Civil Law - Specific Performance – Agreement of Sale – Lack of Readiness and Willingness – Suit Dismissed – Plaintiffs claimed execution of sale agreement dated 28-02-1998 and alleged part payment of ₹25 lakhs – Only plaintiff No.5, as attorney holder, was examined; others did not depose – Held: Plaintiffs failed to prove execution, payment, or readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract – Absence of required notices and oral evidence by principal parties fatal to claim [Paras 14–20].

Limitation – Article 54 of the Limitation Act – Barred by Time – Agreement fixed 28-02-1999 as last date for execution of sale deed – Suit filed on 09-01-2003 – Held: Beyond the three-year period prescribed under Article 54 – Plaintiffs' attempt to extend limitation through post-dated documents and MOUs was disbelieved – Suit barred by limitation [Paras 19a–j].

Procedural Requirements – Suit Not in Conformity with CPC Form 47 – Registered Demand Not Issued – Notices issued only by plaintiff No.5 individually and not by all vendees – Held: Suit not in compliance with mandatory Forms 47 and 48 under Appendix A of CPC – Absence of registered demand to perform contract renders the suit defective [Para 18a–e].

Power of Attorney – Attorney Cannot Depose to Pre-POA Events – Evidence of Plaintiff No.5 Inadmissible – Attorney was granted POA in 2001, but testified about transactions in 1998–1999 – Held: Attorney-holder cannot testify to acts done by principals prior to the POA unless he had personal knowledge – Testimony not reliable to prove core allegations [Paras 16e–f].

Adverse Inference – Plaintiff No.2 Signed as Attestor to GPA in Favour of Third Party – Did Not Enter Witness Box – Held: Adverse inference drawn – Weakens credibility of plaintiffs' version and supports defendant’s plea that transaction was for loan and not a genuine sale [Paras 16c–d].

Trial Court Findings – Non-Framing of Key Issues – Reversed – Trial Court failed to frame issues on limitation, validity of agreement, and readiness/willingness – Held: Decree granted without addressing essential legal requirements – Judgment set aside [Para 20].

Final Decision – Appeals Allowed – Trial Court Decree Set Aside – Suit for specific performance dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 22].
 

Child Custody – Habeas Corpus – Foreign Custody Order – Enforcement Directed – The biological mother sought custody of her Canadian minor child retained by father in India in defiance of Ontario Family Court order dated 13.11.2024 – Held: The retention is illegal, child's Indian VISA has expired, and father's actions amount to forum shopping – Repatriation to Canada ordered in interest of child’s welfare and legal comity [Paras 1–3, 14–27].

Jurisdiction – Writ Maintainable Despite Foreign Nationals – Writ of Habeas Corpus Lies – The petitioner (Brazilian national) and respondent (Canadian national) had a Canadian-born child brought to India under a short visit order – Held: Indian courts can issue writs in such cases if custody violates lawful foreign decrees and child's welfare is compromised – No bar under Article 226 [Paras 15–16].

International Comity – Canadian Court Order Given Effect – Indian Court Upholds Foreign Decree – Respondent failed to disclose Canadian Court’s order while seeking VISA extension – Held: Misuse of Indian jurisdiction and breach of foreign court undertakings cannot be condoned – Indian courts must respect international child custody norms [Paras 17–20].

Best Interest of the Child – Paramount Consideration – Child's Comfort with Mother Noted – Court observed interaction between child and mother as warm and reassuring – Held: Tender age, emotional bonding, and stable upbringing in habitual residence in Canada warrant returning custody to mother [Paras 22–24].

Judicial Discretion – Not a Custody Battle but Illegal Detention – Respondent’s Plea Rejected – Argument that this is a custody dispute not warranting habeas corpus was rejected – Held: Breach of undertaking and expired VISA render continued stay unlawful – Courts must prevent jurisdictional manipulation [Paras 21, 26].

Decision – Repatriation Ordered – Continued custody of child by father declared unsustainable – Child to be repatriated to Canada in custody of mother – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 27–29].
 

Civil Law - Arbitrability of Land Mutation Disputes – Civil Suit Referred to Arbitration – Challenge Dismissed – Petitioners challenged order of Civil Judge allowing application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act referring mutation dispute to arbitration – Held: Dispute arises from a Memorandum of Settlement containing valid arbitration clause – Subject matter is a private dispute over land title and not an action in rem – Suit properly referred to arbitration [Paras 1–3, 20.1–20.3].

Civil vs. Arbitration Forum – Declaratory Relief in Mutation Disputes – Arbitrable – Argument that mutation challenges are governed by Section 45 of the Haryana Land Revenue Act and fall within civil court jurisdiction was rejected – Held: Arbitrator has jurisdiction over claims in personam even if linked to revenue records – Provisions of Section 127 of the Act allow for arbitration of such disputes [Paras 5, 20.4].

