Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant sought specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 29.11.1989 for 5 acres of land – The trial court rejected the relief on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his contractual obligations – Held: Readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act must be demonstrated throughout the proceedings – Mere assertion without evidence does not suffice – Appeal dismissed [Paras 22-25].

Contract Law – Breach of Agreement – No Proof of Compliance by Plaintiff – As per the agreement, the plaintiff had to pay the balance sale consideration by 01.08.1990 – The plaintiff neither paid the amount nor issued any legal notice expressing readiness and willingness – Held: Non-issuance of notice before filing suit weakens the plaintiff’s claim – Defendants had removed crops as per contract terms, but plaintiff failed to perform his part – Trial court rightly refused specific performance [Paras 15-19].

Judicial Precedents – Time and Essence of Contract – No Automatic Right to Specific Performance – Plaintiff contended that time was not of the essence – Relying on K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan, (1997) 3 SCC 1, and Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani, (1993) 1 SCC 519, the court held that even where time is not expressly stated as essential, performance must be within a reasonable period – Plaintiff’s inaction for a long period negates the claim for specific performance [Paras 21-22].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Refund of Advance Upheld – High Court upheld the trial court’s decree, confirming the refund of ₹2,50,000/- advance amount with interest – Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs [Para 26].
 

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption – Requirement of Sanction for Prosecution – Cognizance Without Sanction Invalid – The applicant was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe through a co-accused, leading to his prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – The competent authority denied sanction twice, yet the chargesheet was filed, and cognizance was taken – The High Court held that Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act explicitly bars courts from taking cognizance of corruption charges against public servants without prior sanction – Held: The entire proceedings were flawed due to the absence of sanction, rendering the trial void ab initio [Paras 16-19, 32].

Sanction Under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act – A Mandatory Precondition for Cognizance – The Court reiterated that the sanctioning authority must apply its mind to the allegations before granting prosecution sanction – In this case, the Government of Maharashtra twice refused sanction, indicating no prima facie case against the applicant – Held: Without sanction, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance, making the proceedings against the applicant legally unsustainable [Paras 17-21, 30-32].

Exoneration in Departmental Inquiry – Impact on Criminal Proceedings – The applicant was exonerated in the departmental inquiry conducted against him – The Supreme Court in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. DSP, CBI held that if an accused is exonerated on merits in departmental proceedings, a separate criminal trial may be unwarranted – Held: Since the departmental inquiry absolved the applicant of charges, continuing the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process [Paras 25-27, 31].

Application for Discharge – Principles Governing Discharge Under Criminal Law – The Court applied the test for discharge under Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, which mandates that if the prosecution evidence does not disclose a prima facie case, the accused must be discharged – Held: The prosecution failed to establish a strong suspicion against the applicant, warranting his discharge from the case [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Criminal Revision Allowed – The High Court quashed and set aside the order dated 31.01.2022, which had rejected the discharge application – The applicant is discharged of all charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Criminal proceedings against the applicant are terminated [Paras 33-36].
 

Service Law – Recruitment Criteria – CGLE Notice vs. Recruitment Rules – Tribunal’s Order Set Aside – Petitioners challenged CAT’s order granting relief to candidates who were rejected for failing to meet the CGLE 2019 eligibility criteria – Tribunal held that the Recruitment Rules (RRs) would override the CGLE Notice – Held: The CGLE Notice merely clarifies the RRs and does not contradict them – Requirement of studying Statistics for all three years of graduation is essential for SIG-II role, given its statistical analysis responsibilities – Tribunal’s order directing appointment of ineligible candidates set aside [Paras 10-18].

Administrative Law – Eligibility Conditions in Advertisement – Candidates Bound by Stipulated Criteria – Respondents participated in the recruitment process knowing the eligibility conditions but challenged them only after being declared ineligible – Held: A candidate who voluntarily takes part in a selection process cannot later dispute the prescribed qualifications upon failing – Doctrine of estoppel applies – Candidates cannot claim relaxation of criteria retrospectively [Paras 19-22].

Judicial Precedents – Recruitment Rules vs. Executive Instructions – Clarificatory Role of CGLE Notice Upheld – Tribunal erroneously held that the CGLE Notice imposed additional conditions beyond the RRs – Held: Where statutory rules are silent, executive instructions can supplement but not override them – CGLE Notice aligns with the job requirements of SIG-II and ensures competent selection – Precedents relied upon by respondents distinguishable [Paras 13-16].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Tribunal’s Order Quashed – High Court allowed the petition, holding that CGLE 2019 eligibility conditions were valid and binding – Respondents not entitled to appointment – No costs imposed [Para 24].
 

Land Acquisition – Delay and Laches – Writ Petition Dismissed – The petitioner challenged the acquisition of land in Village Akurdi, Pune, which was acquired under the MID Act in 1971, with possession taken in 1972 – Petition filed in 2010, nearly 38 years after the acquisition – Held: Delay of over three decades is unexplained and renders the petition non-maintainable – Principles of delay and laches bar the challenge, as acquisition proceedings had attained finality [Paras 1-4, 10-12].

