Partition Suit – Joint Family Property – Reversal of Lower Court’s Decree - The plaintiffs sought partition of the schedule properties, asserting them as joint family assets – The trial court dismissed the suit regarding items 4 and 8 due to insufficient evidence of joint family ownership – On appeal, the 1st appellate court reversed this finding, granting partition for items 4 and 8 – Held: The High Court set aside the lower appellate court's judgment, observing that plaintiffs failed to establish the joint family nature of these properties and did not present sufficient evidence of a family nucleus or proof of acquisition by the family – The appellate court had improperly inferred joint family ownership without basis [Paras 16, 19-21, 35].

Burden of Proof – Joint Family Property Presumption - The High Court highlighted that, under Hindu law, the presumption of joint family ownership does not extend to all properties held by family members – Plaintiffs bear the burden to prove that a property is joint family property, especially when no evidence of a joint family nucleus exists – In this case, the plaintiffs failed to substantiate that items 4 and 8 were acquired with joint family funds, and mere possession by the defendant did not establish such a claim [Paras 13, 25-27, 36].

Substantial Question of Law – Scope of Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC - The court reviewed the scope of second appeal, reaffirming that Section 100 CPC limits interference to substantial questions of law – Findings by the lower courts are not to be disturbed unless perverse or legally erroneous – Here, the 1st appellate court’s decision was overturned as it misapplied legal principles on the presumption of joint family property, leading to substantial error [Paras 21-23, 37].

Decision: Second appeal allowed, reversing the lower appellate court’s decree for partition of items 4 and 8, affirming trial court's dismissal.
 

Examination Malpractice – Proportionality of Punishment – Regulation 5(a) and Regulation 8 of Panjab University Calendar Volume II, 2007 – Writ dismissed - The petitioner challenged a two-year disqualification imposed for being caught with handwritten notes during the Law of Contract examination – The petitioner argued that the punishment was disproportionate and detrimental to his career – The Court held that the punishment prescribed under the Regulations is clear and mandatory, and no lesser punishment can be substituted – Emphasis was placed on the integrity expected of an LL.B. student, considering the legal profession's ethical standards [Paras 7-8].

Criminal Law – Grievous Hurt – Conviction under Section 326 IPC – Appellant convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code for grievous injury inflicted on the complainant (PW-2) with a sharp weapon – Incident occurred on 28.02.1980, when PW-2, a rickshaw puller, was allegedly taken by the appellant and co-accused to a secluded location under the pretense of a discussion and subsequently assaulted – Trial Court sentenced the appellant to five years of rigorous imprisonment – High Court upheld the conviction, finding that the prosecution’s case was corroborated by medical and eyewitness testimonies – Held: Appeal dismissed, as evidence established the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-3, 16-17].

Prosecution Evidence – Reliability of Witnesses and Medical Corroboration – PW-2, the injured complainant, provided a detailed account of the assault, stating that he was disrobed and attacked by the appellant with a knife – PW-5 and PW-8 corroborated PW-2’s condition, observing the complainant’s injuries immediately post-incident – PW-9, the medical officer, described the injury as a partial amputation of the penis, confirming it was life-threatening if untreated and consistent with being inflicted by a sharp weapon – Despite minor contradictions, the evidence was deemed reliable, as minor discrepancies did not detract from the core narrative, following principles in Leela Ram v. State of Haryana and Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab [Paras 6-8, 12, 14].

Defense Arguments – Delay in Medical Examination and Witness Credibility – Defense argued that a delayed medical examination and lack of independent witnesses weakened the prosecution’s case – Contentions included that PW-2’s injuries were exaggerated and that interested witnesses (PW-4 and PW-8) should not have been relied upon – However, the Court found these arguments insufficient to discredit the substantial corroboration provided by the injured complainant and medical evidence [Paras 6, 8, 15].