Petitioners’ Conduct – Inconsistent Litigation Strategy – Petitioners Themselves Invoked Arbitration – Court noted that petitioners had filed applications under Sections 9 and 11 of the Arbitration Act and raised same mutation dispute in arbitral proceedings – Held: Petitioners estopped from arguing that dispute is non-arbitrable [Paras 2.6, 20.2].

Principle of Minimal Court Interference – Section 8, 11 Jurisdiction Narrow – Citing Vidya Drolia and Emaar India precedents – Held: Judicial review at referral stage limited to prima facie review of arbitration clause and manifestly non-arbitrable cases – No such circumstance present here – Arbitral Tribunal to decide jurisdiction [Paras 12–16, 20.5–20.6].

Scope of Section 8 Application – Erroneous Mention of Order VII Rule 11 – Clarified – Trial Court mistakenly mentioned plaint rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) despite no such application – Held: Order still valid as only referral to arbitration under Section 8 was granted – No jurisdictional error caused [Para 20.8].

Final Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – Impugned order upheld – Civil Suit correctly referred to arbitration – No interference warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution [Para 21].
 

Civil Law - Probate – Delay in Filing – Not Fatal – Continuous Right Doctrine Applied – Supreme Court precedents in Samir Kapoor and High Court ruling in Achin Ghosh followed – Delay of 19 years explained due to mutual compliance with Will terms and cause of action arising only after partition suit filed by daughters – Held: Probate is a legal sanction to perform a duty created by Will, and not bound by limitation like ordinary suits [Paras 26–33].

Execution and Attestation of Will – Statutory Compliance Proven – Sole surviving attesting witness (P.W.2) confirmed execution and attestation in accordance with Section 63 of Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act – No counter-evidence or expert testimony filed by appellant – Held: Will duly proved [Paras 34–36].

Suspicious Circumstances – Allegations Unsubstantiated – Claims of interpolation, signature mismatch, unusual spacing, and attesting witness bias not supported by evidence – Court held these as minor discrepancies insufficient to raise valid suspicion – Reiterated that Will must be judged based on prudent person test, not fantasy of doubt [Paras 39–46].

Section 105 Succession Act – Lapse of Legacy – Not Relevant to Probate – Held: Issues of title or lapsed legacy fall outside probate court’s remit – Validity of Will’s execution is sole concern – Post-mortem demise of legatee does not affect validity of Will executed prior [Paras 54–56].

Final Decision – Probate Deemed Decree Upheld – Appeal Dismissed – Probate granted to respondent affirmed by First Appellate Court – Held: Testamentary Court’s role is to honour the last wishes of the deceased in absence of real suspicious circumstances [Paras 60–61].
 

Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 NI Act – Conviction Confirmed – Petitioner convicted for issuing a cheque of ₹5 lakhs which was dishonoured for "insufficient funds" – Trial Court convicted him to one year simple imprisonment and fine – Conviction upheld by Appellate Court – Held: Evidence of complainant and bank officials, along with cheque, return memo, statutory notice, and acknowledgment, conclusively proved offence – Petitioner failed to rebut legal presumption [Paras 2–7].

Legal Presumption – Unrebutted by Accused – No Defence Evidence – Petitioner neither denied signature nor produced any evidence disproving legally enforceable debt – Legal presumption under Section 139 NI Act not rebutted – Held: Courts below rightly convicted based on unrebutted evidence [Paras 6–7].

Modification of Sentence – Compensation in Lieu of Imprisonment – Sentence Reduced – Considering petitioner's willingness to pay cheque amount and part payment already made, Court modified sentence of imprisonment to compensation of ₹5 lakhs – ₹2.5 lakhs already deposited; remaining ₹2.5 lakhs paid via DD in court – Held: Imprisonment undergone shall be treated as sufficient punishment [Paras 10–13].

Final Directions – Compensation of ₹5 Lakhs – Conviction Maintained – Petitioner released – Respondent permitted to withdraw court-deposited amount – Criminal Revision allowed in part to modify sentence [Paras 14–15].
 

Criminal Law - Criminal Conspiracy – Sentence Modified – Section 120-B IPC – Sentence Reduced to Time Served – Appellant convicted for conspiracy in a violent robbery incident and sentenced to 3 years’ simple imprisonment – Held: Though conviction upheld, sentence reduced to time already served (5 months 28 days) – Court noted no minimum sentence prescribed, no other criminal involvement, and long pendency of trial since 2019 – Appellant shown reformation and desire for peaceful life [Paras 1, 3–4, 6, 10–11].