Property Law – Land Acquisition and Possession – Once Vested, Cannot Be Reversed – The petitioner’s father had agreed to the acquisition in consent terms recorded before the High Court in 1968 – Held: Once land vests in the government upon acquisition, it cannot be challenged after decades on the ground that the petitioner was unaware of the process – Petitioner’s plea that possession was not taken is contradicted by official records – Land deemed lawfully acquired [Paras 8-10, 15-17].

Judicial Review – High Court Cannot Interfere After Conclusion of Acquisition Process – Petitioner argued that no compensation was paid, and therefore, the acquisition lapsed – Held: The remedy for non-payment of compensation lies in seeking proper legal recourse, not in challenging acquisition decades later – Supreme Court rulings reaffirm that land acquisition cannot be nullified solely on non-payment of compensation [Paras 20-25].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No Relief Granted – High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the acquisition – Held: No case for interference as the petitioner’s challenge was barred by delay, acquiescence, and past judicial orders – Costs imposed on the petitioner for abuse of legal process [Paras 30-32].
 

Criminal Law - Murder Trial – Oral Dying Declaration – Acceptable and Corroborated – Conviction Upheld – Deceased Sanjay, before succumbing to gunshot wounds, made a statement to his father and uncle identifying Lachhman as the assailant – Court held that oral dying declarations, if reliable and supported by medical evidence, are admissible – Consistent medical and witness testimony validated prosecution's case [Paras 17–21].

Recovery of Weapon – Disclosure Statement and FSL Report – Strong Corroboration – Lachhman’s disclosure led to recovery of pistol and cartridges – FSL confirmed cartridge matched recovered weapon – Held: Recovery in pursuance of disclosure adds significant weight to the prosecution’s case [Para 22].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Use Against Co-Accused – Rejected – Lachhman’s alleged confession to deceased’s brother-in-law implicating co-accused Chand Singh held inadmissible against Chand – Court reiterated extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence, especially when made to interested witnesses, and cannot alone establish conspiracy [Paras 23–25].

Motive – Previous Murder Case – Not Sufficient for Co-Accused Conviction – Deceased was a witness in earlier case involving Chand Singh and Santro – Court held: While motive was strong, it cannot replace substantive evidence – No direct link established between Chand Singh and actual murder of Sanjay [Paras 26–28].

Acquittal of Co-Accused Santro – Conversation Insufficient to Prove Conspiracy – Witness claimed to overhear vague conversation between Santro and Lachhman – Court held it lacked specificity and credibility, and Santro’s acquittal was justified [Para 29].

Decision: Appeal of Lachhman dismissed – Conviction and life sentence for murder and Arms Act upheld – Appeal of Chand Singh allowed – Acquitted due to lack of independent and corroborated evidence – State’s appeal against Santro’s acquittal dismissed [Para 30].

Waqf Law – Jurisdiction Over Waqf Property – Commission of Inquiry Lacks Authority – Writ Petitions Allowed – Petitioners challenged the Kerala Government’s order appointing a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to investigate ownership claims over a property declared as waqf – Held: Waqf Board has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a property is waqf – Section 40(2) of the Waqf Act makes the Waqf Board’s decision final, subject only to Tribunal review – Government’s appointment of the Commission contravenes Section 85 of the Waqf Act, which bars jurisdiction of any other authority over waqf matters – Commission’s appointment quashed [Paras 30-35].

Administrative Law – Competence of State Government – Commission of Inquiry Not Justified – The Kerala Government claimed authority under the Commissions of Inquiry Act to resolve a matter of “public importance” – Held: The dispute relates to property rights, which fall under the exclusive purview of the Waqf Tribunal – The Government failed to consider relevant legal provisions and the ongoing appeal before the Tribunal – Mere public protests or agitations cannot justify the appointment of an inquiry commission – Government’s action held arbitrary and legally unsustainable [Paras 24-26, 39-42].

Judicial Review – Government’s Decision to Appoint Inquiry Commission Lacks Legal Basis – Petitioners argued that the Government acted without jurisdiction and in violation of existing legal orders – Held: Government ignored previous High Court orders and the statutory framework of the Waqf Act – Section 85 of the Act prohibits interference in waqf matters by civil or revenue courts, reinforcing the exclusive jurisdiction of the Waqf Board and Tribunal – The decision to appoint the Commission was made without application of mind and is liable to be struck down [Paras 40-43].

Final Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Government Order Quashed – Kerala High Court quashed the Government’s order appointing the Commission of Inquiry – Held: The Waqf Board’s authority stands, and any challenge to its decision must be adjudicated before the Waqf Tribunal – Government directed not to interfere in waqf-related disputes contrary to the Waqf Act [Paras 43-44].
 

Criminal Law - Rash and Negligent Driving – Absence of Direct Evidence – Conviction Set Aside – The petitioner, a bus driver, was convicted for rash and negligent driving, causing an accident that resulted in multiple injuries and one fatality – The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, as no witness directly observed the petitioner driving negligently – Held: In criminal trials, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – Since none of the witnesses, including the passengers and the complainant, saw the petitioner driving rashly, the conviction could not be sustained [Paras 7-10].

