Transfer of Property – Settlement Deed – Unilateral Cancellation – Invalidity – Registered settlement deed executed by the settlor in favour of grandson – Subsequent unilateral cancellation deed executed by settlor without consent of settlee – Held, once settlement deed is executed and registered, vesting rights in favour of settlee, it cannot be unilaterally cancelled unless a specific right of revocation is reserved in the deed or conditions are violated – Cancellation deed held void and inoperative [Paras 7–9].

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 122 – Acceptance of Gift – Delivery of Possession – Not Sine Qua Non – Acceptance of settlement deed can be inferred from conduct of parties – Possession of original title deed with plaintiff and registration of settlement deed sufficient to establish acceptance – Settlement deed held duly acted upon during lifetime of executant [Paras 9].

Fraud, Coercion and Undue Influence – Burden of Proof – Mere allegation by settlor that deed was executed without knowledge or under pressure insufficient – No plea or proof of fraud or coercion raised contemporaneously in cancellation deed or subsequent settlement deed – Failure to establish grounds for invalidating the original settlement deed [Paras 4, 9].

Subsequent Settlement and Mortgage Deeds – Validity – Once original settlement deed stood valid and irrevocable, settlor ceased to have any right, title or interest in property – Subsequent settlement deed executed in favour of daughters and mortgage deed executed thereafter declared null and void [Paras 7–9].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Concurrent findings of fact by Trial Court and First Appellate Court – No perversity or substantial question of law made out – High Court declined to interfere with concurrent judgments [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld – Unilateral cancellation of settlement deed declared void – Subsequent settlement and mortgage deeds held invalid – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Tenancy Law - Cultivating Tenants Protection – Fixation of Arrears – Jurisdiction of Revenue Court – Tenant filed petition only seeking permission to deposit rent – Despite memo not pressing the petition, Revenue Court unilaterally determined arrears of Rs.93,418/- based on market value of paddy and revenue reports – Held, fixation of fair rent can be done only by the competent authority under the Puducherry Cultivating Tenants Payment of Fair Rent Act, 1970 – Revenue Court lacked jurisdiction – Order dated 08.09.1999 held a nullity [Paras 21–27].

Counsel’s Concession – Binding Nature – Alleged consent by tenant’s counsel to determination of arrears contrary to statute and contract – Held, counsel has no authority to surrender substantive rights or make concessions on questions of law – Such concession neither binds the client nor cures lack of jurisdiction – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedent [Paras 26–27].

Eviction for Non-Payment of Rent – Section 3(4)(b), Puducherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act – Mandatory Opportunity – Before ordering eviction, Revenue Court bound to grant reasonable time to tenant to deposit arrears – Tenant filed multiple applications expressing readiness to pay arrears – Applications kept pending for 20–28 years and dismissed mechanically along with eviction petition – Statutory mandate violated – Eviction order vitiated [Paras 28–30].

Abandonment of Cultivation – Pleadings and Proof – No plea by landlord alleging abandonment – Revenue Court suo motu relied on Tahsildar’s report and wrongly treated it as admission by tenant – Evidence without pleadings impermissible – Finding of abandonment held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 31–32, 38].

Beneficial Legislation – Interpretation – Puducherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act is a welfare statute intended to protect cultivating tenants from unjust eviction – Courts must adopt liberal and tenant-oriented interpretation – Revenue Court failed to keep in view objects of the Act and scheme for fixation of fair rent – Eviction order set aside [Paras 24, 29, 34–35].

Legal Representatives of Cultivating Tenant – Status – Landlord himself impleaded legal heirs of deceased cultivating tenant – Revenue records showed cultivation by deceased tenant and his son – Objection that legal representatives are not cultivating tenants rejected – Petitioners entitled to protection under the Act [Paras 33, 37].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – Order dated 29.11.2023 in PCTPA.No.1 of 2001 set aside – Petitioners directed to deposit entire arrears of rent payable strictly in terms of the contract within eight weeks – On such deposit, possession to be restored within one week – Liberty reserved to respondents to initiate fresh eviction proceedings in accordance with law – No costs – Connected CMP closed.

Local Self-Government – Removal of Elected Municipal President – Section 48(2-A), U.P. Municipality Act, 1916 – Meaning of “such inquiry as it may consider necessary” – Full-fledged inquiry mandatory – Petitioner, elected President of Nagar Palika Parishad, removed on allegations of corruption, favouritism in tenders and misuse of municipal funds – Removal order based on preliminary inquiry reports and show-cause proceedings – No formal charge-sheet framed – No Inquiry Officer appointed – No oral evidence recorded – No opportunity of cross-examination afforded – Preliminary inquiry reports relied upon without associating petitioner – Held: Once charges are denied and explanation is found unsatisfactory, State Government is mandatorily required to conduct a full-fledged inquiry before removal of an elected representative – Removal without such inquiry violates Section 48(2-A) and principles of natural justice – Impugned order quashed with liberty to conduct fresh inquiry in accordance with law [Paras 11–23].

