Partition Suit – Unregistered Partition Deed – Held Inadmissible – Plaintiffs relied on Ex.P1 alleged to be a memorandum of oral partition – Trial and Appellate Courts held Ex.P1 to be a partition deed in presenti requiring compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act – Ex.P1 being unregistered was rightly held inadmissible – Courts below correctly rejected the plaintiffs' claim of partition [Paras 10-13].

Effect of Registered Release Deed – Valid and Binding – The plaintiffs' father had executed a registered release deed (Ex.D2) in 1956 relinquishing rights in favour of the defendant's branch – Plaintiffs neither challenged nor pleaded against the said release deed – Courts below rightly held that plaintiffs had no subsisting right in the suit property – Mere delay in raising the issue undermines the plaintiffs' claim [Paras 11-13].

Scope of Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings on Facts – Limited Scope – Both Courts held against the plaintiffs after appreciating oral and documentary evidence – High Court reiterated that under Section 100 CPC, interference is not warranted when concurrent findings are based on sound reasoning and no substantial question of law arises – Appeal dismissed [Paras 14-17].

Onus on Plaintiffs – Suppression of Release Deed – Plaintiffs suppressed Ex.D2 in the pleadings and failed to establish partition or joint family status – Courts below rightly held that plaintiffs cannot rely on weakness of the defendants without proving their own case [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgments of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court affirmed – No relief granted to the plaintiffs – Costs made easy [Paras 17].

Civil Law - Representative Suit – Non-compliance with Order I Rule 8 CPC – Suit Not Maintainable – The plaintiffs failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Order I Rule 8 CPC for filing a representative suit, including obtaining leave of the court and public notice – Held, the suit is not maintainable as representative suit [Paras 33-35].

Limitation – Challenge to Ancient Transactions – Suit Barred – Plaintiffs challenged the sale deed of 1963 without questioning the earlier foundational sale deed of 1953 – Suit filed after lapse of over 40 years – Held, barred by limitation under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 [Paras 32-35].

Finality of Decree – Principle of Res Judicata – Suit Hit by Res Judicata – The decrees obtained in O.S.No.542/1970, O.S.No.553/1989, O.S.No.1466/1992 and confirmed in RFA Nos.79 & 80 of 2002 and SLP before Supreme Court have attained finality – Held, the challenge to decrees is barred by principles of Res Judicata [Paras 30-31].

Title and Possession – No Right Derived by Plaintiff – Agreements and GPA Invalid – The vendor of the plaintiffs (Munichikkaiah) had already alienated his share and had no subsisting title – Held, plaintiffs acquired no title or possession under agreements – Subsequent transactions invalid [Paras 2729].

Boundary Discrepancies – Claim Beyond Agreement – Inconsistency in Extent – Plaintiffs’ claim for 8 acres 3 guntas exceeded the extent in agreements (6 acres 20 guntas) – Held, the suit schedule land and claimed property do not tally – Claim rejected [Para 36].

Development and Third-Party Rights – Plaintiffs Formed Layout without Title – No Protection under Representative Capacity – Plaintiffs had formed layout and sold sites but lacked title themselves – No protection available through representative suit mechanism [Paras 28-29].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Regular First Appeal fails as the suit was barred by limitation, hit by res judicata, improperly framed as a representative suit, and lacked merit on title and possession – Trial court judgment upheld [Paras 36-37].

NDPS Act – Compliance with Section 50 – Search Procedure Properly Followed – Bail Denied - The petitioner alleged non-compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act, claiming he was not informed about his right to be searched before the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate – Court held that the petitioner was informed in English of his right under Section 50 and refused to avail it in writing – Referring to Supreme Court rulings, the Court held that “nearest” does not mandate proximity, only intent to ensure fair procedure – Thus, compliance with Section 50 was held to be sufficient [Paras 15-16].

Constructive Possession – Recovery from Rented Premises – Exclusive Possession Proven – Bail Rejected - Petitioner challenged the recovery of 205 gms of contraband from his rented room, arguing lack of exclusive possession – Court relied on landlord’s statement under Section 161 CrPC confirming petitioner was sole occupant of the room – Held: Recovery attributable to the petitioner – no benefit of doubt at bail stage [Paras 17-18].

Procedural Lapses – Sections 57 and 52A NDPS Act – Delay in Sampling Not Fatal – Procedural Irregularities Do Not Entitle Bail - Petitioner argued non-compliance of Sections 52A and 57 due to delay in presenting the accused and drawing of sample – Court held that such procedural irregularities are not grounds for bail unless serious prejudice is shown – Sampling conducted next day held permissible – Supported by Supreme Court judgments in NCB v. Kashif and UOI v. Mohan Lal [Paras 19, 22-25].