Medical Evidence – Severity and Cause of Injury – PW-9, the attending doctor, testified regarding the severe nature of PW-2’s injury, describing a partial amputation that required surgery – The doctor’s observations supported the claim that the injury could have been caused by a knife, thereby corroborating the prosecution’s case on the nature and extent of harm inflicted – The Court emphasized the high evidentiary value of injured witnesses, in line with rulings in Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, which highlight the trustworthiness of injured complainants unless compelling contradictions arise [Paras 8, 10, 15].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court affirmed the Sessions Court’s decision, upholding the five-year sentence under Section 326 IPC – The Court acknowledged the credible and corroborated evidence, including consistent medical findings – Appreciated the assistance of Amicus Curiae Mr. Soumya Nag and ordered immediate dispatch of records to the Trial Court for necessary actions [Paras 16-21].

Declaration of Title and Cancellation of Sale Deed – Burden of Proof – Fraud Not Proved – The appellants (plaintiffs in O.S. No. 102 of 1999) sought cancellation of a registered sale deed executed in 1978 and declaration of title over the disputed property. The appellants alleged fraud and undue influence but failed to provide specific evidence of fraud, undue influence, or misrepresentation. – Held: In a suit for declaration of title, the burden is on the plaintiffs to establish clear and sufficient evidence to prove their case. Mere allegations without evidence cannot invalidate a registered sale deed. [Paras 16-22, 25].

Limitation – Challenge to Sale Deed after 21 Years – Barred by Limitation – The suit to cancel the sale deed executed in 1978 was filed in 1999, after 21 years, and no valid explanation for the delay was provided. – Held: The suit for cancellation of the sale deed was barred by limitation, and the appellants failed to plead or prove any justifiable grounds for condonation. [Paras 22, 25].

Rectification of Sale Deed – Mutual Mistake – Boundaries Prevail Over Survey Numbers – The respondents (plaintiffs in O.S. No. 150 of 1999) sought rectification of a sale deed to correct an incorrect survey number and patta number, arguing the mistake was mutual. – Held: The boundaries of the property remained undisputed, and the incorrect survey and patta numbers were a result of mutual mistake. Under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, rectification was justified as the mistake did not affect the actual title or boundaries. [Paras 31-33].

Limitation for Rectification of Sale Deed – Cause of Action – The appellants argued that the suit for rectification was time-barred. However, the respondents contended that the cause of action arose only in 1999 when the appellants attempted to alienate the property. – Held: The plea of limitation was not raised in the pleadings, and in the absence of such a plea, the issue cannot be considered. Further, the cause of action was rightly established in 1999, and the suit for rectification was filed within the limitation period. [Paras 27-29].

Effect of Revenue Records – No Title Conferred – The appellants relied on entries in revenue records and pattadar passbooks issued in 1999 to claim ownership. – Held: Revenue records and pattadar passbooks do not confer title over immovable property; they merely establish possession or revenue liability. [Para 22].

Evidentiary Value of Advocate-Commissioner’s Report – The appellants relied on the report of the Advocate-Commissioner. – Held: A report by an Advocate-Commissioner does not amount to a substantive finding unless tested through examination in court. The report in this case carried no evidentiary value as it was not tested in the trial court. [Para 31].

Fraud, Misrepresentation, and Undue Influence – Burden of Proof – Fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence must be specifically pleaded and proved with cogent evidence. – Held: General allegations of fraud without specific pleadings and supporting evidence cannot sustain a claim for cancellation of a registered instrument. [Paras 22-24].

Decision: A.S. No. 2137 of 2004 (Plaintiffs' appeal in O.S. No. 102 of 1999): Dismissed. The appellants failed to prove fraud or undue influence in the execution of the sale deed. The suit was also barred by limitation.

