Civil Law - Partition Suit – Identity of Deceased Ancestor – Discrepant Names in Records – Identity Confirmed – Dispute arose over whether Baroda Mondal and Baroda Prasad Mondal were the same person—Appellants claimed two different persons; respondents claimed singular identity—Held: Cumulative circumstantial evidence including consistent paternal link, common address, and admission by PW1 created strong probability of single identity—Discrepancies in names in rural context not fatal—Trial Court finding upheld [Paras 17–20].

Inheritance Rights – Children from Second Marriage – Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act – Appellants questioned legitimacy of respondents born from second marriage—Held: Even if second marriage was void, Section 16 HMA protects inheritance rights of children—Trial Court rightly treated all five children as co-heirs entitled to 1/5th share each [Paras 21–22].

Gift Deed – Validity Limited to Share of Executant – Partial Cancellation – Appellant no. 1 gifted entire joint property to his son via registered deed—Trial Court found gift valid only to extent of his 1/5th share—Held: Transfer beyond own share in undivided property invalid—Deed cancelled to extent of 4/5th share—Registrar to be notified under Section 31(2) of Specific Relief Act [Paras 5, 30, 34(iii)-(iv)].

Evidence – Exhibit Marked by Consent – Lack of Specific Pleading Not Fatal – Challenge raised to Exhibit 10 (Register of Death) for lack of pleadings—Held: Marked by consent; objection waived—Evidence validly considered—Court did not exceed pleadings [Paras 25–28].

Procedural Irregularity – Unverified Written Statements – Effect on Defence – Defendants failed to verify pleadings and submit affidavits—Held: Violation of Order VI Rule 15 CPC impacts evidentiary value of defence—Supports respondents’ case [Para 29].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Trial Court’s findings upheld with modification – Registrar to be notified for partial cancellation of Gift Deed – Preliminary decree for partition to proceed – Application for appointment of receiver to be considered afresh – No costs awarded – Three-week stay on operation of judgment granted [Paras 33–34].

Civil Law - Sections 54, 58 and 60 of the Transfer of Property Act - Transfer of Property – Conditional Sale vs. Mortgage by Conditional Sale – Deed Interpreted as Absolute Sale – Deed dated 24.03.1953 executed by Bibi Akikul Nisa was challenged as a mortgage with right of redemption – Trial court and appellate court held deed to be an absolute sale with right to repurchase within five years – Patna High Court upheld this view – Held: Clear recital showed title transfer with no debtor-creditor relationship; no ambiguity to justify inference of mortgage – Redemption suit not maintainable [Paras 3–9, 23–25, 38–43].

Document Construction – Single Document with Repurchase Clause – Not Sufficient for Mortgage – Court noted that presence of repurchase clause alone does not convert a sale into a mortgage – Absence of express mortgage language and exclusive reliance on one deed construed as sale with conditional buyback – Supposition under Section 58(c) rebutted – Key test: intention from the deed itself and absence of ambiguity [Paras 25, 34–35].

Title and Possession – Right to Mutation and Tax Payment Granted – Strong Indicator of Sale – Deed allowed purchaser to mutate name in municipal records and pay taxes – Found incompatible with a mortgage relationship – Held: Mortgagors do not part with right to mutation or relinquish future claims outright – Execution of prior 1950 mortgage deed followed by 1953 deed with higher consideration supported sale intention [Paras 38–39].

Inadequacy of Consideration – Not a Sufficient Test – Plaintiffs claimed inadequacy of sale price indicated mortgage – Court disagreed – Noted upward revision from 1950 mortgage value of ₹3200 to ₹7337 in 1953 justified sale consideration – Emphasized absence of interest and unrestricted possession by purchaser supported outright sale [Paras 11–13, 39].

Oral Evidence – Not Relevant for Clear Deed – Appellants challenged lower courts' rejection of oral evidence – High Court held oral testimony immaterial where deed terms are unambiguous – No fault found in courts’ decision to prioritize documentary terms over oral versions – Order XLI Rule 31 CPC obligations deemed fulfilled [Paras 10, 16, 33].

Precedent Analysis – Distinction from Chunchun Jha Line of Cases – Appellants relied on Chunchun Jha and Srinivasaiah to claim mortgage – Court distinguished based on factual context – Relied instead on Bhoju Mandal and Prakash to hold that document conveyed absolute sale – Held: Each case to be decided on its own terms; surrounding circumstances support sale [Paras 25–32, 41].