Presence of ACP – Non-Signing of Seizure Memo Not Material – No Ground for Bail - Petitioner contended the ACP’s presence was doubtful as his signature was not on seizure memo – Court rejected this, noting the seizure memo was signed by IO and witnesses and presence of ACP was otherwise established [Paras 20-21].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity Recovery – Bail Denied – Petitioner in Custody Since 15.06.2023 – No Grounds Made Out to Satisfy Twin Conditions - Charges framed, trial ongoing, and commercial quantity of contraband recovered – No material before Court to infer petitioner is unlikely to reoffend or that case is prima facie not true – Bail application dismissed in view of Section 37 embargo [Paras 26-27].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Commercial Quantity Recovery Attracts Section 37 NDPS Bar – Court found that the recovery from the petitioner’s person and exclusive rented premises amounted to commercial quantity – No procedural violations that would vitiate the trial were made out – Held: No case for bail is made out under the stringent conditions of Section 37 – Application dismissed [Para 27].
 

Criminal Law - Rash and Negligent Driving – Revision against conviction - Appreciation of Evidence – Conviction Set Aside – Petitioner convicted by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court for causing death by rash and negligent driving – Revision filed challenging conviction – Held: Evidence of eyewitnesses P.W.3 and P.W.4 found unreliable as their presence at accident site was doubtful – Contradictions between medical evidence and eyewitness testimony – Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report did not corroborate prosecution’s version – No proper identification of petitioner as driver – Accident possibly caused by improper riding of two-wheeler by P.W.1 – Conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 2-8].

Rashness and Criminal Negligence – Requirement of Proof – Concept Explained – Mere occurrence of accident or death not sufficient to infer criminal rashness or negligence – Necessity of proving reckless or grossly negligent conduct – Prosecution failed to establish rashness or negligence to the required degree – Petitioner entitled to acquittal [Paras 5-8].

Decision – Criminal Revision Petition allowed – Conviction and sentence imposed by Trial Court and confirmed by Appellate Court set aside – Petitioner acquitted of all charges – Legal Aid Counsel appreciated for efforts [Paras 9-11].

Civil - Excise License – Fraudulent Transfer of FL-II License – License Restored – Collector’s Cancellation Upheld – Petitioners alleged impersonation and forgery in the transfer of their liquor license to Respondents 4 & 5 – Court found forged Aadhaar Card, mismatched signatures, and impersonation established by Excise Department’s inquiry – Transfer held void ab initio and Collector’s cancellation order restored [Paras 1–10, 16–24, 30–31].

Impersonation and Forgery – Excise Inquiry Confirmed Fabricated Documents – Petitioners established that affidavits, power of attorney, and ID proofs were falsified to impersonate original license holder – Excise Inspector admitted error in identity verification – Findings of Deputy Superintendent Inquiry accepted by Court [Paras 17–23].

Fraud Vitiates All – Authority Has Inherent Power to Recall Fraudulent Orders – Court invoked principles from Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres and A.V. Papayya Sastry – Held: Even in absence of express review power, fraud permits recall – Fraudulently secured license cannot be legitimized by administrative oversight [Paras 24–26, 28–29].

Revisional Authority’s Failure – Non-Application of Mind – Decision Set Aside – Revisional Authority relied on vague police report, ignoring documentary proof of impersonation and Excise findings – Court held this to be a perverse and legally unsustainable approach [Paras 27, 30].

Relief – Restoration to Status Quo Ante – License Returned to Genuine Holder – Impugned orders quashed – License to be reinstated in petitioner’s name – Stay refused considering fraud proved on record [Paras 30–33].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) – Orders passed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities quashed – License to be restored to the petitioners – Request for stay rejected [Paras 30–33].
 

Civil Writ - Challenge to Selection Process – Alleged Irregularities in Evaluation – Dismissed – Petitioners contended that there were discrepancies in marks, improper scaling, and procedural irregularities – Court held that the selection process was conducted as per rules and in absence of specific material irregularities, challenge was liable to be rejected [Paras 39-48].

Reservation Policy – Implementation of Horizontal Reservation – Properly Applied – Petitioners alleged violation of horizontal reservation for female, EBC, SC, and ST candidates – Court held that the Commission had correctly applied horizontal reservation in compliance with rules and government instructions [Paras 49-58].

Equivalence of Degrees – B.Tech Degree Holders Treated as Graduates – Valid – Petitioners raised objection regarding qualification criteria and equivalence of B.Tech degree – Court affirmed that B.Tech degree is equivalent to a graduate degree for the purpose of eligibility – Petitioners’ contention rejected [Paras 59-64].

Errors in OMR Evaluation and Rechecking – Commission's Stand Accepted – Petitioners challenged the Commission’s refusal to permit rechecking of OMR sheets – Court held that under the Rules, there is no provision for rechecking of OMR and evaluation was conducted correctly – Commission's process upheld [Paras 65-69].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Court found no illegality or arbitrariness in the selection process – Selection process affirmed – All petitions dismissed with no interference called for [Paras 70-72].
 

Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder – Appeal against conviction - Firing in Open Court – Conviction Upheld – Heinous Act – Appellant, present in courtroom during cross murder trial, fired from close range at PW2 Ram Bharose Lal with country-made pistol – Court held act was intentional and premeditated, backed by enmity – Held: Appellant rightly convicted under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act – No case made for sentence reduction [Paras 1–6, 34–41].

Eyewitness & Injured Witness – Credibility of Testimony – Relatives Not Disqualified – Court reaffirmed that testimony of injured victim (PW2) and nephew (PW1) could not be discarded merely due to relationship – PW2's presence undisputed, bullet still lodged in body during statement recording – His testimony corroborated by medical and investigative evidence – Held: Reliable and sufficient for conviction [Paras 23–30, 34–39].

Weapon Recovery – Arrest on Spot – Close Range Injury – Evidentiary Chain Intact – Appellant caught with loaded firearm inside courtroom – Recovery of five live cartridges and spent shell corroborated by seizure memo – Charring and tattooing on wound confirmed close-range shot – Held: Recovery and medical evidence strengthened prosecution case [Paras 4–6, 35–37].

Defective Investigation – Not Fatal – Courtroom Attack With Eyewitnesses – Alleged lapses like missing ballistic report or police staff testimony held immaterial in light of direct, cogent, and prompt evidence – Reliance placed on multiple SC precedents confirming that defective investigation alone doesn't vitiate trial where guilt is otherwise established [Paras 30–34, 39].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 307 IPC (life imprisonment) and Section 25 Arms Act (three years RI) upheld – Sentences to run concurrently – No scope for leniency given the gravity and setting of the crime – Courtroom attack considered a severe threat to the justice system [Paras 43–45].
 

Civil Law - Trademark Infringement – Similarity in Visual and Phonetic Structure – Permanent Injunction Granted – Defendant used the mark ‘BRIMESTONE’ for rubber products which was found deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s well-known registered mark ‘BRIDGESTONE’ – Defendant replaced only two letters while retaining key phonetic and visual elements – Infringement and passing off established [Paras 31–37].

Ex Parte Proceedings – Non-Appearance of Defendant – Evidence Unchallenged – Defendant failed to file written statement or cross-examine plaintiff’s witness – Court deemed averments and documents admitted – Local Commissioner’s seizure report further corroborated infringing conduct [Paras 19–27, 42].

Damages – Quantified Based on Investigator & LC Reports – ₹34.41 Lakhs Awarded – Plaintiff established illegal profits from 3 years of sales using counterfeit mark – Court adopted conservative one-and-a-half-year base and 20% profit margin for “rough and ready” calculation – Damages awarded under category of repeated knowing infringer [Paras 43–49].

Costs – Actual Costs Recoverable – Bill of Costs for ₹14.38 Lakhs Submitted – Plaintiff directed to approach Taxation Officer for determination – Defendant’s evasion cannot shield it from compensatory consequences [Paras 50–53].

Decision: Suit decreed – Permanent injunction granted restraining use of ‘BRIMESTONE’ or any mark deceptively similar to ‘BRIDGESTONE’ – ₹34,41,240/- compensatory damages awarded – Costs to be determined by Taxation Officer – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 54–59].

Criminal Law - Rape – Consent Based on Promise to Marry – Victim Major – Conviction Set Aside – Alleged victim engaged in consensual relationship with appellant under belief of future marriage – High Court found from ossification test (PW6) that victim was approximately 25 years old at time of incident – No evidence to show that promise was false from inception – Held: Consent not vitiated – Ingredients of Section 375 IPC not attracted [Paras 6–12, 21–25]. 
 
Delayed FIR – Lack of Prompt Disclosure – Inference of Consent – FIR filed after 5 months of pregnancy – Victim did not inform anyone immediately post incident – Court held delay and continued sexual relationship point to voluntary participation, not coercion or rape [Paras 11–13, 20, 23]. 
 
Ossification Test – No Proof of Minority – No Documentary Birth Record – Age determined as 25 years with ±2 years – Court relied on ossification test in absence of credible documentary proof – Victim held to be major at time of alleged incident – Section 375 ‘sixthly’ not applicable [Paras 9, 21]. 
 
Witness Discrepancies – Material Contradictions – Victim’s Testimony Unreliable – Court noted inconsistency in victim’s deposition and prior statements under Section 161 CrPC – Other key witnesses not examined – Medical evidence did not support forceful intercourse – Conviction held unsustainable [Paras 14–16, 24–25]. 
 
False Promise to Marry – Not Sufficient to Vitiate Consent – Awareness of Nature of Act – Victim knowingly consented to sexual act – Consent under such belief not legally invalid where no evidence of fraud or deception from inception – Relationship found consensual [Paras 22–23]. 
  
Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged – Trial Court records to be returned immediately [Paras 26–27].