Specific Performance – Existence and Validity of Contract – Absence of boundaries in agreement, partial alienation by defendant, and plaintiff’s failure to plead/claim relief under Section 12(2) – Trial Court erred in decreeing specific performance – Appeal allowed – Suit dismissed [Paras 29–39].

Specific Performance – Proof of Agreement – Absence of Boundaries – Execution Not Established – Ex.A1 agreement of sale lacked boundaries, did not mention village name, was written on plain white paper and later stamped—court held such deficiencies cast serious doubt on its execution; plaintiff failed to satisfactorily prove agreement under settled principles in Pemmada Prabhakar, Nanjappan, Satish Kumar [Paras 24.1–24.2, 31–32].

Partial Alienation – Section 12(2) Specific Relief Act – Plaintiff Did Not Seek Relief – Appellant sold 7½ guntas under Ex.A5 during trial; though Section 12(2) permits specific performance of remaining land, plaintiff never pleaded or prayed for such relief before trial court; first attempt raised only in appeal—held impermissible; reliance placed on Hemanta Mondal and Bachhaj Nahar regarding necessity of pleadings and bar on new pleas in appeal [Paras 9, 30–31, 37].

Readiness and Willingness – Only Token Payment Made – No Substantial Acts – Plaintiff paid only ₹4,500 as advance out of total ₹7,79,025; no evidence of substantial acts or losses; no proof of continuous readiness/willingness under Section 16(c)—court held plaintiff not entitled to equitable relief [Paras 32, 21].

Discretion Under Section 20 – Trial Court Erred – Trial court granted decree mechanically without considering hardship to defendant, absence of boundaries, partial alienation, and the long lapse of time—High Court held trial court failed to apply judicial discretion under Section 20; in circumstances, specific performance not warranted [Paras 33, 36].

Pleadings – New Case Cannot Be Made in Appeal – Plaintiff attempted to rely on Section 12(2) only during appeal—court held no amount of evidence can be looked into on a plea not pleaded; new case cannot be projected at appellate stage—principle reaffirmed from Bachhaj Nahar [Paras 27–31].

Compensation/Refund – Cannot Be Granted Without Pleading – Plaintiff neither sought refund of earnest money under Section 22 nor compensation under Section 21—court held it cannot grant such relief suo motu in absence of pleadings [Para 39].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 30.06.2017 in O.S. No.111/2012 set aside – Suit dismissed without costs – Interim orders vacated – Miscellaneous applications closed.

Railways – Freight Classification – Distance Based Charges (DBC) – Domestic vs. Export Tariff – Respondent (KIOCL Ltd.), a Government of India undertaking, booked a rake of iron ore fines from NMDC’s Kirandul Siding to Visakhapatnam Port in December 2012 for domestic pelletization. Railways levied DBC treating it as export movement under Rate Circular No.36/2009—Tribunal found that during the relevant quarter (Oct–Dec 2012), all pellets were sold domestically, none exported—Held: DBC impermissible where consignment demonstrably for domestic use—Levy contrary to governing tariff—Refund rightly ordered [Paras 7–11, 26–29].

Administrative Law – Scope of Sections 78 & 83, Railways Act, 1989 – Sections 78 (re-measurement) and 83 (recovery of undercharges) are procedural and enabling—They empower recalculation of freight only within existing tariff heads, not reclassification of traffic post-facto—Cannot be invoked to impose new levy where tariff circular precludes DBC for domestic traffic—Use of these provisions to retrospectively recharacterize tariff head impermissible [Paras 24–25, 31–32].

Tariff Circular – Interpretation – Rate Circular No.36/2009 – Circular creates dual classification: Class 180 + DBC for export movements and Class 140 (without DBC) for domestic movements—End-use of consignment is determinative criterion—Documentary compliance (affidavit, indemnity) is procedural safeguard; once domestic end-use proved through excise returns, minor procedural lapses immaterial—Doctrine of substantial compliance applies [Paras 26–28, 31].

Evidence – Excise Returns – Proof of Domestic Sale – Excise records for Oct–Dec 2012 showed nil exports, confirming domestic sales—Appellate court defers to concurrent factual finding of Tribunal—Prior export conduct of KIOCL (2008–11) irrelevant to 2012 consignment—Tariff classification is transaction-specific, not reputation-based [Paras 29–30].

