Civil Law - Deed of Gift – Validity of Execution – Absence of Fraud – Held: Execution of the deed of gift was valid and supported by corroborative evidence – No proof of fraud or misrepresentation – The donor voluntarily executed the deed and sought permission from the CIT, indicating her clear intention – The gift was made out of natural love and affection for the donee – Mere deprivation of legal heirs does not render the transaction suspicious [Paras 22-28, 47-49].

Limitation – Suit for Declaration of Deed as Void – Whether Time-Barred – Held: The suit was not barred by limitation – Although executed in 1985, the plaintiff contended she only realized the character of the document later – In absence of clear evidence to the contrary, the period of limitation cannot be strictly enforced against her [Paras 21-22].

Lease Conditions – Clause II (6) of Lease Deed – Whether Transfer Without Permission is Void – Held: The condition requiring prior permission of the CIT for transfer of property was directory, not mandatory – No penal consequence specified for breach – Maximum repercussion would be non-renewal of lease, not automatic invalidation of transfer – The CIT itself condoned the transfer by refusing subsequent permission to the plaintiff for another transaction [Paras 39-46].

Non-Framing of Issues – Violation of Clause II (6) Not an Issue Before the Trial Court – Held: The Trial Court did not frame any issue regarding Clause II (6) and did not allow arguments on the same – Judgment declaring the gift deed void on this ground was perverse and without jurisdiction [Paras 34-38].

Order XVIII Rule 3-A CPC – Whether Violation Vitiates Evidence – Held: There is no absolute prohibition against a party testifying after other witnesses without prior permission – The court has discretion to allow such testimony at a later stage – Trial Court’s grant of permission validated the testimony [Paras 54-57].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held: The Trial Court’s declaration that the deed was void and grant of injunction were patently erroneous – Judgment and decree set aside – The suit stands dismissed [Paras 58-61].
 

Execution Proceedings – Validity of Sale Deed Executed After Attachment – Held: A sale deed executed after attachment of property in execution proceedings is void against claims enforceable under the attachment – Attachment was ordered on 02.08.2002, while the sale deed was executed on 11.06.2004 – Judgment Debtor was aware of attachment proceedings but still proceeded with the sale – No evidence of collusion between the Decree Holder and Judgment Debtor – The attachment prevails over the sale deed [Paras 16-18, 24-25].

Third-Party Claim – Bona Fide Purchaser – Whether Rights Recognized – Held: The appellant failed to prove he was a bona fide purchaser – Mere assertion of good faith and consideration does not suffice – The sale was executed after two years of attachment and during execution proceedings – Claim petition rightly dismissed by the Executing Court [Paras 15-17, 25].

Section 64 CPC – Effect of Attachment on Subsequent Transfers – Held: A transfer made after attachment is void under Section 64(1) CPC – The argument that Section 64(2) CPC applies was rejected, as no prior registered contract existed before attachment – The public notice of attachment affixed to the property further invalidates the subsequent sale [Paras 23-24].

Interpretation of Order XXI Rule 58 CPC – Scope of Claim Petitions in Execution – Held: All questions related to right, title, or interest in attached property must be decided in execution proceedings – No separate suit is required unless the Executing Court refuses to entertain the claim – An attachment before judgment does not confer secured creditor status, but attachment prevails over subsequent sales [Paras 18, 24].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held: The Executing Court’s dismissal of the claim petition was justified – The sale deed in favor of the appellant is void – No grounds to release the property from attachment – Appeal dismissed without costs [Paras 26-27].
 

Service Law - Termination of Service – Reliance on Police Verification Report Despite Acquittal – Order Set Aside – The petitioner was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak in a municipal school but was terminated based on a pending criminal case, despite being acquitted before the termination order was issued – The Court held that once the petitioner was acquitted, reliance on a past police verification report was unjustified – Held: Termination order quashed, and petitioner reinstated [Paras 6-7].

Back Wages – Grant of 50% Considering Litigation Concession – The petitioner, though entitled to full back wages due to wrongful termination, voluntarily agreed to accept 50% back wages to settle the matter – The Court directed that if the Corporation further litigates, the petitioner’s right to claim full back wages will stand revived – Held: 50% back wages granted, to be paid within 60 days, failing which interest at 6% p.a. will apply [Paras 8-11].

Seniority and Continuity of Service – Benefits Restored – The petitioner’s subsequent reappointment as Shikshan Sevak in 2024 was deemed inconsequential, as his original appointment was wrongfully terminated – Held: Petitioner entitled to be treated as continuously employed, with all consequential service benefits including pay scale differences [Paras 11].

Writ Petition Partly Allowed – The impugned termination order was quashed, 50% back wages were granted, and all service benefits were restored – Rule made partly absolute [Paras 12].

