Civil Law – Will - Probate Proceedings – Genuineness and Execution of Will – Sections 63 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act – Probate Granted – The Will dated 11.12.2004, purportedly executed by DKJ, was challenged by his daughter as being forged – The Court found the Will duly proved through testimony of an attesting witness and upheld the grant of probate – No obligation exists for a testator to provide reasons for exclusion of heirs, and unequal distribution does not invalidate a Will where due execution is established [Paras 2, 4, 8, 14-17, 31-34].

Challenge to Signatures – Handwriting Examination Not Insisted Upon – Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act – No Forensic Expert Produced – Appellant raised doubts over DKJ’s signatures and appearance of the paper but failed to produce any expert evidence – Court held that failure to pursue forensic examination despite liberty granted, undermines the claim of forgery [Paras 10(v), 22].

Conduct of Appellant – Admission of Will in Subsequent Documents – No-Objection Affidavit and MOU – Appellant had earlier acknowledged the validity of the Will and undertook to assist in the probate process – Reliance on MOU and transfer of assets indicated conscious acceptance of the Will, which estopped her from contesting it subsequently [Paras 23-25].

Executor’s Standing – Section 311 of the ISA – One Executor May Apply – The objection regarding maintainability of probate petition by only one executor was rejected – Section 311 allows grant of probate to one executor where the co-executor has not joined but has not objected either – Supporting affidavit filed by co-executor [Para 29].

Suspicious Circumstances – Delay in Will Surfacing – Unregistered Will – None Fatal – The emergence of the Will post-DKJ’s death and its custody with his widow was held as natural – The Court held that registration is not mandatory and unregistered status alone does not cast doubt, especially where due attestation is proved [Paras 28, 33].

Execution of Board Resolutions and Alleged Undue Favours – Insufficient to Discredit Will – The fact that Board resolutions were passed on the day of DKJ’s cremation and promotions given to attesting witnesses were not considered indicative of fabrication – No evidence established that these were related to the Will [Paras 30].

Testamentary Intent and Residual Clause – Broad Disposition – Court emphasized that DKJ, being a seasoned industrialist, meticulously outlined succession and made comprehensive dispositions including a residual clause to cover unenumerated assets – The Will reflected deliberate planning and not arbitrariness [Paras 15-18, 20-21].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Will Held Genuine – The Court upheld the order granting probate and dismissed the partition suit as infructuous, holding that the Will was valid, duly executed, and free of suspicious circumstances [Paras 34-35].

Matrimonial Law - Divorce – Mutual Consent – Section 13B HMA – Cooling-off Period Waived – During pendency of appeals, parties settled disputes and filed joint petition for divorce under Section 13B—High Court satisfied of voluntary, collusion-free consent—Held: Irretrievable breakdown of marriage established; parties living separately since 2017—Cooling-off period waived; divorce granted by mutual consent [Paras 4–5, 9–12].

Family Law – Property Settlement – Return of Gold and Maintenance Arrears – Husband returned 115 sovereigns of gold to wife in full and final settlement—Additionally paid ₹3,50,000 by demand draft for maintenance arrears of minor child—Court recorded and accepted settlement terms as lawful and binding [Paras 7–8].

Procedural Law – Appeals Disposed on Compromise – Joint Petition Accepted – Court noted that all three connected appeals (Mat.Appeal Nos. 729/2023, 784/2023 & 7/2024) were resolved based on joint petition—Following precedent, appeals disposed of accordingly—Marriage dissolved without further litigation [Paras 2–6].

Decision – I.A. No. 1/2025 under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act allowed – Marriage between appellant and respondent dissolved by mutual consent – Cooling-off period waived – Settlement recorded – Appeals disposed [Para 12].

Criminal Law – Section 326 IPC – Stabbing with Knife – Conviction Upheld – Appellant convicted for causing grievous hurt by stabbing neighbour in drunken state – Defence argued that witnesses were related and contradictory, no independent witnesses or recovery of weapon – Held: Evidence of injured witness (PW2) and his son (PW1), corroborated by medical officer (PW3), consistent and trustworthy – Relationship of witnesses does not render testimony unreliable – Conviction sustained [Paras 14–18].

Evidence – Related Witnesses – Credibility – Testimony of injured witness carries greater weight – Father and son’s version consistent on material points and corroborated by medical records – Minor contradictions and delay in lodging FIR immaterial in light of established facts – Non-examination of wife of victim not fatal – Non-recovery of weapon also not fatal when ocular and medical evidence are credible [Paras 17–20].