Judicial Review – Appellate Restraint – Tribunal’s findings were based on contemporaneous industrial records, not conjecture—No perversity or illegality shown—Appellate interference unwarranted—Doctrine of appellate restraint applies [Paras 32–33].

Interest on Refund – Restitution – Interest at 6% p.a. awarded from 02.12.2015 till payment affirmed—Represents equitable balance between restitutionary fairness and fiscal restraint—Interest to continue till date of actual refund [Para 14].

Pending Proceedings – No Bar – Pendency of SLP (C) No.15869/2015 and connected T.Ps. concerning constitutional validity of DBC does not bar adjudication—No specific stay applicable—Mere pendency not prohibition [Para 32(xii)].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Tribunal’s judgment affirmed – Railways directed to refund ₹58,01,110.80 with 6% interest from 02.12.2015 till actual payment within two months – No order as to costs [Paras 15–16].

Railways – Freight Classification – Distance Based Charges (DBC) – Domestic vs. Export Tariff – Respondent (KIOCL Ltd.), a Government of India undertaking, booked a rake of iron ore fines from NMDC’s Kirandul Siding to Visakhapatnam Port in December 2012 for domestic pelletization. Railways levied DBC treating it as export movement under Rate Circular No.36/2009—Tribunal found that during the relevant quarter (Oct–Dec 2012), all pellets were sold domestically, none exported—Held: DBC impermissible where consignment demonstrably for domestic use—Levy contrary to governing tariff—Refund rightly ordered [Paras 7–11, 26–29].

Administrative Law – Scope of Sections 78 & 83, Railways Act, 1989 – Sections 78 (re-measurement) and 83 (recovery of undercharges) are procedural and enabling—They empower recalculation of freight only within existing tariff heads, not reclassification of traffic post-facto—Cannot be invoked to impose new levy where tariff circular precludes DBC for domestic traffic—Use of these provisions to retrospectively recharacterize tariff head impermissible [Paras 24–25, 31–32].

Tariff Circular – Interpretation – Rate Circular No.36/2009 – Circular creates dual classification: Class 180 + DBC for export movements and Class 140 (without DBC) for domestic movements—End-use of consignment is determinative criterion—Documentary compliance (affidavit, indemnity) is procedural safeguard; once domestic end-use proved through excise returns, minor procedural lapses immaterial—Doctrine of substantial compliance applies [Paras 26–28, 31].

Evidence – Excise Returns – Proof of Domestic Sale – Excise records for Oct–Dec 2012 showed nil exports, confirming domestic sales—Appellate court defers to concurrent factual finding of Tribunal—Prior export conduct of KIOCL (2008–11) irrelevant to 2012 consignment—Tariff classification is transaction-specific, not reputation-based [Paras 29–30].

Judicial Review – Appellate Restraint – Tribunal’s findings were based on contemporaneous industrial records, not conjecture—No perversity or illegality shown—Appellate interference unwarranted—Doctrine of appellate restraint applies [Paras 32–33].

Interest on Refund – Restitution – Interest at 6% p.a. awarded from 02.12.2015 till payment affirmed—Represents equitable balance between restitutionary fairness and fiscal restraint—Interest to continue till date of actual refund [Para 14].

Pending Proceedings – No Bar – Pendency of SLP (C) No.15869/2015 and connected T.Ps. concerning constitutional validity of DBC does not bar adjudication—No specific stay applicable—Mere pendency not prohibition [Para 32(xii)].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Tribunal’s judgment affirmed – Railways directed to refund ₹58,01,110.80 with 6% interest from 02.12.2015 till actual payment within two months – No order as to costs [Paras 15–16].

Gram Nyayalayas Act – Appeal Bar under Section 34(2)(b) – Valuation Below ₹1,000 – Exception for Questions of Law – Appeal Held Maintainable – Original suit filed in 2000 for cancellation of will valued at ₹200 – Transferred to Gram Nyayalaya under Section 16 – Gram Nyayalaya declared will void – Appeal filed before District Judge challenged by petitioner on ground of Section 34(2)(b) bar – District Judge held appeal maintainable as it raised a question of law – High Court affirms view, noting that Section 34(2)(c) permits appeal where legal question is involved even if valuation is below ₹500 – Dismissal of petition upheld [Paras 3, 4, 25, 27].