Eye-Witness Testimony – Lack of Direct Observation – Benefit of Doubt – The trial court relied on witness statements that were based on hearing the accident rather than seeing the petitioner’s driving behavior – The complainant (P.W.1) himself admitted that he did not see the petitioner’s driving before the accident – Held: Conviction under Section 304(A) IPC requires clear evidence of culpable negligence, which was absent in this case – The petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the doubt [Paras 9-10].

Judicial Review – Failure of Lower Courts to Properly Appreciate Evidence – Both the trial court and the appellate court convicted the petitioner without properly assessing the lack of direct evidence – The High Court found that the findings of both courts were perverse and resulted in a miscarriage of justice – Held: The revision petition was allowed, and the petitioner was acquitted [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Conviction and sentence set aside. The petitioner acquitted, and any fine amount paid to be refunded.
 

Interim Maintenance – Non-compliance with Supreme Court Guidelines – Order Set Aside - petitioner challenged an interim maintenance order passed by the Family Court, Kollam, contending that the order was issued without compliance with the mandatory requirement of filing an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities as prescribed in Rajnesh v. Neha. The Supreme Court mandated that all maintenance proceedings must be accompanied by disclosure affidavits to ensure transparency in financial status. Held: Since neither party filed the required affidavits, the interim maintenance order is unsustainable and is set aside. The case is remitted to the Family Court for fresh adjudication in compliance with Rajnesh v. Neha [Paras 5-7].

Family Court Jurisdiction – Requirement of Financial Disclosure in Maintenance Cases – Mandatory Compliance Directed

The Kerala High Court observed that despite the Supreme Court’s directions in Rajnesh v. Neha and Aditi alias Mithi v. Jithesh Sharma [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1451], various Family Courts continue to decide maintenance applications without ensuring the submission of affidavits disclosing financial status. Held: All courts in Kerala dealing with maintenance cases must strictly adhere to the Supreme Court guidelines, ensuring that affidavits of financial disclosure are filed before passing any interim or final maintenance orders [Paras 6, 8].

Procedural Fairness – Remand for Fresh Consideration – Compliance with Supreme Court Guidelines - High Court directed the Family Court to reconsider the interim maintenance application after ensuring both parties file their financial disclosure affidavits. Petitioner granted ten days to file an affidavit, failing which the Family Court may decide the matter based on available records. Held: The case is remanded for fresh disposal, and all courts in Kerala handling maintenance cases are instructed to follow Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines in all future proceedings [Paras 7-11].

Decision: The interim maintenance order is set aside. The case is remitted to the Family Court, Kollam, for fresh adjudication, ensuring compliance with Rajnesh v. Neha. All courts in Kerala are directed to enforce financial disclosure requirements before deciding maintenance cases.

Civil Law - Lis Pendens – Applicability to Court Auction Sale – Better Title of Decree Holder – The appellant, having obtained a decree for specific performance, was delivered possession of the property through execution proceedings – Subsequently, the respondent, an auction purchaser in a money decree execution, sought delivery of possession – The Court held that since the specific performance suit was filed prior to the money suit, the principle of lis pendens applies – Held: A purchaser in a court auction sale is bound by the result of pending litigation concerning the same property – The respondent’s title derived through the auction was inferior to the appellant’s title [Paras 17-21].

Attachment Before Judgment – Effect on Prior Suit for Specific Performance – The first respondent obtained an attachment before judgment in a money suit, but the attachment was not immediately communicated to the Sub-Registrar as required under Order 38 Rule 11-B CPC (Madras High Court Amendment) – The Court held that failure to notify the attachment in a timely manner meant that the decree holder in the specific performance suit had a superior right – Held: Since the sale deed in favor of the appellant was executed pursuant to a court decree, the attachment in the money decree did not affect the transfer of title [Paras 8-10].

Collusion Between Judgment Debtor and Money Suit Plaintiff – Burden of Proof – The appellant alleged that the money suit was collusive, filed after receiving a legal notice regarding the agreement for sale – The Court observed that the money suit was filed only after the suit for specific performance was instituted and that the judgment debtors remained ex parte throughout the proceedings – Held: The circumstances indicated collusion, supporting the appellant’s contention that the money decree was obtained to defeat the specific performance decree [Paras 11-12].

Execution of Sale Deed – Compliance with Order XXI Rule 34 CPC – The respondent contended that the sale deed in favor of the appellant was invalid due to non-compliance with procedural requirements under Order XXI Rule 34 CPC – The Court held that since the judgment debtors had remained ex parte, objections to procedural irregularities could not be raised by a third party – Held: Any challenge to the execution of the sale deed could only be made by the judgment debtor, not by the respondent auction purchaser [Paras 12-13].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens vs. Attachment Before Judgment – Priority of Rights – The Court reaffirmed that while an attachment prevents private alienation, it does not create ownership rights – In contrast, lis pendens imposes a complete embargo on property transfer during pending litigation – Held: The sale in favor of the respondent was ineffective against the doctrine of lis pendens, as the specific performance suit predated the money decree proceedings [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Appeal allowed. Order of the Executing Court set aside. The appellant’s title upheld, and execution petition filed by the respondent for possession dismissed.