A.S. No. 2138 of 2004 (Defendants' appeal in O.S. No. 150 of 1999): Dismissed. The rectification of the sale deed was justified as the mistake in the survey number and patta number was mutual and did not affect the boundaries or title.
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – False Promise of Marriage – FIR registered under Sections 376, 417, and 504 IPC against the petitioners – Allegations of rape based on a false promise of marriage by the first petitioner – Engagement between the complainant and the first petitioner broke down due to family disputes – Contention: Relationship was consensual and allegations were baseless – Held: FIR and charge sheet quashed as allegations did not constitute the offence of rape or cheating under IPC [Paras 2–4, 16–18].

Consent and Misconception of Fact – False Promise vs. Breach of Promise – Examined distinction between consensual sexual relationships and rape – A false promise of marriage amounts to rape only when made without any intention to marry from inception – Breach of a genuine promise due to unforeseen circumstances does not constitute rape or cheating – Court relied on precedents distinguishing between consensual acts and coerced acts based on deception [Paras 9–15].

Witness Testimony – Allegations and Material Evidence – FIR and charge sheet reviewed – Relationship between the complainant and first petitioner spanned seven years, including after the engagement ceremony – No evidence showed the promise to marry was false from inception – Allegations reflected a consensual relationship, not one based on deception [Paras 2–3, 16–18].

Precedents Cited – Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608 – Differentiation between false promise and breach of promise – Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675 – Court must evaluate whether consent was vitiated by misrepresentation – Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (2022 SCC OnLine Ker 1652) – Consensual relationships do not attract Section 376 IPC without clear evidence of deceit – Shambhu Kharwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1032) – FIR quashed when allegations lacked ingredients of rape or coercion.

Decision – Appeal allowed – FIR and charge sheet quashed – Further proceedings would amount to abuse of process and miscarriage of justice – Petitioners discharged from prosecution [Paras 17–18].

Mortgage and Promissory Note Claim – Partial Decree Granted for Simple Mortgage Only - The plaintiff sought recovery of Rs.1,15,09,000, with interest, based on a registered simple mortgage deed and an equitable mortgage purportedly created by promissory notes – The defendants admitted the simple mortgage but denied the equitable mortgage – The court examined the validity of both claims, finding the simple mortgage enforceable, while rejecting the equitable mortgage due to insufficient evidence of the promissory notes’ validity, given inconsistencies in execution and lack of attesting witness evidence – Held: Partial decree granted for Rs.40,00,000 under the simple mortgage, with interest at 12% p.a. from date of plaint to date of decree and 6% p.a. from decree to realization [Paras 12-13].

Validity of Equitable Mortgage – Promissory Notes’ Credibility - Plaintiff claimed Rs.30,00,000 under an equitable mortgage based on 60 promissory notes executed by the deceased with variable signing methods – The court found the execution pattern suspicious, as 21 notes bore signatures and 39 notes only thumb impressions – The plaintiff failed to call attesting witnesses to validate these notes, nor did he provide corroborative evidence of the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds – Given these deficiencies, the court rejected the claim under the alleged equitable mortgage [Paras 11-12].

Interest on Mortgage Debt – Reasonable Rate of Interest Applied - Plaintiff demanded 36% interest per annum on the mortgage debts, but the court found this excessive and reduced it to 12% p.a. until the decree date, and 6% p.a. post-decree, considering fairness in enforcement – The court emphasized that in mortgage enforcement, interest rates must align with reasonable standards unless specifically justified by credible evidence [Para 13].

Decision: Suit partly decreed for Rs.40,00,000 with interest; claim under equitable mortgage dismissed.
 

Narcotics Law – Bail Application for Commercial Quantity of Cannabis – Extended Detention Under Section 36A(4) NDPS Act – Petition for regular bail under Sections 480 and 483 of BNSS due to procedural lapses in handling detention beyond 180 days and irregular sample verification – Petitioner alleged that procedural violations, including failure to involve a Magistrate in sample verification, rebutted the statutory presumption against him – Held: The Court found substantial procedural lapses, including improper handling of contraband samples and issues in extending the detention, meriting bail despite commercial quantity of cannabis seized; petitioner had been in custody for 296 days, beyond the default period, without sufficient cause for further detention [Paras 4, 10, 11].

