Administrative Law - Correction of Name - Article 226 of Constitution of India - Rule 69.1(ii) CBSE Rules - Correction of mother's name in matriculation certificate sought for filling admission forms in colleges supported by relevant documents and affidavit of mother - CBSE denied request on the ground that school records do not support the desired correction - Held, denial unsustainable - Writ petition allowed. [Paras 9, 12]

Education Law - Minor Student's Rights - Petitioner is a minor at the threshold of his career - Correction of mother’s name essential for further studies, issuance of passport, visas, and other formalities - School's request for correction along with relevant documents should not have been dismissed solely based on inconsistency with earlier supplied information. [Paras 9, 10]

Documentary Evidence - Supporting Documents - Various documents such as Aadhar Card, previous school marks certificate, and birth certificate confirmed the correct name of the mother as Madhu Bala - These documents substantiate the petitioner's request for correction. [Para 8]

Decision:

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.01.2018 issued by CBSE is set aside. Directions are issued to CBSE to correct the name of the mother in the petitioner’s matriculation certificate from Madhu Bansal to Madhu Bala within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

Motor Vehicles Act - Liability of Insurer - Section 166 - Accident involving a vehicle with an allegedly invalid driving license - Tribunal held that the driver’s license was not valid, placing primary liability on the vehicle owner and driver, with insurer granted recovery rights - Appeal allowed, insurer directed to bear liability without recovery from the insured. [Paras 1, 14, 15]

Owner’s Due Diligence - Reasonable Care - Owner not required to verify the validity of driving license with the issuing authority beyond standard precautions - Evidence showed the owner took reasonable steps and care in hiring the driver, including verifying the license and assessing driving skills - Tribunal’s decision to grant recovery rights to insurer overturned. [Paras 6, 14]

Court’s Reasoning - Legal Precedents - Consistent with Supreme Court rulings, such as United India Insurance Co. v. Lehru and others, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, where the insurer remains liable unless it is proven that the insured was aware of the fake license - No breach of insurance policy terms found on the insured’s part. [Paras 8, 10, 11]

Decision:

The appeal is allowed. The impugned award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, to the extent it grants recovery rights to the insurer against the insured, is set aside.

Civil Procedure - Ad Valorem Court Fees - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Plaintiff filed suit for declaration and alternatively for possession - Defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to compel plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fees allowed - Plaintiff argued that sale deeds were executed through misrepresentation and without authority after the power of attorney was cancelled - Court held that ad valorem court fees are required since the suit is not just for a declaration but also for possession - Revision dismissed. [Paras 8, 9]

Ad Valorem Court Fees - Relief of Possession - Distinction between cancellation and declaration - Where the suit seeks possession in addition to the declaration of sale deeds being null and void, ad valorem court fees must be paid - Plaintiff cannot avoid payment of ad valorem court fees by only framing the suit for declaration if possession is also sought. [Paras 5, 7]

Court's Reasoning - Evidence and Validity of Power of Attorney - The question of whether the power of attorney was validly cancelled is a matter of evidence and does not exempt the plaintiff from paying the required court fees - Compliance with the order for payment of court fees is necessary for the continuation of the suit. [Para 8]

Decision:

The petition is dismissed. The trial court's order requiring the petitioner to pay ad valorem court fees is upheld.

Civil Procedure - Pleadings - Order 6 Rule 2 CPC - Pleadings must contain concise statements of material facts - Evidence is not required to be pleaded - Held that written statements must state material facts, not evidence - Evidence beyond pleadings deemed inadmissible - Defendant's claim that land was purchased by the deceased during his lifetime based on hard work and business of purchasing and selling cattle is valid and supported by material facts pleaded in the written statement. [Para 19]

Civil Procedure - Additional Evidence - Order 41 Rule 27 CPC - Court's duty to do substantial justice while following prescribed procedure - Additional evidence can be admitted if it meets the prescribed parameters - First Appellate Court's dismissal of applications for additional evidence on flimsy grounds criticized - Court must aim to achieve substantial justice, not just adhere to procedural technicalities. [Para 21]

Coparcenary Property - High Court Rules and Orders - Proof of Coparcenary Property - Revenue records before and after consolidation must be examined - Excerpts from revenue records should be prepared by a revenue official for accurate identification - The absence of such excerpts requires the court to meticulously compare the records to establish the land's coparcenary status - More than 80% of old khasra numbers did not match new khasra numbers post-consolidation. [Para 22]

Property Purchase - Presumption - Property purchased by an individual cannot be presumed to be from joint family funds without evidence - Evidence showed that Taken purchased the land independently through his own hard work and trading activities, and the property was self-acquired - Courts should not presume property is from joint family funds without reliable evidence. [Para 24]

Counsel Arguments - Estoppel - Arguments made by counsel for partial relief do not operate as estoppel for claiming full relief - Counsel's arguments defending a part of the relief do not constitute relinquishment of remaining claims - Such arguments cannot bar further appeals for the entire relief claimed in the suit unless expressly relinquished. [Para 27]

Decision: The court quashes the concurrent findings of the lower courts, answers all questions of law in favor of the defendant-appellants, and allows RSA No. 3565 of 2005 while dismissing RSA No. 3835 of 2005.