Decision – Second Appeal dismissed – Document of 1953 declared a sale deed with option of repurchase and not a mortgage – Findings of lower courts upheld – No error in concurrent findings – Suit for redemption not maintainable [Paras 42–44].

Civil Law - Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2 and Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Mandatory Injunction - Possession and Encroachment – Longstanding Possession – Plaintiff’s Access Blocked – Possession Protected - Plaintiff, in settled possession of Plot No. D-1 since 1998, was dispossessed of 92 sq. yds. by defendant’s unilateral demolition of the boundary wall in April 2022 – Held: Such action amounts to unlawful dispossession – Mandatory injunction granted for restoration of original boundary and access [Paras 9–13, 29–32, 56–59].

Layout Plan Validity – Unauthorized Colony – Binding Effect of RWA-submitted Plan – Encroachment Unjustified – Colony's layout submitted in 2010 to GNCTD identified plaintiff’s and defendant’s plots distinctly – Defendant no. 1’s acquisition and actions contravened the certified layout – Held: Layout plan binding on all plot holders; unilateral changes not permissible [Paras 13–15, 26–28, 43–50].

Sale Deed Ambiguity – Deficiency in Description – Sale Deeds Invalid under Registration Act – Defendant’s Title Weak – Sale deeds executed in 2021 by defendant failed to describe plot boundaries or attach a site plan – Violation of Section 21 of the Registration Act, 1908 – Held: Defendant’s reliance on vague sale deed rejected [Paras 21–25].

Urbanisation and Jurisdiction – Mehrauli Not Under Revenue Authorities – SDM Demarcation Invalid – Mehrauli urbanised under DMC Act, 1957 – Held: Revenue demarcation dated 01.08.2022 illegal, SDM lacked jurisdiction over subject land post-urbanisation – Layout plan governs property identification [Paras 42–44].

Title Challenge by Defendant – Plaintiff’s Deed Partially Valid – Challenge Does Not Defeat Possession – Defendant questioned plaintiff’s title due to prior alienation – Held: Even if partial title defective, co-owner (husband of vendor) must bear consequences, plaintiff’s share unaffected – Encroachment cannot be justified on title dispute [Paras 35–38].

Access Rights – Land-Locking – Alternate Access Not Justified – Defendant claimed plaintiff could access land via co-owner’s plot – Held: Each plot entitled to independent access – Blocking ingress from Mata Marg unacceptable – Access restored [Paras 16, 46].

Mandatory Injunction – Restoration of Status Quo – Strong Prima Facie Case – Plaintiff shown to have strong case, irreversible harm from blocked entry – Held: Restoration of original wall and access ordered – Police protection granted for execution [Paras 51–55, 59–61].

Decision: Suit – Mandatory Injunction – Restoration Ordered – Status Quo Ante Directed - Court held that the plaintiff had been in settled possession of Plot No. D-1 since 1998 and was unlawfully dispossessed of 92 sq. yds. by the defendants in April 2022 – Ordered demolition of the new wall constructed by defendants and restoration of the original boundary wall and access to internal road (Mata Marg) – Defendant restrained from further altering or disturbing the property – Court appointed a Local Commissioner and directed police protection for enforcement of the order [Paras 59–61].

Income Tax – Section 263 – Revisionary Jurisdiction – No Enquiry by AO – Appellant claimed 100% depreciation on leasehold improvements (interior works, partitions, etc.)—Assessing Officer allowed claim without examining nature or rate of depreciation—Held: As AO failed to conduct enquiry or apply mind to the issue, order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue—CIT rightly invoked Section 263—Tribunal order upheld [Paras 1–6, 14–20].

Assessment Order – No Discussion on Depreciation Claim – Validity of 263 Action – Assessment order dated 29.10.2012 was silent on leasehold improvement depreciation—Authorized representative admitted during revision proceedings that no enquiry occurred—Held: Absence of reasoning or discussion in assessment implies non-application of mind—Sufficient ground for 263 revision [Paras 17–19].

Depreciation on Leasehold Improvements – Factual Inquiry Mandatory – Prior Tribunal Orders Not Binding – Appellant cited earlier favorable orders for AY 2000-01 & 2001-02—Held: Nature of expenditure differs yearly—Each AY must be independently examined—Past decisions not conclusive—100% depreciation not justified without scrutiny [Paras 10–11, 19–20].

