Civil Law - Jurisdiction – Civil Court vs. Revenue Court – Section 229-B U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act – Civil Suit Maintainable – Held: Where plaintiff claims cancellation of a void sale deed allegedly obtained by fraud, cheating, and impersonation, and the plaintiff or her predecessor was recorded tenure-holder, civil court has jurisdiction – Section 229-B not attracted since title was not under serious cloud and declaration not sought [Paras 3, 11–17].

Cancellation of Sale Deed – Fraud and Impersonation Alleged – Concurrent Findings Upheld – Plaintiff, widow of recorded tenure-holder Ram Dev, challenged a sale deed allegedly executed when the deceased was 80 years old – Held: Execution of deed not proved by defendants – Witnesses including co-beneficiary Radhey Shyam denied execution and payment – Trial and Appellate Courts rightly held it as fraudulent [Paras 4–6, 18–22].

Appellate Review – Findings Not Perversely Made – No Substantial Question of Law – Held: Both courts below considered oral and documentary evidence and recorded detailed findings – Findings supported by pleadings and not shown to be perverse – Appeal raises no substantial legal question warranting interference under Section 100 CPC [Paras 25–30].

Possession – Plaintiff Found in Possession of Disputed Land – Defendant’s Claim Not Substantiated – Held: Evidence showed plaintiff remained in possession of land – Sale consideration and possession not proved by appellant – Defence witnesses contradicted each other – Version of fraud accepted [Paras 20–22].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Concurrent Judgments Affirmed – High Court upheld lower courts’ findings – Suit rightly decreed for cancellation of sale deed dated 20.04.1987 – No costs awarded [Paras 29–30].
 

NDPS Act – Prolonged Pre-trial Custody – Commercial Quantity – Bail Granted - Despite applicability of Section 37 NDPS Act due to commercial quantity involved, petitioner granted bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration of over 1 year and 5 months – Cited multiple Supreme Court rulings allowing bail in similar cases where trial unlikely to conclude soon – Bail conditions imposed [Paras 7-11].

Constitutional Right to Liberty – Article 21 – Custody Beyond Reasonable Time – Bail Justified - Emphasizing the right to life and liberty under Article 21, Court held that conditional liberty must prevail when prolonged detention causes irreversible harm – Cited Supreme Court in Chitta Biswas v. State of W.B., Rajib Dey v. State of W.B., Nandalal Mondal v. State of W.B., and others [Paras 8-9].

Bail Conditions – Compliance and Monitoring – Restriction on Firearms – Preventive Steps - Bail conditional on non-involvement in further offences, disclosure of identity information, and surrender of weapons if any – Reinforced preventive purpose of bail to protect public interest and ensure fair trial [Paras 12-19].

Final Decision – Bail Granted – Petition Allowed with Conditions - Petitioner released on bail subject to statutory and special conditions including non-interference with trial and no involvement in similar offences – Trial court empowered to cancel bail on breach [Paras 20-22].
 

Civil Law - Redemption of Mortgage – Oral Mortgage – Limitation Applies – Mortgage Not Admitted – Plaintiffs Not Entitled to Relief - Plaintiffs initially denied the mortgage and asserted absolute ownership, but later sought to redeem the mortgage allegedly created in 1926 – Courts below held that plaintiffs were not in exclusive possession and that the mortgage was oral with joint possession – Held: Since the mortgage was not admitted and possession was joint, it was not a usufructuary mortgage; thus, limitation under Article 61 of the Limitation Act applies – Suit filed in 1983 held barred by limitation [Paras 27-32].

Usufructuary Mortgage – Distinction from Oral Mortgage – Findings of Fact – Not Interferable in Second Appeal - Plaintiffs' reliance on Sheo Ram and Ram Kishan cases rejected – Courts below found that the case was not a usufructuary mortgage as possession was not exclusive to the mortgagee – Held: The claim of redemption without admitting the mortgage itself is legally unsustainable; plaintiffs cannot approbate and reprobate – Oral mortgage created in 1926 cannot be redeemed after expiry of 60 years [Paras 29-33].

Denial of Mortgage – Subsequent Plea for Redemption Not Maintainable – Pleadings Inconsistent – No Right to Relief - Plaintiffs cannot deny the mortgage and yet claim relief by redeeming it later – Courts emphasized settled principle that no evidence can be adduced on facts not pleaded – Held: Pleadings are the foundation of the case and absence of consistent plea on redemption bars relief – Reference to Bhagat Singh v. Jaswant Singh applied [Paras 30, 40].