Jurisdiction of Sessions Court – Power to Order Re-Investigation – Distinction between Further Investigation and Re-Investigation – The petitioner-hospital challenged the order passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-II/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gautam Buddha Nagar, directing re-investigation into its role while granting anticipatory bail to an accused doctor – Held: The Sessions Court has no power to direct re-investigation – Re-investigation can only be ordered by constitutional courts, namely the High Court or Supreme Court – Further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is distinct from re-investigation and can only be conducted under appropriate circumstances – The impugned direction for re-investigation was beyond the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and is liable to be set aside [Paras 15-21].

Scope of Anticipatory Bail Proceedings – Limited Jurisdiction of Sessions Court – The anticipatory bail application was filed by a co-accused doctor, and there was no occasion for the Sessions Court to pass directions regarding re-investigation of the petitioner-hospital – Held: The Sessions Court while dealing with an anticipatory bail application cannot pass orders beyond granting or rejecting bail – Any observation made regarding the role of the petitioner-hospital was uncalled for and beyond jurisdiction – The order directing re-investigation against the hospital is quashed [Paras 20-21].

Judicial Precedents – Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali (2013) 5 SCC 762 – The Supreme Court has clearly distinguished between further investigation and re-investigation – Re-investigation requires explicit court orders with proper reasoning and is rarely permitted – Sessions Court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering re-investigation without legal authority [Paras 7, 15-16].

Decision:   The order of the Sessions Court directing re-investigation into the role of the petitioner-hospital is quashed as being beyond jurisdiction. The petitioner-hospital shall not be subjected to re-investigation unless ordered by a constitutional court.
 

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Ancestral Property – Plaintiff's Right Established – The plaintiff sought partition of joint family property, claiming a 1/3rd share – Defendants contended that the plaintiff had relinquished her rights through an unregistered relinquishment deed – The Trial Court held that the plaintiff had not relinquished her rights and decreed the suit – The First Appellate Court upheld the decision – Held: The plaintiff was entitled to partition and a 1/3rd share in the property [Paras 6, 18-20].

Bona Fide Purchaser – No Protection When Seller Lacks Absolute Title – Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 purchased the property from Defendant No. 3, who had acquired it through a sale deed executed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 – The Court held that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 could only alienate their own shares and could not transfer the plaintiff’s undivided share – Held: The purchasers did not acquire a valid title over the plaintiff’s share [Paras 9, 20].

Scope of Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Dismissal at Admission Stage – The appellants challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts – The Court emphasized that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is maintainable only if it involves a substantial question of law – Held: Since no substantial question of law arose, the second appeal was dismissed at the admission stage [Paras 15-23].

Relinquishment Deed – Absence of Proof – No Bar on Plaintiff’s Rights – The defendants claimed that the plaintiff had relinquished her share through an unregistered relinquishment deed executed at the time of her marriage – The Court found no evidence of such a document and held that the plaintiff retained her rights in the ancestral property – Held: The claim of relinquishment was not proved [Paras 19-20].
 

Civil Law - Property Dispute – Will Execution – Proof of Attestation – Sections 63 of Succession Act and 68 of Evidence Act – The plaintiff claimed ownership based on a 1936 Will executed by his grandfather, while the defendant contended that the property was ancestral and he had equal rights – Trial Court decreed ownership in favor of the plaintiff – Held: Under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, a Will must be attested by at least two witnesses and proved by examining at least one attesting witness under Section 68 of the Evidence Act – Since no attesting witness was examined, the Will was not duly proved – Trial Court’s decree set aside only on the issue of proving the Will [Paras 15-18].

Adverse Possession – Claim Not Established – No Evidence of Hostile Possession – The defendant also claimed that he had acquired ownership by adverse possession – Held: For a valid adverse possession claim, the occupant must acknowledge ownership of another party and establish hostile possession for the statutory period – Defendant failed to prove continuous, exclusive, and hostile possession – Claim of adverse possession rejected [Paras 19-21].

Presumption Under Section 90 of the Evidence Act – Inapplicable to Wills – The plaintiff argued that since the Will was over 30 years old, it should be presumed valid under Section 90 of the Evidence Act – Held: Presumption of regularity under Section 90 does not apply to Wills – A Will must be proved strictly under Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act – No presumption of authenticity can arise unless statutory proof is satisfied [Paras 22-24].

Remand for Fresh Consideration – Requirement to Prove Will Through Attesting Witness – Since the Trial Court failed to insist on statutory compliance while admitting the Will, the High Court remanded the matter for limited reconsideration – Held: The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for fresh findings on whether the Will is duly proved in accordance with legal requirements – If proven, the decree for declaration and possession shall stand affirmed; otherwise, relief cannot be granted based on the Will [Paras 25-27].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Trial Court’s judgment and decree dated 07/11/2007 in O.S. No. 3163/1990 set aside only for the limited issue of proving the Will – Matter remanded to Trial Court for fresh consideration of whether the Will is duly proved – Trial Court directed to decide the issue within four months from 25/03/2025 – Parties directed to appear before the Trial Court without awaiting fresh notice – Adverse possession claim rejected [Paras 28-30].
 