Appeal – Right of Appeal – Substantive Right – Vested at Time of Suit – Cannot Be Taken Away Retrospectively Unless Expressly Provided – Court reiterates settled law that right of appeal is a vested and substantive right, accruing on the date of institution of the suit – Refers to landmark decisions including Colonial Sugar Refining Co. v. Irving, Garikapatti Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhury – Held: Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 does not operate retrospectively – Right of appeal governed by law prevailing on date of suit in 2000 – District Judge rightly entertained the appeal [Paras 13–24].

Question of Law – Maintainability of Suit Before Gram Nyayalaya – Matter to Be Decided by Appellate Court – Though High Court notes that suit for cancellation of will may not lie before Gram Nyayalaya as per Second Schedule – Leaves the issue open for appellate court to determine – Declines to adjudicate maintainability in Article 227 jurisdiction [Para 26].

Judicial Review – No Jurisdictional Error – Rejection of Objection by Appellate Court Not Illegal – High Court finds no illegality in District Judge’s decision to entertain the appeal – Rejects petitioner’s contention that appeal was barred by Section 34(2)(b) – Writ petition under Article 227 dismissed [Paras 24–27].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – District Judge’s order upholding maintainability of appeal affirmed – Question of whether suit for cancellation of will is maintainable before Gram Nyayalaya left open to be decided by appellate court.

Criminal Law – Sections 353 and 354 IPC - Assault on Public Servant – Outraging Modesty – Acquittal Upheld – Accused allegedly obstructed traffic while drunk, assaulted a Home Guard (PW.1), and outraged the modesty of his mother (PW.2) – Sessions Court found that independent witnesses (PWs.3 to 9) turned hostile – Observation report and seizure of torn clothes lacked credibility – Accused 3 and 4’s identity not established – No test identification parade held – Held: Evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 uncorroborated – No intent (mens rea) shown to outrage modesty – No proof beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 15–23, 27–31]

Evidence Law – Hostile Witnesses – Evidentiary Gaps – Key prosecution witnesses denied knowledge of incident or signing observation reports – No diary entries recording initial complaint or follow-up – Sessions Court found investigation perfunctory and evidence insufficient – Held: Trial Court rightly disbelieved evidence that lacked corroboration – Presumption of innocence rightly extended to accused [Paras 15–19, 29–31]

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Appellate Standards – Appellate Court must defer to Trial Court’s findings unless conclusions are perverse or manifestly illegal – Trial Court’s reasoning found to be sound and based on proper appreciation of evidence – No compelling reason to overturn acquittal – Held: Even if two views possible, view favouring accused must prevail – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12–14, 32–36]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal in Sessions Case No. 262 of 2005 confirmed – No interference warranted.

Criminal Law – Murder – Unlawful Assembly – Arson – Conviction Upheld – Accused formed unlawful assembly and launched attack on the deceased in course of property dispute – House of deceased was set on fire and he was assaulted with lathis on vital body parts causing fatal cranio-cerebral injuries – Trial court convicted under Sections 148, 436 and 302 IPC read with Section 149 – High Court found evidence of eye-witnesses, many of them injured, consistent and corroborated by medical evidence – Held: Conviction justified [Paras 1, 9, 13-14, 17-18]

Evidence – Injured Witnesses – Medical Corroboration – Six injured witnesses confirmed to have sustained blunt force trauma consistent with lathi assaults – Medical reports supported their presence at scene and nature of assault – Minor omissions and initial non-disclosures found not material – Credibility intact despite pendency of counter-case against them [Paras 11-14]

Medical Jurisprudence – Cause of Death – Post-mortem revealed depressed skull fracture, haemorrhage in brain stem and multiple antemortem injuries – Death opined to be due to cranio-cerebral trauma caused by hard and blunt weapon – Medical findings fully matched with witness account of assault – Held: Death was clearly homicidal [Para 9]