Rectification under Section 154 – Not a Bar to 263 Revision – AO had initially issued rectification notice but accepted assessee’s reply and didn’t revise order—Held: Failure to revise under Section 154 does not imply enquiry was made—263 action remains valid where AO’s order is erroneous and prejudicial [Paras 5–6, 12–13].

Substantial Question of Law – No Arises – Concurrent Findings on Facts – High Court found no reason to interfere with concurrent findings of CIT and ITAT—Held: No substantial question of law arose—Appeal dismissed [Paras 21–22].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Order of ITAT upholding Section 263 revision sustained – No costs awarded [Para 22].

Criminal Law – Grievous Hurt – Section 326 IPC – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant convicted for grievously assaulting neighbour with a sharp weapon—Trial court held 307 IPC unproved but convicted under 326 IPC—High Court held: Prosecution failed to prove identity of assailant beyond reasonable doubt—Inconsistent testimony, lack of motive, and absence of credible evidence fatal to prosecution—Conviction unsustainable [Paras 1–3, 12–22].

Evidence – Identification in Darkness – No Electricity – Doubtful Recognition – Incident occurred at 8:30 PM in village with no electricity—Key witnesses claimed to identify assailant in moonlight, yet failed to describe clothing—No test identification parade conducted—Held: Identification unreliable in absence of light and confirmed visibility [Paras 5–6, 12–14].

Medical Evidence – Injury Report Deficiencies – No FSL or Hospital Seal – Doctor’s report lacked hospital seal and did not specify nature/age of injuries—Only 3 cm cut wound identified despite alleged use of sharp Bamfok—Clothing and weapon not sent for forensic analysis—Held: Medical evidence not reliable; prosecution failed to corroborate injuries with alleged weapon [Paras 7, 15, 20].

Investigation Lapses – Sketch Map, Witness Omission, Weapon Not Produced – IO failed to include adjacent eyewitnesses in sketch map—Seizure list witnesses disowned contents—Weapon not produced in court or tested—Held: Serious lapses in investigation undermined prosecution case [Paras 5, 11, 18].

Motive – No Provocation or Reason for Assault – Prosecution failed to show motive—No prior enmity—Victim attacked allegedly while relieving himself at night—Held: Lack of motive casts serious doubt on prosecution’s version [Para 18].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 326 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bond discharged under Section 437A CrPC [Paras 23–26].

Motor Accident Claim – Rash and Negligent Driving – Eyewitness Testimony Upheld – Appeal Partly Allowed – The deceased, a government employee, fell from a moving bus due to sudden braking – Insurance company challenged the finding of rash driving citing lack of independent witnesses – Court upheld the testimony of PW3, co-worker of the deceased, corroborated by FIR and Investigating Officer – No evidence rebutting the eyewitness's credibility – Onus duly discharged by claimants [Paras 3–7, 17].

Driving Licence Validity – Endorsement for Transport Vehicle – Plea Rejected – Insurance company argued that the driver held a 20-year licence in violation of statutory term – Court found from record (Ext.RW2/A) that endorsements were in place and licence validly renewed for transport vehicle – No objection taken during trial – Argument held misconceived and dismissed [Paras 11, 18–20].

Contributory Negligence – Not Pleaded or Proved – Claim Denied – Insurance company raised contributory negligence for first time on appeal – No such plea before MACT nor any evidence led – Court rejected the argument as unsustainable [Paras 9, 21].

Compensation Calculation – Age and Dependency Considered – Award Modified – MACT used age 50 based on postmortem; High Court corrected it to 55 as per Parivar Register (Ext.PW5/E) – Multiplier revised to 11 – Future prospects added @15% in terms of Pranay Sethi – Monthly income ₹12,829/-, with deductions and future prospects applied – Revised compensation: ₹13,28,220/- plus ₹40,000 loss of consortium each for 5 claimants [Paras 22–30].

Interest – Award Sustained – Interest @7.5% p.a. from date of petition upheld – No deduction for income tax applied due to income being below taxable limit [Paras 27, 32].

Decision – Award Modified – Reduced Total Compensation – Respondents No. 1 and 6 (wife and son) held entitled to ₹13,28,220/- plus ₹40,000 each for consortium – Other daughters entitled to consortium only – Oriental Insurance Company directed to pay entire amount by 31/07/2025 with interest – Appeal disposed of accordingly [Paras 30–33].