Elected Representative – Higher Constitutional Pedestal – Comparison with Government Servant – Elected President of Municipality stands on a higher footing than a government servant – If even a temporary government employee cannot be removed without full-fledged inquiry, removal of an elected representative without such inquiry is impermissible – Removal curtails statutory right of office-bearer and democratic right of constituency – Strict adherence to statutory procedure essential [Paras 13, 20].

Inquiry – Preliminary vs. Regular Inquiry – Evidentiary Value – Preliminary inquiry meant only to form prima facie opinion – Evidence recorded therein cannot be relied upon for final punishment – Reliance on preliminary reports without examination of witnesses in presence of delinquent and without cross-examination is illegal – Documents do not prove themselves and must be proved through competent witnesses [Paras 15, 16, 21].

Natural Justice – Supply of Inquiry Material – Right to Defence – Non-supply of relied-upon material including inquiry reports and comments vitiates proceedings – Right to receive inquiry report is part of reasonable opportunity of defence – Prejudice need not be separately proved where mandatory procedural safeguards are breached [Paras 15, 21].

Administrative Law – Quasi-Judicial Power – Recording of Reasons – Order of removal must record clear reasons based on legally admissible evidence – Mere reference to allegations and replies without discussion of evidence reflects non-application of mind – Quasi-judicial orders affecting elected office must demonstrate fairness, objectivity and strict compliance with law [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order dated 29.10.2025 removing petitioner from office quashed – Respondents directed to conduct a full-fledged inquiry strictly in accordance with Section 48(2-A) of the Act, 1916 and principles of natural justice – Consequential relief granted [Para 23–24].

Criminal Law – Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of Proceedings – Mechanical Cognizance on Protest Complaint – Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC on a protest complaint after police filed refer report finding allegations false – Order merely recorded “prima facie case made out” without reasons – No discussion of evidence recorded under Section 200 CrPC – No reasons for disagreeing with police refer report – Held: Such casual and mechanical order reflects non-application of mind and vitiates cognizance – Proceedings liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of process [Paras 5–6].

Protest Complaint – Duty of Magistrate – When a refer report is filed, Magistrate must apply independent judicial mind, evaluate materials, record reasons for differing from investigation findings and indicate sufficient grounds to proceed – Failure to do so renders order unsustainable [Paras 6, 8].

Forgery of Will – Mere Clerical Error Not Sufficient – Allegation of forgery based solely on misdescription of name of one attesting witness in Will deed – Investigation revealed it to be a typographical error with same person having signed – Magistrate ignored investigation findings without justification – Criminal prosecution held unjustified [Paras 8–9].

Public Servant – Sub-Registrar – Acts Done in Official Capacity – Section 197 CrPC – Fourth accused was Sub-Registrar who registered Will deed in discharge of statutory duty – No allegation of independent role in conspiracy or forgery except official act of registration – Magistrate failed to consider requirement of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC – Proceedings against public servant without sanction held impermissible [Paras 7–8].

Abuse of Process of Law – Ends of Justice – Continuation of criminal proceedings against private parties and public servant despite false refer report and absence of prima facie material amounts to abuse of process – Inherent jurisdiction rightly invoked to secure ends of justice [Para 9].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Cases allowed – Proceedings in C.C. No. 93 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Piravom, against Accused Nos. 1 to 4 quashed – Impugned order taking cognizance set aside.

Domestic Violence Act – Section 2(f) – “Relationship in the Nature of Marriage” – Live-in Relationship with Married Man – Not Maintainable – Petitioner claimed reliefs under PWDVA alleging marriage and long-standing cohabitation with Respondent No.1 during subsistence of his first marriage – Evidence of joint property purchase, financial arrangements, IVF treatment, and birth of child relied upon – Sessions Court reversed reliefs granted by JMFC – Held: Relationship between an unmarried woman and a married man, entered into with knowledge of subsisting marriage, does not qualify as a “relationship in the nature of marriage” – Such relationship lacks legal sanctity and falls outside ambit of Section 2(f) PWDVA [Paras 24–28].

Live-in Relationship – Supreme Court Guidelines – Indra Sarma and D. Velusamy Applied – Court reiterated that all live-in relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage – Essential conditions include parties being legally eligible to marry – Respondent No.1, being married, failed to satisfy mandatory condition of legal eligibility – Ratio of Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma and D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal squarely applicable [Paras 22–27].

Knowledge of Existing Marriage – Effect – Petitioner admitted awareness of Respondent No.1’s marital status at inception of relationship – Even if induced by misrepresentation, such relationship cannot be elevated to marriage-like status under PWDVA – Relationship akin to concubinage or extra-marital affair, for which Act does not presently provide protection [Paras 25–26].