Contradictions – Insignificant Variations – Minor discrepancies about place of occurrence and sequence of events do not negate core prosecution case – Witnesses not expected to recall details with photographic memory after years – Law recognises minor variations as natural [Paras 19–20].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of three years’ simple imprisonment with fine under Section 326 IPC upheld – Appellant directed to surrender within 30 days, failing which trial court to issue warrant [Paras 21–22].

Civil Law – Substitution of Legal Heirs – Order 22 CPC – Writ Petition Maintainable - The petitioners, legal heirs of deceased plaintiffs, sought substitution in the original suit which had been remanded after appeal – The Trial Court rejected the substitution application citing absence of separate applications for delay condonation and setting aside abatement – Held: An application seeking substitution inherently includes prayer for setting aside abatement and condonation of delay – Writ petition is maintainable despite availability of appellate remedy under Order 43 Rule 1(k), especially considering long pendency and prior High Court admission [Paras 10-11].

Procedural Liberalism – Delay and Abatement – Liberal Interpretation – Technical Objections Rejected - Courts are to adopt a justice-oriented approach in abatement and substitution cases – Rigid technicalities should not defeat substantial rights – Delay in moving for substitution after remand was justified as the petitioners were unaware of proceedings – One heir had already been brought on record in appellate stage – Suit did not abate automatically when legal heir was already on record [Paras 17-21].

Right to Sue – Survival of Cause – Will and Legal Representation – Petition Allowed - Petitioner 2.1, holding a registered Will of original plaintiff No. 2, was entitled to be substituted – Right to sue survives in favour of legal representatives – Rejection by Trial Court caused substantial injustice – High Court set aside both orders of the Trial Court and restored the suit to be decided on merits [Paras 14, 33-34].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Orders Set Aside – High Court quashed the orders dated 01.10.2015 passed below Exh. 190 and Exh. 1 in Regular Civil Suit No. 60 of 1983 – Petitioners allowed to be substituted as plaintiffs – Trial Court directed to restore and decide suit on merits [Paras 41-42].

Service Law – Compulsory Retirement – Judicial Officer Misconduct – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant, a Senior Division Civil Judge, was compulsorily retired based on charges of threatening police officials to influence investigation involving his sister – Enquiry Officer held charges proved and recommended penalty – Held: No infirmity in enquiry or penalty process – Principles of natural justice not violated – Penalty not shockingly disproportionate – Appeal dismissed [Paras 3–7, 10–11].

Judicial Review – Scope in Disciplinary Proceedings – Limited Interference – High Court reiterates that punishment imposed in domestic enquiry cannot be interfered with unless enquiry or penalty is shown to be contrary to law, vitiated by mala fides, or perverse – None of these grounds established by appellant – Interference declined [Para 10].

Findings of Misconduct – Sufficiency of Evidence – Allegations of abuse and threats by judicial officer substantiated through testimony of complainant and police officer – Explanation by appellant not accepted as credible – Held: Findings not perverse – Penalty justified [Paras 6–7].

Criminal Law – Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification – Section 7 & Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act – Conviction Confirmed, Sentence Modified – Accused, a Telecom Mechanic, demanded Rs.500/- for telephone connection, received Rs.200/- earlier, and later accepted balance Rs.200/- during CBI trap – Trial Court convicted and sentenced him to 1 year RI under Section 7 and 3 years RI with fine under Section 13(1)(d) – High Court held demand and acceptance proved beyond reasonable doubt by complainant (PW1), trap witness (PW3) and independent witness (PW7), supported by recovery and phenolphthalein test – Contention of illegal trap rejected as FIR was registered prior to trap – Conviction sustained but sentence reduced to statutory minimum: 6 months RI & fine Rs.5,000/- under Section 7; 1 year RI & fine Rs.10,000/- under Section 13(1)(d) – Substantive sentences to run separately, default sentences concurrently – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 12, 20-25].

Trap Proceedings – FIR and Timing – Accused contended that trap was illegal as it occurred before FIR completion – Court held FIR was registered at 11.15 a.m. and trap occurred at 2 p.m.; subsequent completion at 3.30 p.m. did not invalidate proceedings – Complaint (Ext.P2) though assisted by CBI was voluntary – Trap valid [Paras 12-13].

Proof of Demand and Acceptance – Evidence of PW1 (complainant) corroborated by PW3 (trap witness) and PW7 (independent witness) – Recovery of tainted currency, positive phenolphthalein test, and recorded conversations (Ext.P3 & P7) established demand and acceptance – Demand and acceptance, being sine qua non under Sections 7 and 13, were satisfied – Conviction justified [Paras 16-21].