Decision of the Case – Second Appeal Dismissed – Concurrent Findings Upheld – Suit Barred by Limitation - The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court that the mortgage, if any, was oral and not usufructuary – Possession was joint, and the claim for exclusive possession was not proved – Suit barred by limitation and no redemption maintainable – Appeal dismissed [Paras 38-41].
 

Civil Law – Electronic Evidence – Section 65B Certificate – Admissibility Denied – Court held that electronic evidence, such as a video clip stored on a pen drive, cannot be relied upon unless accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act – It rejected the argument that such certificate could be submitted later without leave of the Court – Held: Without proper certification, authenticity and admissibility of electronic records cannot be ensured [Paras 26-28].

Commercial Courts Act – Order XI Rule 1(10) CPC – Non-disclosure of Documents – Plea Rejected – Petitioners attempted to rely on a video not disclosed in pleadings or counterclaim – Court held that exception under Order XI Rule 1(7)(c)(i) (confrontation in cross-examination) does not override mandatory disclosure obligations under Rule 1(10) – Leave of the Court required and must be supported by reasonable cause, which was not shown in this case [Paras 29-32].

Cross-examination – Right to Confront with New Evidence – Element of Surprise Not Applicable – Petitioners' argument that video was used to surprise and confront the witness during cross-examination was rejected – Court noted prior complaints and emails referencing the video indicated respondent’s prior knowledge – Therefore, “element of surprise” principle did not apply [Paras 33-35].

Commercial Suit Procedure – Strict Compliance Mandated – Court reiterated that procedural rigour under Commercial Courts Act must be followed strictly – Late or surprise introduction of documents defeats the purpose of expeditious and transparent adjudication – Held: Petitioners cannot bypass requirements by invoking provisions meant for general civil suits [Paras 36-39].

Final Decision – Civil Revision Dismissed – High Court upheld the Commercial Court’s refusal to allow confrontation with undisclosed video – Non-compliance with Order XI CPC and Section 65B of the Evidence Act found to be valid grounds for exclusion of such evidence [Paras 40-41].
 

Land Acquisition – Compensation - Valuation of Orange Trees – Income Capitalization Method Applied – Award Modified – Court rejected the valuer’s report for lacking scientific backing and uniform data reuse across cases – Compensation revised to ₹2,700 per orange tree (including wood value) based on government circulars and adjusted yield rate – Total compensation for 375 orange trees fixed at ₹10,12,500 [Paras 23–48].

Valuation Methods – Income Capitalization v. Sale Exemplar – No Double Valuation Permitted – Where land with fruit-bearing trees is valued using income capitalization method, no separate compensation for land can be granted – This principle affirmed through precedents including Ambya Kalya Mhatre and Gurcharan Singh – Court held valuation must reflect entire orchard, not trees and land separately [Paras 50–76].

Compensation for Remaining Land – Seasonally Irrigated Land Valued at ₹1,87,500 per Hectare – Based on 7/12 extracts and connected case law, non-orchard portion of land treated as seasonally irrigated – Compensation awarded at established rate for 2.73 HR = ₹5,11,875 [Paras 77–79].

Valuer’s Credibility – Report Discarded for Lack of Transparency and Repetition – Court noted suspicious uniformity in tree age, size, and yield in multiple cases handled by same valuer – Disregarded report due to lack of field-specific analysis, absence of supporting documents, and failure to justify conclusions [Paras 28–44].

Final Decision – First Appeal Partly Allowed, Cross-Objection Partly Allowed – Award modified to ₹10,12,500 for trees + ₹5,11,875 for 2.73 HR land – Compensation directed with statutory benefits under Land Acquisition Act [Para 81].
 

Criminal Law - Bail Application – NDPS Act – Section 37 Bar – Stringent Compliance Required – Petitioner accused of active involvement in organized narcotic syndicate – Court emphasized strict application of twin conditions under Section 37 for grant of bail – Reasonable belief of innocence not established [Paras 23-28].

Role of Intercepted Calls and CDRs – Voice Sample Match – Strong Prima Facie Evidence – Intercepted conversations between petitioner and co-accused, coupled with CDR analysis and voice sample match confirmed by FSL, prima facie established petitioner's active role in narcotic distribution network [Paras 17, 24-25].

