Civil Law - Partition - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Plaintiffs sought partition of properties alleging it as joint family property - Trial court and first appellate court dismissed suit for items 1 and 2 holding property belonged to first wife Pavayee Ammal via settlement deed - High Court found that upon Pavayee Ammals death her husband Palani Gounder inherited a 1/3 share as her legal heir - Since Palani Gounder died intestate his second wife and son are entitled to a portion of his share in those items - Held - Concurrent findings regarding settlement deed were valid but failure to partition the share inherited by husband from first wife was erroneous - Appeal partly allowed - [Paras 1-17].

Civil Law - Settlement Deed - Transfer of Property Act 1882 - Sections 122 and 123 - Validity of gift - Registered settlement deed executed in 1948 by husband to first wife - Plaintiffs contended deed was not acted upon and was void - Court found deed was duly attested and accepted - Long lapse of time and prior judicial recognition of guardianship over settled property confirmed validity - Held - Settlement deed is valid and not hit by Section 122 or 123 of TPA - [Paras 12-16].

Civil Law - Intestate Succession - Hindu Succession - Rights of husband in wifes property - Pavayee Ammal died intestate leaving husband Palani Gounder and two children - Husband entitled to 1/3 share in her absolute property - Upon husbands subsequent death his second wife and son are entitled to claim their portion of that 1/3 share in the suit properties - Held - Plaintiffs entitled to 2/12 share in items 1 and 2 - [Paras 13-16].

Decision: Second Appeal partly allowed – Preliminary decree passed declaring 2/12 share for plaintiffs in Item Nos. 1 and 2 – Parties entitled to seek final decree as per law.

Civil Law - Malicious Prosecution - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 96 - Suit for damages - Plaintiffs-appellants sought damages alleging malicious prosecution following acquittal in a criminal case filed by the defendant-respondent under Sections 447 506/34 IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST Act 1989 - Trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the absence of reasonable and probable cause or the presence of malice - High Court observed that in a suit for malicious prosecution the burden is on the plaintiff to prove four essential elements: institution of proceedings by defendant-lack of probable cause-malice-and favourable termination - Mere acquittal in criminal proceedings does not create a presumption of malice or lack of probable cause - Evidence showed police found a prima facie case during investigation and the defendant-respondent's absence from the witness box was justified by medical disability - Held - Appeal dismissed as the appellants failed to establish the ingredients of malicious prosecution - [Paras 1-18].

Civil Law - Tort of Malicious Prosecution - Evidence Law - Burden of Proof - Establishing malice - The tort of malicious prosecution requires proof of initiation of proceedings-lack of probable cause-malice-and favourable termination - Malice in law means a wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse - Absence of reasonable and probable cause does not automatically lead to a presumption of malice - Plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendant acted with ill-will or without any reasonable belief in the facts reported - Held - Judgment of the trial court dismissing the suit upheld - [Paras 11-17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court is affirmed.

Criminal Law - Acquittal - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 - Sections 3 and 4 - Failure to prove caste status - Prosecution failed to produce caste certificates or any documentary evidence to establish that the complainants belonged to the Scheduled Caste community - Held - Provisions of the SCST Act cannot be invoked without proving that the complainant is a member of the Scheduled Caste community as defined under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India - Acquittal upheld - [Paras 16-17].

Criminal Law - FIR - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 156 - Delay in registration - FIR lodged approximately one year after the alleged incident without a satisfactory explanation - Prosecution failed to explain the delay which led to potential embellishment and concoction - Held - Unexplained delay is fatal to the prosecution case and warrants reasonable doubt regarding the authenticity of the version presented - [Paras 18-21].

Evidence Law - Witness Testimony - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Reliability of evidence - Prosecution witnesses contradicted themselves on material particulars regarding the source of water and the incident of beating - Witness testimony regarding omnibus allegations of physical assault without specifying names or dates found unreliable - Held - Court cannot rely on omnibus statements that lack specific particulars or corroboration - [Paras 22-24].

Criminal Law - Appeal against acquittal - Scope of interference - Principles governing reversal of acquittal - Appellate court should not interfere with a reasonable view taken by the trial court unless the judgment is perverse or wholly unsustainable - Held - Trial court findings based on failure to prove caste, delay in FIR, and contradictions in evidence represent a reasonable view that does not warrant appellate interference - [Paras 14-15, 30].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Trial Court judgment of acquittal affirmed – Respondents directed to furnish bail bonds in the sum of ₹25,000/- each under Section 437A CrPC.