Common Object – Section 149 IPC – Applicability – Acts of setting fire, fatal assault on deceased and coordinated attack on rescuers established that unlawful assembly had common object – Specific roles attributed to each appellant – No requirement to prove individual overt act where offence committed in furtherance of common object – Vicarious liability under Section 149 attracted [Paras 13, 17]

Hostile Witnesses – Effect on Prosecution – Some prosecution witnesses turned hostile or did not support prosecution – Held: Core case established by consistent and credible testimony of injured and independent witnesses – Conviction can be sustained on basis of quality evidence despite some hostile witnesses [Para 16]

Motive – Land Dispute – Claim of accused that house belonged to them contradicted by prosecution evidence showing longstanding possession by deceased – Existence of land dispute supported motive – Presence of motive strengthens prosecution version but not essential in light of direct evidence [Para 15]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction of surviving appellants under Sections 148, 436 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC affirmed – Appeal abated against Appellant-Basudev Barik due to death – Remaining appellants directed to surrender within three weeks [Para 18]

Criminal Law – Murder – Common Intention – Eyewitness Account – Conviction Confirmed – Victim shot dead on a boat by appellant Dhanu Ghosh using a pipe gun – Other appellants instigated and facilitated the act – PW1 and PW4, brothers of the deceased, were eyewitnesses and gave consistent accounts of the incident – Post-mortem (PW7) confirmed gunshot injury from close range – Presence of multiple eyewitnesses nullifies argument of false implication – Common intention clearly established through coordinated acts and presence [Paras 10–12, 25–28, 32–35]

Evidence – Non-Recovery of Weapon – No Fatality to Prosecution – Pipe gun used in offence not recovered – Bullet also not recovered from the body – Held: Non-recovery of weapon not fatal where eyewitness testimony is reliable and corroborated by medical evidence – Medical opinion clearly supports prosecution version of a close-range gunshot causing death [Paras 5–6, 23, 33, 36]

Criminal Trial – Eyewitness Credibility – Corroboration with Medical Evidence – Consistent Testimony – PW1 and PW4 identified appellants and described the incident with precision – PW2 (boatman) corroborated circumstances though not an eyewitness – PW3 arrived shortly after the incident and saw accused fleeing – Medical evidence (PW7) consistent with oral evidence – Cross-examination of witnesses failed to discredit them – Held: Trial Court rightly relied on ocular and medical evidence to convict [Paras 13–20, 27–31]

Criminal Law – Motive – Presence of Eyewitnesses – Motive Becomes Redundant – Defence raised plea of prior enmity and false implication – Court held that where there are trustworthy eyewitnesses, proof of motive is unnecessary – Enmity could also support motive for murder – Plea of false implication rejected [Paras 34–35]

Criminal Procedure – Section 313 CrPC – Improper Framing of Questions – No Prejudice Shown – Appellants argued that questions under Section 313 CrPC were complex – Court found no material prejudice – No denial of fair opportunity established – Conviction not vitiated on this ground [Para 7]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC affirmed – Period of detention already undergone to be set off under Section 428 CrPC – No interference warranted with Trial Court’s findings [Paras 37–40]

Assisted Reproductive Technology – Eligibility Criteria – Age Restriction – Respondent No.1 (wife) sought IVF treatment using donor sperm despite her husband (Respondent No.2) being aged 55 years – ART clinic denied service citing ineligibility of the couple as a whole under Section 21(g) of the ART Act – Held: The age restriction under Section 21(g)(ii) applies only where the male’s gamete is used – Where donor sperm is used, only the woman’s age is relevant – Married woman cannot be denied ART access on the sole ground of husband’s age if she seeks to use donor sperm with his consent [Paras 5, 20, 30]

Equality and Non-Discrimination – Married vs. Single Women – ART Act interpreted to avoid unconstitutional classification – Denial of ART services to married woman using donor sperm, while allowing access to single woman of same age, held discriminatory – Such a reading would place married women at unfair disadvantage – Held: Law must be interpreted harmoniously to uphold equal rights irrespective of marital status [Paras 5, 30]

Statutory Interpretation – Legislative Intent – Composite age restriction not prescribed in ART Act – Court refused to read additional conditions into clear statutory language – Held: When ART Act separately defines “woman” and “commissioning couple” and does not impose joint age criteria, it cannot be inferred that both spouses must individually satisfy age limits in all circumstances [Paras 21–23, 29–30]