Recovery at Instance of Petitioner – 1 Kg Heroin and Other Seizures – Recovery of 1 Kg heroin from petitioner’s shop and further arrests and seizures linked to disclosures made by petitioner weighed heavily against grant of bail [Paras 9-10, 23-24].

Parity with Co-Accused – Distinguished – Bail of Co-Accused Not Sufficient Ground – Court rejected plea of parity with co-accused Jaipal, noting stronger and more incriminating evidence against petitioner, including recoveries and role in network [Paras 20-21].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Petitioner’s request for regular bail rejected – Court held that involvement in organized narcotics network necessitated cautious approach, and no grounds existed for believing petitioner not guilty or unlikely to reoffend [Paras 28-29].

Criminal Law - Essential Commodities Act – Conviction Based on Evidence – Procedural Irregularities Noted – Despite several hostile witnesses, the trial court convicted the appellant on basis of seizure lists and testimonies of PW-9 and PW-10 – Held: Conviction upheld as evidence showed operation of shop without valid license and stock records [Paras 1–7].

Probation – Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act – Release in View of Delay and First-Time Offender – Incident occurred in 1995 and appellant had no subsequent criminal history – Held: Taking appellant into custody nearly 30 years later not justified – Sentence modified – Appellant released on probation on good conduct bond and directed to pay fine [Paras 8–10].

Minimum Sentence – EC Act Does Not Preclude Application of Probation Act – Held: Even though EC Act prescribes minimum sentence, later enactment i.e. Probation of Offenders Act prevails due to non obstante clause – Benefit of probation can be granted irrespective of statutory minimum sentence [Paras 8–11].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction Upheld, Sentence Modified – Appellant released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on bond of ₹5,000 to maintain peace and good behavior – Fine of ₹5,000 to be paid within 6 months, else appellant to undergo default sentence [Paras 10–11].

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Reassessment Proceedings – Section 148A and 149 of Income Tax Act – Reassessment Proceedings Quashed - Initiation of reassessment based on incorrect premise that the petitioner was a non-filer despite evidence of filing Income Tax Return for A.Y. 2015-16 – Issuance of notice under Section 148A(b) without furnishing material supporting allegations – Held: Proceedings vitiated due to lack of jurisdiction and non-compliance with statutory requirements [Paras 34-38].

Limitation – Applicability of Finance Act 2021 Amendments – Notice under Section 148 post 01.04.2021 - New Regime Applicable - Notice issued beyond prescribed limitation period as actual escapement of income was less than Rs. 50 lakhs – Held: Extended limitation under Section 149(1)(b) not attracted, proceedings time-barred [Paras 37, 41].

Requirement of Supply of Material – Mandatory Compliance – Section 148A(b) – Incomplete Show-Cause Notice Invalid - The authorities failed to provide supporting material forming the basis of the alleged escaped income - Held: Mere issuance of a bald notice insufficient under new regime, violating due process [Paras 38-40].

Decision – Writ Application Allowed – Reassessment order, demand notice and all consequential proceedings initiated under Section 148A and 147 quashed – Held: Entire reassessment action without jurisdiction, based on incorrect facts and procedural irregularity [Paras 42-44].

Civil Law  – Gift under Mohammadan Law – Essentials of Gift – Declaration, Acceptance, Delivery – Remand Ordered - The appeal challenged the reversal by the Appellate Court of the trial court's decree upholding plaintiffs’ title based on oral gift and adverse possession – Held: Declarations made in 1987, 1988, and 1989 by donor constituted valid gifts if essentials are fulfilled – Registration of gift deeds not mandatory under Muslim law; Appellate Court erred in insisting on registration – Matter remanded to Appellate Court for fresh consideration [Paras 6-11].

Gift under Muslim Law – Written Declaration – Registration Not Mandatory – Oral Gift Valid - Oral gift properly declared and accepted remains valid even if recorded later in writing and not registered – Reliance placed on Hafeeza Bibi v. Sheikh Farid, (2011) SCC 654 – Legal principles clarified [Paras 6-8].

Remand of Matter – Failure to Appreciate Essential Ingredients of Gift – Appellate Court Judgment Set Aside - Since factual findings on delivery of possession and acceptance of gift were not properly adjudicated, the High Court remanded the case for fresh disposal in accordance with law [Paras 9-11].