Writ Law - Land Acquisition - Constitution of India - Article 300A - Right to property - Petitioners surrendered land for Masterplan road and executed registered gift deeds under the promise of receiving TDR bonds - Respondent-Corporation unilaterally fixed the market value for TDR issuance at Rs 17,000 per square yard despite evidence of higher market value and previous valuation of Rs 37,000 per square yard in the deeds - Court held that unilateral classification of vacant land as residential for valuation purposes without scientific basis is arbitrary and violates the right to fair compensation - Held - Impugned proceedings modified to entitle petitioners to TDR bonds calculated at Rs 37,000 per square yard - [Paras 1-20].

Civil Law - TDR Bonds - Valuation - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 - Property owners surrendered land for public purpose based on assurance of TDR - Respondent failed to issue bonds and subsequently attempted to lower the valuation based on arbitrary classification - Court held that when property abuts a main road and has potential for varied commercial or residential use the municipality cannot unilaterally suppress the valuation to the detriment of the citizen - Held - Valuation must reflect the market value as recognized in the registered gift deeds - [Paras 14-19].

Decision: Writ petitions disposed of – Respondents directed to issue TDR bonds calculated at Rs 37,000 per square yard to the petitioners within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Civil Law - Land Acquisition - Limitation Act 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - Whether Court can impose condition of waiver of interest - Court held that while Section 5 does not confer independent power to alter statutory interest under the Land Acquisition Act, the Court exercising discretionary jurisdiction to condone delay may impose a reasonable condition excluding interest on enhanced compensation for the specific period attributable to the claimant's delay - This practice balances equities and prevents the public exchequer from bearing the burden of interest for periods where the claimant failed to approach the court despite parity of claims - Held - Court can require an undertaking from the claimant restricted to the actual period of delay - [Paras 1-28 45].

Civil Law - Appellate Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XLI Rules 22 and 33 - Cross-objection - Applicability of interest waiver principle - Court held that the equitable principle of excluding interest for the period of delay applies equally to cross-objections or cross-appeals seeking enhancement of compensation - The court must determine the actual period of delay by considering the claimant's knowledge of the main appeal and participation in proceedings before imposing such conditions - [Paras 29-40 45].

Civil Law - Statutory Interest - Land Acquisition Act 1894 - Sections 28 and 34 - Nature of interest - Held that interest under Section 34 is mandatory while under Section 28 it is discretionary - The court cannot arbitrarily cancel interest but can regulate the financial consequences of delayed proceedings by excluding interest specifically related to the period of the claimant's inaction while preserving the right to fair and just compensation parity - [Paras 21-23 44].

Decision: The five questions referred are answered affirming the Court's power to balance equities in land acquisition matters by conditionally excluding interest for the period of delay as a component of the discretionary relief under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Order XLI Rule 22 of the CPC.

Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 - Power of Attorney holder - Complaint maintainability - Petitioner challenged conviction for dishonour of cheque issued to finance company - Complaint filed by Power of Attorney holder lacked specific averment regarding his direct knowledge of the transaction - Trial Court and Appellate Court convicted petitioner despite absence of such pleading - High Court held that failure to state in the complaint or proof-affidavit that the Power of Attorney holder had direct knowledge or had witnessed the transaction is a fatal legal infirmity - Held - Concurrent verdicts set aside and petitioner acquitted - [Paras 1-9].

Evidence Law - Power of Attorney - Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 - Competency of witness - Requirement of personal knowledge - Complainant company's Power of Attorney holder must explicitly assert in the complaint that he possesses direct knowledge of the transaction or witnessed the execution of the instrument - Mere omnibus statements in cross-examination are insufficient to fulfill the mandatory legal requirement - Held - Prosecution initiated without such assertions is legally unsustainable - [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Concurrent judgments of conviction and sentence set aside – Petitioner/Accused acquitted of the offence – Bail bond canceled.

Civil Law - Specific Performance - Registration Act 1908 - Section 49 - Unregistered Agreement to Sell - Trial Court rejected plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on grounds that an unregistered ATS involving delivery of possession is inadmissible under Section 17(1-A) read with Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 - High Court set aside the order holding that while an unregistered ATS cannot be used to claim protection of part performance under Section 53-A of the TP Act it is admissible under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance - Held - Suit is maintainable and not barred by law - [Paras 13-17].