Anticipatory Bail – Grant of Bail for Non-Bailable Offenses – Violation of Supreme Court Precedent – Bail Upheld – The petitioner challenged the order granting anticipatory bail to respondent no. 2 despite bailable warrants being issued against him – Contended that the order violated the Supreme Court's ruling in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, 2024 (3) SCR 421 – Held: Bail under Section 438 CrPC was granted within legal parameters, and no valid grounds were presented to justify cancellation [Paras 3-6].

Bail Cancellation – Section 439(2) CrPC – Appropriate Forum for Cancellation – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner sought cancellation of bail through a petition under Article 227, arguing that anticipatory bail was improperly granted – The Court held that cancellation of bail can only be sought under Section 439(2) CrPC and that Article 227 is not the correct forum for such relief – The petition was found to be legally untenable and dismissed accordingly [Paras 12-14].

Grounds for Cancellation of Bail – No Violation of Conditions or Misuse of Liberty – Bail Sustained – The Court reiterated that bail can only be canceled if the accused misuses liberty, tampers with evidence, or poses a risk of absconding – No such grounds were established in this case – Reference made to Abdul Basit v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary, 2014 (10) SCC 754, and Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481 – Held: The anticipatory bail granted to respondent no. 2 cannot be revoked merely on procedural objections [Paras 7-9].

Jurisdiction under Article 227 – Improper Invocation for Bail Cancellation – Petition Dismissed – The Court emphasized that petitions under Article 227 cannot be used as an alternative to remedies explicitly provided under CrPC – Held: The petitioner’s attempt to challenge part of the order while seeking to retain certain directions was legally impermissible, leading to outright dismissal of the petition [Paras 11-13].

Decision: The petition was dismissed as legally unsustainable, reaffirming that bail cancellation must follow proper legal procedures under CrPC [Para 14].
 

Civil Procedure – Exercise of Inherent Powers – Section 151 CPC – No Illegality in Trial Court’s Order – The Trial Court allowed the defendant's application under Section 151 CPC for repairing a dilapidated pillar supporting an extended roof – The Court reasoned that failure to undertake such repairs could cause irreparable loss to both parties – Held: The exercise of inherent power under Section 151 CPC was justified as it was in the interest of justice and did not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff [Paras 1-4].

Appointment of Advocate Commissioner – Ensuring Fairness – No Prejudice to Any Party – The Trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to oversee the repair work to ensure fairness – The commissioner reported that the repairs were completed in the presence of police personnel – Held: The trial court’s approach was balanced and aimed at preventing any undue advantage to either party [Paras 3-5].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope of Article 227 – No Manifest Injustice or Perversity – The High Court reiterated that intervention under Article 227 is warranted only in cases of serious dereliction of duty, fundamental violation of justice, or manifest illegality – No such exceptional circumstances were present in this case – Held: No interference was required as the impugned order did not suffer from any illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety [Paras 6-7].

Petition Dismissed – No Grounds for Interference – The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition, holding that the Trial Court’s decision was fair, balanced, and did not warrant interference – Urgent certified copies of the judgment were directed to be provided upon compliance with necessary formalities [Paras 6-7].

Family Law – Right to File Written Statement – Petitioner’s Right Closed by Family Court – The Family Court closed the petitioner’s right to file a written statement due to delay and subsequently dismissed the application seeking recall of the closure order – Held: Family Courts should adopt a liberal approach in matrimonial disputes, rather than applying strict procedural rules applicable in commercial cases – The closing of a party’s right to file a written statement in a family matter has serious personal consequences, and courts must ensure that parties are given reasonable opportunities to present their case [Paras 11-12].

Delay in Filing Written Statement – Justifiable Reasons – The petitioner, a single mother, cited financial difficulties and the medical condition of her daughter as reasons for the delay – WhatsApp conversations between the respondent and their daughter demonstrated the respondent’s knowledge of the medical situation – Held: Delay was not deliberate or willful but due to compelling circumstances – Denial of an opportunity to file the written statement would cause severe prejudice to the petitioner [Paras 7-9, 13].

Precedent on Liberal Approach in Family Disputes – Reference to Komal Gupta v. Amrendra Kumar Gupta – Court relied on prior decisions emphasizing that Family Courts must adopt a flexible approach in family disputes – Held: The Family Court should focus on the merits of the case rather than procedural technicalities – Previous Delhi High Court decisions allowing late filing of written statements in similar situations were followed [Paras 11-12].

Final Decision – Orders of the Family Court dated 29.10.2024 and 15.01.2025 set aside – Petitioner allowed to file written statement within one week – Strict condition imposed that no further adjournments will be granted – Family Court directed to expedite disposal of the divorce petition and discourage unnecessary adjournments – Parties directed to cooperate in expediting the proceedings [Paras 14-16].