Judicial Review – Appellate Interference – Court found no legal error or perversity in Single Judge’s interpretation – Appellate Court upheld reasoning that statute must not be interpreted to produce inequitable or absurd results – Writ Appeal dismissed [Paras 31]

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed – Married woman held entitled to undergo ART procedure using donor sperm if within age limit under Section 21(g)(i) – No illegality found in the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part II – Appellant convicted for stabbing wife during sudden quarrel in fit of rage while under influence of alcohol – Incident occurred at home with only minor daughter present – No evidence of premeditation or prior enmity – Knife used was kitchen knife picked from spot – Victim’s dying statement to landlady, "Inhone mere ko kya maar diya", construed to refer to husband – Appellant remained at scene and cooperated during investigation – Held: Though act had knowledge of likely consequence, it lacked intent to kill – Conviction modified to Section 304 Part II IPC – Sentence reduced to 7 years simple imprisonment [Paras 38, 41, 44, 55–57, 60–64]

Criminal Procedure – Right to Silence – Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Appellant’s silence during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding genesis of quarrel held not incriminating – Court held silence could not fill evidentiary gaps – Prosecution case itself showed absence of murderous intent – Silence alone cannot lead to murder conviction [Paras 50–51]

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Identification by Victim – Victim’s repeated utterance “inhone” interpreted in cultural context as pointing to husband – Though no eyewitness to stabbing, circumstantial evidence and victim’s immediate utterance held reliable [Paras 28–31]

Criminal Law – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Applicability – Conditions for Exception 4 met: sudden quarrel, no premeditation, act done in heat of passion, no undue advantage taken – Appellant acted impulsively, under influence of alcohol, using kitchen knife at hand – Held: Circumstances supported reduction of offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 44, 54–56, 58–64]

Criminal Sentencing – Sentence Reduction – Original sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC modified to 7 years simple imprisonment under Section 304 Part II IPC – No fine imposed – Compensation to be disbursed per Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018 as recommended by Trial Court under Section 357A Cr.P.C. [Paras 64–67]

Property Law – Unregistered Sale Deed – Section 17 & 49 Registration Act – Section 53-A TPA – Document Written as Sale Deed, Not Agreement – No Registration – No Title or Possession Rights – Ex.B1 executed in 1983 for Rs.1100 treated as sale deed by defendant but unregistered – Held: Unregistered sale deed cannot convey title; inadmissible to prove transfer of property; cannot be converted into sale agreement for invoking Section 53-A – Defendant’s plea inconsistent and self-contradictory – First Appellate Court erred in granting protection of part performance [Paras 10–16, 20–21].

Part Performance – Section 53-A TPA – Applicability Prior to 2001 Amendment – Only Available for Genuine, Lawful, Uncompleted Contract – Burden on Transferee to Prove Valid Contract and Free Consent – Evidence shows Ex.B1 written in two inks, suspicious thumb impression placement, possibility of interpolation – No proof that contract executed with free will – Held: Defendant not entitled to benefit of Section 53-A even under pre-amendment law [Paras 11, 18–19, 22].

Title & Possession – Plaintiffs’ Possession Established – House Tax Receipts (Ex.A3 & Ex.A4) in joint names – Defendant failed to prove vendor (2nd plaintiff) was exclusive owner – Defendant’s claim of prior possession and renovation not credible – First Appellate Court misdirected itself by treating defendant’s possession as part performance without establishing contractual foundation [Paras 10, 16, 19].

Interpretation of Precedents – Reliance on Guman Singh v. Manga Singh, MANU/SC/0872/2016 & Ranchhoddas Chhaganlal v. Devaji Supdu Dorik, (1977) 3 SCC 584 – Part performance can be used only as a defence, not as a basis for claiming title – Ex.B1 cannot operate as both sword and shield – Defendant’s attempt rejected [Para 20–21].

Decision: Second Appeal Allowed – Judgment of First Appellate Court set aside – Trial Court decree restoring plaintiffs’ title and recovery of possession revived – Defendant directed to hand over possession within one month [Paras 23–25].