Sentence – Trial Court imposed 1 year RI (Sec.7) and 3 years RI with fine (Sec.13) – High Court modified to statutory minimum: 6 months RI with fine Rs.5,000/- (Sec.7) and 1 year RI with fine Rs.10,000/- (Sec.13) – Default sentences of 15 days and 4 weeks respectively – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 22-25].

Civil Law - Easementary Right – Use of Pathway – Right to Access through Cart Track – Decree Restored – Appellant purchased land through registered sale deed in 1963 which described cart track as boundary – Evidence including Advocate Commissioner’s report confirmed existence of 15-feet wide cart track used for men, cattle, and carts – Held: Right to use the cart track forms part of legal incidents of property transferred under Section 8 of Transfer of Property Act – Appellants entitled to such easementary right – Decree for declaration and injunction granted [Paras 34–36, 41–44].

Alternate Access – Whether Availability Bars Easement – Alternate Pathway Only 1.5 Feet Wide – Held: Not Suitable for Cattle or Carts – Mere existence of narrow footpath not equivalent to reasonable alternate access – Trial Court rightly held plaintiffs entitled to use existing cart track – Appellate Court misconstrued Commissioner’s report – Judgment set aside [Paras 35–36, 44–45].

Interpretation of Commissioner’s Report – Appellate Court Erred – Advocate Commissioner confirmed existence of well-used cart track with sufficient width – Appellate Court overlooked critical observations in Exs. C1–C4 – Held: Misreading of evidence led to erroneous reversal – Second Appeal allowed [Paras 34–36].

Transfer of Property – Easement Included – Section 8, Transfer of Property Act – Where easement is apparent and in use at time of sale, and mentioned in the deed, right to its use transfers with property – Held: Pathway existed prior to sale and was mentioned in sale deed – Right to use same vested in transferee – Appellate Court ignored settled law – Judgment reversed [Paras 38–44].

Second Appeal – Substantial Questions of Law – Existence of Easement, Interpretation of Commissioner’s Report – All substantial questions answered in favour of appellants – Trial Court decree restored – Second Appeals allowed with costs [Paras 27, 36, 44–46].

NDPS Act – Interim Bail on Humanitarian Grounds – Bail Denied – The petitioner sought interim bail for six weeks under Section 22 NDPS Act on the ground that his widowed mother required urgent medical intervention for cardiac issues – Medical certificate indicated surgery was advised but not undertaken – Status report revealed availability of petitioner’s wife and three brothers in joint family setup – Held: No ground made out to justify interim bail – Request rejected [Paras 1-5].

Medical Certification – Improper Recommendation by Treating Doctor – The treating doctor’s request to jail authorities for release of the petitioner to be beside his mother was criticized – Held: Such recommendations are beyond the professional scope of a medical practitioner – Court emphasized that objective medical opinion must not contain personal appeals or administrative suggestions [Para 6].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – No Case for Interim Bail – The Court found that alternate caretakers were available in petitioner’s joint family and medical urgency did not justify release – Held: Mere emotional or sentimental grounds not sufficient for bail under stringent NDPS Act – Petition dismissed [Paras 5-7].

Transfer of Proceedings – Matrimonial Dispute – Overlapping Reliefs – Application Allowed – Applicant sought transfer of DV Case No. 62/DV/2024 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 71st Court, Bandra, to the Family Court at Bandra to be heard along with Divorce Petition and Restitution Petition – Court noted substantial overlap in reliefs and parties in both proceedings – Held: To avoid conflicting findings, duplication of evidence and conserve judicial time, DV proceedings transferred to Family Court [Paras 1-4, 9].

Jurisdiction – DV Act and Family Court – Overlapping Remedies – Court Held – Family Court competent to grant reliefs similar to those under the DV Act – DV reliefs related to protection, custody and residence can be adjudicated by Family Court – Proximity of courts and shared social context justify transfer – Respondent failed to demonstrate any prejudice or inconvenience [Paras 3-5, 9].

Distinguishing Precedents – Anurag Agarwal vs. Poonam Agarwal – Not Applicable – Court held that unlike the precedent cited by the Respondent where proceedings were at an advanced stage, here the DV matter was at preliminary evidence stage – Hence, transfer was not prejudicial [Paras 6, 10].

Consolidation of Proceedings – Avoiding Multiplicity – Supreme Court Guidelines Followed – Relying on N.C.V. Aishwarya v. Saravana Karthik Sha, Court emphasized the need for consolidation when proceedings involve common questions of law and fact – Held: Transfer promotes judicial economy and consistency in adjudication [Paras 11-12].

Final Decision – Transfer Allowed – DV Case No. 62/DV/2024 ordered to be transferred to Family Court, Bandra – Family Court directed to issue notice within 3 weeks and proceed expeditiously [Paras 13-15].