Civil Law - Stamp Duty - Indian Stamp Act 1899 - Sections 33 and 35 - Insufficiency of stamping - Trial Court rejected plaint erroneously citing insufficient stamping and holding it inadmissible even upon curing defects - High Court ruled that insufficiency of stamp duty is not a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC as the Court has the authority under proviso (a) to Section 35 of the Stamp Act to admit an instrument in evidence upon payment of deficient duty and penalty - Held - Plaintiffs directed to deposit deficient stamp duty and penalty before the Trial Court to proceed with the suit - [Paras 18-24, 35].

Civil Law - Stamp Duty - Indian Stamp Act 1899 - Article 23-A - Conveyance in nature of part performance - Court clarified that an ATS contemplating delivery of possession attracts stamp duty as per Article 23-A of Schedule-I - Computation of duty to be based on concessional rates applicable to joint ownership by male and female - Held - Deficient duty to be calculated on the total consideration amount - [Paras 25-31].

Civil Law - Penalty - Indian Stamp Act 1899 - Section 40 - Discretionary power - While affirming the mandatory payment of penalty under Section 35 of the Act the High Court clarified that parties may apply to the Collector for refund of penalty in accordance with the principles in H.C. Dhanda Trust vs. State of Madhya Pradesh - Held - Payment of penalty is a pre-condition for proceeding but does not preclude subsequent application for refund - [Paras 32-33].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned Judgment and Decree set aside – Suit restored to its original number – Appellants directed to deposit deficient stamp duty and penalty within one month – Matter remanded to Trial Court for disposal on merits.

Civil Law - Limitation - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 5 Limitation Act 1963 - Restoration application - Petitioner challenged Trial Court order allowing restoration of Judicial Misc Case 1 of 2013 after five years delay - Opposite parties claimed lack of knowledge of dismissal despite participating in concurrent proceedings including Executive Magistrate case and High Court Writ petition where subject matter was disclosed - Trial Court erroneously allowed restoration without considering suppression of facts or lack of sufficient cause - High Court held that courts must ascertain bona fides before employing liberal approach and that unexplained inordinate delay coupled with suppression of material facts disentitles a party to discretionary relief - Held - Impugned order set aside - [Paras 16-27].

Civil Law - Discretionary Relief - Section 5 Limitation Act 1963 - Sufficient Cause - Concept of sufficient cause cannot be construed so liberally as to reward negligence or lack of bona fides - Applicant must show they were prevented by cause beyond control - Mechanical condonation of delay without cogent reasoning defeats object of Limitation Act - Held - Application for restoration dismissed - [Paras 23-26].

Civil Law - Practice and Procedure - Clean Hands - Suppression of material facts regarding knowledge of legal proceedings renders a party disentitled to relief under Order IX Rule 9 CPC - Where parties actively participated in other litigation mentioning the dismissed case they cannot plead ignorance to justify delay - Held - Conduct of parties and suppression of facts is fatal to the application - [Paras 21-25].

Decision: Revision allowed - Impugned order dated 17.11.2025 set aside - Application for restoration dismissed.

Writ Law - Alternative Remedy - SARFAESI Act 2002 - Section 17 - Forfeiture of EMD - Appellant-auction purchaser challenged forfeiture of EMD for property sold under SARFAESI Act citing non-disclosure of court attachment in sale notice - Single Judge dismissed petition on ground of alternative remedy before DRT - Division Bench upheld that grievances regarding auction process and forfeiture must be adjudicated by DRT - Court observed that non-disclosure of material facts under Rule 8(7)(f) is a substantive issue to be decided by the Tribunal - Held - Writ appeal disposed of granting liberty to approach DRT within three weeks without the bar of limitation - [Paras 1-17].

Banking Law - Auction Sale - Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 - Rule 8(7) - Duty of Disclosure - Authorised Officer mandated to disclose encumbrances and any other information necessary for a purchaser to know the nature and value of the property - Non-disclosure of an order of attachment may influence the decision of an auction purchaser - Whether such non-disclosure constitutes a material fact is for the DRT to determine - Held - Secured creditor cannot wash its hands of obligations after issuing sale certificate if statutory requirements are not met - [Paras 9-12].

Decision: Appeal disposed of - Appellant granted three weeks' time to file an application before the DRT - DRT directed to accept the application without insisting on a separate petition for condonation of delay and to decide the matter on merits.