reforms Act – Rejected claim of inability to pay – Directed detailed disclosure of assets was lacking – Found appellant capable of providing support [Paras 11–14].

Limitation – Minor’s Right to Maintenance – Claim from Birth – Family Court wrongly limited claim to three years prior to petition – High Court held minor is entitled to maintenance from birth till marriage or self-sufficiency – Section 6 of Limitation Act provides exception where claimant is a minor – Family Court’s rejection of pre-2014 claim reversed [Paras 16, 22].

Family Responsibility – Contribution of Both Parents – Respondent’s mother was a doctor and earning – Court held both parents must share responsibility – Maintenance to be shared equally – Quantified scaled payments from 2004 till marriage or gainful employment [Paras 20–22].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Marriage expense award reduced from Rs.20 lakhs to Rs.15 lakhs – Monthly maintenance revised: ₹2,500 per month from 03.01.2004 to 03.01.2010. ₹5,000 per month from 04.01.2010 to 04.12.2017. ₹10,000 per month from 04.01.2018 till marriage or employment. Maintenance to be shared equally by both parents. No interest if paid within specified periods; otherwise, 6% interest p.a. applies. Cross Objection allowed in part – Claim for maintenance from birth accepted.