Railways - Untoward Accident - Bona Fide Passenger - Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A of Railways Act, 1989 - Valid ticket found on deceased establishes prima facie that the person was boarding the train - Held that the deceased fell from the train due to an accident and lost his life - Respondent-Railways failed to provide cogent evidence to rebut this - Tribunal's reliance on an unproduced witness's statement criticized - Compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs with 9% interest per annum awarded to claimants - Additional exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on the Railways. [Paras 19, 21]

Railways - Evidence - Pleadings - Evidence beyond pleadings inadmissible - Railways failed to amend written statement to include new facts from DRM inquiry report - Tribunal erroneously relied on evidence not part of pleadings - Proper procedure not followed, denying claimants an opportunity to contest new facts. [Paras 14, 15]

Procedural Fairness - Examination of Witnesses - Adverse inference - Railways' failure to produce key witness (Pradeep Kumar) before Tribunal criticized - Tribunal erred in relying on unverified statement - Adverse inference drawn against Railways for not presenting vital witness for cross-examination - Call records supporting the witness's statement were also not produced. [Paras 17, 18]

Decision: The appeal is allowed. The Railway Claims Tribunal's decision is overturned, and the appellants are awarded a compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization. Additionally, exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000/- are imposed on the Railways for their procedural lapses and the undue hardship caused to the appellants.

Evidence Law – Primary vs. Secondary Evidence – Registered Will – Registered Will kept in the office of the Sub-Registrar, bearing signatures and photographs of the testator and attesting witnesses, is primary evidence – Second copy of a registered testament has all characteristics of original testament – Registered Will not to be considered secondary evidence. [Paras 15-16]

Succession Law – Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Execution of Will – Slight deviations by attesting witnesses in cross-examination do not invalidate Will – Suspicious circumstances must have real foundation and not be based on conjectures – Registered Will with attesting witnesses’ signatures and photographs is generally to be considered valid. [Paras 18-19]

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Judgments of the lower courts set aside – Plaintiffs entitled to 2/3rd share in the property, 1/3rd to respondent No.1 – Subordinate Courts directed to verify whether Book No.3 maintained by Registering Officers contains testamentary documents with original signatures/thumb impressions and photographs of testator and attesting witnesses. [Paras 30-35]

Civil Procedure – Lifting the Veil – Courts’ Duty – Courts must make sincere attempts to lift the veil and expose any sinister design even in civil litigation – Decisions should not be perfunctory or cursory – Lower courts failed to scrutinize the motives behind the litigation. [Para 28]

Amendment of Pleadings – Original Pleadings’ Significance – Permitting amendments does not nullify original pleadings – Admissions in unamended written statements hold unless successfully explained as erroneous – Lower courts erred by ignoring original pleadings. [Para 30]

Property Law – Sale Deed vs. Agreement to Sell – Post-Registration Significance – A registered sale deed cannot be set aside based on alleged suspicion about the prior agreement to sell, unless there is unimpeachable evidence – Courts erred by invalidating the sale deed without solid evidence. [Para 32]

Evidence Law – Relevance of Judgments – Sections 41, 42, 43 of the Indian Evidence Act – Judgments in unrelated cases are irrelevant unless they fit within specific parameters – Lower courts incorrectly considered a criminal conviction unrelated to the dispute. [Paras 35-36]

Evidence Law – Police Report – Civil Suit Basis – Police investigation reports can only serve as evidence, not the sole basis for decisions in civil suits – Lower courts incorrectly relied on police reports to invalidate the sale deed. [Para 38]

Decision – Appeals allowed – Judgments of the lower courts set aside – Suits filed by Nirmal dismissed. [Paras 40-41]

Benami Transactions – Prohibition – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Suit for declaration of ownership of property purchased in another's name, alleging fiduciary relationship – Application for rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC dismissed – Held, legislature prohibited benami transactions, except in specified cases under Section 4(3) of the 1988 Act – Court to consider only plaint averments for Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Plaint shows post-1988 transactions seeking ownership declaration – Suit barred by 1988 Act – Order dismissing application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC set aside – Plaint rejected. [Paras 7, 14]

Fiduciary Relationship – Section 4(3) of Benami Act – Exception to prohibition on benami transactions includes cases where property held in fiduciary capacity – Respondent's plea based on fiduciary relationship not substantiated – All sale deeds post-1988 fall under prohibition of Benami Act. [Paras 13, 14]

Decision – Revision petitions allowed – Impugned order set aside – Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC allowed – Plaint rejected. [Paras 14, 15]

Property Law – Auction Purchase – Free from Encumbrances – Petitioner purchased property in e-auction from bank with assurance of no encumbrances – Sale certificate issued, but registration refused due to property attachment for previous owner's dues – Held, rights of secured creditor have priority over government dues – Petitioner under no obligation to discharge previous owner's liabilities – Writ allowed, registration directed. [Paras 1, 8, 9, 13]

Secured Creditors’ Priority – Section 31-B of Securitisation Act – Secured creditors’ rights to recover debts have priority over government dues – Government dues do not have precedence over secured creditors’ recoverable dues. [Paras 8, 9]

Legal Precedent – Auction Purchaser’s Liability – Supreme Court rulings confirm auction purchaser not liable for previous owner's dues unless entire business unit purchased – Petitioner’s purchase in e-auction thus free from previous liabilities. [Paras 10-12]

Decision – Petition allowed – Respondent No.2 directed to register sale deed in petitioner’s favor – Petitioner not liable for previous owner's dues. [Para 14]