Civil Writ - Employment Law - Assistant Teacher Recruitment – Judicial Review of Answer Key – Limited Scope – Petitions Dismissed – Petitioners alleged erroneous evaluation and incorrect answers in ATRE-2018 and sought rectification – Held: Judicial review in academic matters is restricted to rare and exceptional cases with demonstrable, patent error – Courts must defer to the opinion of expert committees unless answers are clearly incorrect on the face of record – Majority of petitions dismissed for failure to meet qualifying marks even upon re-evaluation [Paras 2–6, 9–11, 12–13].

Evaluation Criteria – Minor Grammatical or Unit Errors – No Interference Where Substantive Answer is Incorrect – Petitioners contended that omission of units such as 'Rs.' or 'cm²' unfairly led to denial of marks – Held: Omission may be condonable in general language-based questions but not in scientific or mathematical subjects where units determine correctness – No relief where substantive answer failed evaluation standards [Paras 4, 5, 14–16].

Answer Key Disputes – Deference to Experts – Courts Not to Act as Academic Authorities – Petitioners questioned the correctness of several model answers – Held: As per law laid down by the Supreme Court, correctness of model answers certified by subject experts cannot be interfered with unless patently wrong – In absence of blatant error, Court declined to interfere [Paras 12–13].

Relief Limited to Potential Qualifiers – Cut-off Applied as Filter – Only those petitioners who, upon allowing their objections, could cross the qualifying marks (General: 67, SC: 60) were considered on merits – Rest of the petitions dismissed without detailed examination as academic exercise [Paras 9–11].

Re-evaluation Direction – Examination Authority to Verify Three Petitioners’ Claims – In three cases, petitioners potentially qualified upon rectification of answers – Held: Examination Regulatory Authority directed to re-examine answer scripts and update marks, subject to vacancy availability and verification [Para 16, Conclusion].

Civil Suit – Recovery Based on Ledger – Acknowledgment of Debt – Plaintiff claimed ₹1,06,569/- including principal and interest for unpaid amounts related to apple crop material—Defendant signed ledger acknowledging ₹77,504/-—Held: Concurrent findings by trial and appellate courts supported by evidence—Signature on ledger not disputed during cross-examination—Appeal dismissed [Paras 1–3, 5–8].

Pleading and Evidence – Signature Not Denied – Inference of Admission – Defendant alleged signatures obtained under pretext of cooperative bank resolution, but never denied signing the ledger—No explanation for non-response to legal notice—Held: Conduct of defendant indicated tacit admission—Courts rightly accepted plaintiff’s claim [Paras 4–7].

Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings – No Perversity – Appellate court affirmed decree of ₹77,504/- with 6% interest—High Court found no illegality or perversity—Held: No interference warranted under Section 100 CPC—Substantial question answered against appellant [Paras 9–11].

Money Lending Act – No Bar on Recovery – Defendant pleaded that plaintiff lacked license under Money Lending Act—Held: Not substantiated—Claim was based on goods and services exchanged, not a money lending transaction per se—No bar to decree [Para 3].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of trial and first appellate court affirmed – No costs awarded – Decree to be prepared accordingly [Para 11].

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice – Conflict of Jurisdiction – JJ Act Overrides NIA Act – Trial by Children’s Court – Juvenile charged under UAPA and other severe laws—Despite being tried as adult under Section 18(3) JJ Act, Court held: JJ Act, 2015 has overriding effect over all laws including NIA Act—Trial must proceed before Children’s Court, not Special NIA Court—Section 1(4) JJ Act is broad and unambiguous [Paras 10–11, 19–26].

Statutory Interpretation – Non-Obstante Clause – Later and Specific Law Prevails – Section 1(4) JJ Act overrides all conflicting statutes—In contrast, Section 13 NIA Act overrides only CrPC—Court relied on principles of statutory construction and later-in-time doctrine to affirm that JJ Act governs juvenile cases exclusively [Paras 12–17, 21–24].

Human Rights – Juvenile Protection – Purpose of JJ Legislation Emphasized – Court reiterated that JJ Act is beneficial and remedial in nature—Intended to protect children’s dignity and promote reintegration—Trial of juvenile under NIA would defeat purpose—Only Children’s Court has jurisdiction under such circumstances [Paras 6–9, 25].

Decision – Reference answered – Trial of juvenile under UAPA to be conducted by Children’s Court as per Section 18(3) JJ Act – Not by Special Court under NIA Act – MCrC disposed accordingly [Paras 26–28].