Procedure in Extension of Detention – Failure to Secure Accused’s Physical or Virtual Presence – Court reviewed requirements under Section 36A(4), emphasizing the mandatory nature of the accused’s physical or virtual presence during hearings for detention extension – Held: The Special Judge’s order extending detention was flawed due to lack of accused’s presence, constituting a procedural violation that justified bail on merits, even without default bail – Petition granted [Paras 7, 8, 12].

Decision: Petition allowed – Bail granted on a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including bi-monthly police check-ins, prohibition on witness tampering, and assurance to participate in trial without fail [Para 13].
 

Specific Performance – Limitation and Readiness to Perform – Appeal Dismissed - The appellants sought specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 02-11-1979 for land, contending that they were ready and willing to perform their part but were delayed due to procedural issues – Trial court dismissed the suit, finding the claim barred by limitation and observing that the plaintiff failed to act within the contractual time frame, delaying suit filing by over eight years – Held: The High Court affirmed the trial court's decision, noting that the limitation period under Article 54 of the Limitation Act began on the specified date for contract performance, and appellants failed to provide evidence of timely readiness – Accordingly, suit was time-barred [Paras 15-18].

Specific Relief – Alternative Remedy of Refund – Grant of Refund Ordered - Although specific performance was denied, the court granted an alternative relief for a refund of the advance payment – Citing Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, the court directed the defendants to refund Rs.20,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the agreement, as it constituted the advance payment made towards the sale – Held: Appeal dismissed with alternative relief for refund due to plaintiff's delay in fulfilling contractual obligations [Paras 27-30].

Time as Essence in Contracts – Intention of Parties and Reasonable Time for Performance - The court referenced Swarnam Ramachandran v. Aravacode Chakungal Jayapalan to emphasize that even if time is not expressly stipulated as essential in real estate agreements, performance within a reasonable period is expected – The delay by appellants in expressing readiness and fulfilling payment terms led the court to conclude they were not diligent in contract performance [Paras 20-22].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with alternative relief for refund of the advance amount plus interest.
 

Service Law - Reservation in Promotion under Disabilities Act, 2016 – Interpretation of Section 34 – The petitioners, who are Junior Engineers with benchmark disabilities, contended their entitlement to reservation in promotions as per Section 34 of the Disabilities Act, 2016, arguing the 4% PwD quota should extend to Grade-II posts, including the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) – The court determined that Office Memorandum dated 17/01/2019, which restricted PwD reservations to Grades III and IV, contravened the Disabilities Act, 2016 – Held: Petitioners are entitled to consideration for promotion under the PwD quota, and the respondent authorities must adhere to the Disabilities Act by applying the 4% reservation to all grades including Grade-II [Paras 6-9, 33-34].
Backlog and Carry Forward of PwD Vacancies – Application of Section 34(2) of Disabilities Act, 2016 – Despite repeated promotions in 2021 and 2022, the respondent authorities did not fill the PwD quota, promoting PwD officers based only on seniority – The court noted Section 34(2) mandates carrying forward unfilled PwD vacancies – Held: Respondents must retroactively consider petitioners for promotion under the benchmark disabilities quota, effective from the date of prior promotions in 2021, ensuring compliance with Section 34(2) [Paras 24, 30-31].

Right to Consideration for Promotion under PwD Quota – Petitioners argued deprivation of their right to reservation in promotion, citing Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India – The court emphasized that identified posts capable of being filled by disabled persons should reserve positions for PwDs regardless of recruitment method – Held: Failure to consider the petitioners under PwD quota contravenes legal mandates; thus, respondents directed to evaluate promotion eligibility of petitioners under PwD reservation retrospectively [Paras 31-32].

Decision: The writ petitions are allowed. Respondent authorities are directed to consider the petitioners for promotion to Assistant Engineer (Civil) with retrospective effect from 2021, applying the 4% reservation in accordance with the Disabilities Act, 2016.