Sentencing Principles – Discretion and Proportionality – Sentence Must Reflect Justice, Not Mere Formality – Court reiterated that sentencing should consider nature of offence, role of accused, conduct post-offence, and scope for reformation – Emphasized balance between deterrence and rehabilitation in criminal jurisprudence – Discretion must be applied judiciously and not arbitrarily [Paras 7–8].

Decision – Conviction Upheld – Sentence Modified – High Court upheld the conviction dated 11.12.2024 but modified the sentence dated 17.12.2024 to the period already undergone – Appellant directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 11–13].
 

Criminal Law - Murder – Appeal Against Acquittal - Appreciation of Evidence – Eye-Witness and Medical Testimony – Conviction Restored - The Trial Court acquitted all accused in a murder case citing contradictions and unreliable witness testimony – The High Court reversed the acquittal of Accused No.1, holding that minor contradictions did not discredit consistent and corroborated eye-witness accounts – Medical and FSL evidence supported the prosecution case and the recovery of the murder weapon was properly proved – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld [Paras 6–34].

Unlawful Assembly – Section 149 IPC – Acquittal of Co-Accused Upheld – The co-accused (Nos. 2 to 5) were present at the scene but the prosecution failed to prove they shared a common object or instigated the murder – FIR did not mention their instigation – Their presence was deemed natural and not sufficient to prove constructive liability – Acquittal confirmed [Paras 25–26].

Contradictions in Witness Testimony – Legal Position Clarified – Minor discrepancies or omissions in Section 161 CrPC statements do not vitiate credible eye-witness evidence – Reaffirmed that the maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” does not apply in India – Conviction can rest on truthful core of testimony even if peripheral inconsistencies exist [Paras 19–21].

Sentencing – Life Imprisonment with Consideration for Health – Accused No.1 was bedridden and paralysed – Court granted six months' time for surrender and directed jail authorities to provide medical care – Life imprisonment imposed under Section 302 IPC [Paras 40–42].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - Criminal Conspiracy and Forgery – Role of Professional Valuer – FIR Quashed – Petitioner, an empanelled bank valuer, was accused of preparing false valuation reports without physically inspecting properties – Court held petitioner relied on representations made by bank officer and submitted a valuation opinion, not a forged document – No evidence of collusion or meeting of minds to establish conspiracy under Sections 120B or 467 IPC – FIR and proceedings quashed [Paras 3, 8-24, 29-32].

Forgery – Ingredients Not Satisfied – Mere Negligence Not Criminal – Court reiterated that for forgery under Sections 463, 464 IPC, intent to defraud or fabricate must be shown – Petitioner’s report may be based on negligent reliance, but no evidence of intentional fraud or fabrication – No entrustment or inducement proven to attract Sections 406, 409, or 420 IPC – Criminal charges ruled unsustainable [Paras 21-24].

Professional Opinion – Valuation Report as Expert Opinion – No Mens Rea – Court found valuation report to be a subjective professional opinion, disclaiming liability and ownership verification – Bank could independently verify the report before acting – Held: Valuer cannot be criminally prosecuted unless shown to have actively conspired or abetted fraud [Paras 17-18, 30-31].

Decision – Petition Allowed – FIR registered as CR No.11199010210968/2021 with Bharuch ‘A’ Division Police Station and subsequent proceedings quashed qua the petitioner – Court held continuance of trial against petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law [Para 32].
 

Debottar Property – Challenge to Compromise Decree – Dismissal of Declaration Suit Upheld – Appellant challenged a compromise decree involving debottar property – Held: The decree only settled seva pala rights between two shebaits; title of deity not affected – Plaintiff’s suit filed 17 years later without any direct impact or cause of action – Concurrent dismissal upheld [Paras 1–6, 25–26, 34].

Power of Attorney – Deposition Limits – Attorney Cannot Depose on Plaintiff’s Personal Knowledge – Plaintiff’s daughter, acting as POA, deposed without firsthand knowledge of key facts – Held: POA holder cannot depose about matters known only to principal – Absence of plaintiff in witness box led to adverse presumption – No error in courts' reliance on settled legal principles [Paras 19–24].

Res Judicata – Previous Litigation by Co-Shebaits – Same Issue Decided Up to Supreme Court – Earlier identical challenge to same compromise decree was litigated by co-shebaits and dismissed – Held: Current challenge by another heir barred under Section 11 CPC and Explanation VI – Issues already adjudicated upon [Paras 26–27].

Cause of Action – No Infringement of Plaintiff’s Rights – Dev Seva and Debottar Character Not Disputed – Held: No denial of deity’s title, no infringement of shebait rights, and no disturbance in seva pala – Plaintiff not adversely affected by decree – Suit rightly dismissed for lack of cause of action [Paras 31–32].

Decision: Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings Based on Evidence – Held: No misreading or perversity in reasoning – Appeal dismissed, findings based on settled principles and facts [Paras 35–37].