Joint Property, Financial Control, Childbirth – Not Conclusive – Factors such as joint ownership of property, handling of bank accounts, sexual relationship, IVF treatment, or birth of child, though relevant, are insufficient by themselves to establish relationship in the nature of marriage when core legal requirements are absent – Social projection as husband and wife and legal capacity to marry remain determinative [Paras 25–27].

PWDVA – Beneficial Legislation – Limits of Interpretation – While PWDVA is a beneficial statute intended to protect women from abuse, courts cannot extend its scope beyond statutory definition – Expansion of protection to relationships knowingly entered with married persons requires legislative intervention and not judicial enlargement [Paras 26–28].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Limited Interference – Sessions Court correctly applied settled law and reversed trial court’s findings – No perversity or jurisdictional error found warranting interference under Article 227 – Concurrent appreciation of law upheld [Para 28].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune upheld – Petitioner held not entitled to reliefs under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Tenancy Law - Landlord–Tenant – Forfeiture of Tenancy – Denial of Title – Claim of Adverse Possession – Section 111(g) Transfer of Property Act – Tenant issued notice claiming ownership on basis of alleged oral gift and alternatively adverse possession – Tenant disputed title of landlord’s vendor and asserted that proposed sale would not confer title on purchaser – Held: Tenant not only disputed landlord’s title but claimed title in himself – Clear renunciation of character as tenant – Forfeiture of tenancy attracted [Paras 4, 11, 14].

Adverse Possession – Tenant Claiming Ownership – Effect on Tenancy – Tenant asserted long, peaceful possession as owner and payment of municipal taxes – Assertion of hostile title inconsistent with continuance of tenancy – Held: Claim of adverse possession by tenant amounts to disclaimer of landlord’s title and results in forfeiture [Paras 4, 14].

Notice of Forfeiture – Addressed to Vendor – Validity – Contention that notice disputing title was issued to landlord’s vendor and not landlord himself – Notice clearly indicated that purchaser would derive no title – Held: Dispute of vendor’s title directly affects title of purchaser-landlord – Forfeiture not avoided merely because notice was addressed to vendor [Paras 7, 11, 14].

Waiver of Forfeiture – Demand and Acceptance of Rent – Section 112 Transfer of Property Act – Landlord issued notice demanding rent after forfeiture but expressly stated demand was “without prejudice” to claim of forfeiture – Rent accepted under protest and adjusted towards damages – Held: Mere demand and acceptance of rent with express reservation does not amount to waiver of forfeiture [Paras 5, 8, 15, 18].

Without Prejudice Demand – Intention of Landlord – Subsequent notices and correspondence consistently asserted forfeiture and denial of tenancy – Filing of eviction suit shortly thereafter reinforced absence of waiver – Intention to continue forfeiture clearly established [Paras 15, 17–18].

Distinguishing Waiver by Conduct – Chandrashekhar Gadgil Case – In earlier case landlord invoked Rent Act provisions years after forfeiture notice and sought eviction on statutory grounds – Held: Facts materially different – No waiver in present case as landlord never abandoned forfeiture plea and consistently reserved rights [Para 16].

Protection under Rent Control Laws – Effect of Forfeiture – Once tenant forfeits character by denying title and claiming ownership, protection under rent control legislation is unavailable – Conceded legal position correctly applied [Paras 6, 13–14].

Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court based on correct application of law – No perversity or legal error demonstrated – Second Appeal dismissed [Paras 18–19].

Equitable Relief – Time to Vacate – Considering long possession and residential nature of premises – Six months’ time granted to vacate subject to undertaking – Tenant directed to hand over vacant possession on or before 15/07/2026 [Paras 20–21].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Concurrent decrees for eviction confirmed – No order as to costs – Time granted to vacate till 15/07/2026.

Employees’ Compensation – Insurer’s Liability – Interest on Compensation – Policy Exclusion Clause – Appeal by Insurance Company – Workman sustained permanent total disability due to fall from height during employment – Commissioner awarded compensation with 12% interest and imposed liability jointly on employer and insurer – Insurance policy produced at appellate stage showing specific exclusion of liability for interest and penalty – Held: Liability of insurer under Employees’ Compensation Act is purely contractual and governed by terms of insurance policy – In absence of statutory compulsion akin to Motor Vehicles Act, insurer cannot be fastened with liability beyond contract – Exclusion clause valid and enforceable – Insurer liable only to pay compensation amount – Employer liable to pay statutory interest [Paras 11–20].

Additional Evidence – Insurance Policy – Acceptance at Appellate Stage – Certified copy of full insurance policy not produced before Commissioner due to inadvertent omission – Policy certificate and premium receipts already on record – Additional document relevant for adjudication of substantial question of law – No dispute as to genuineness of document – Held: In the interest of justice, additional evidence permitted and relied upon [Paras 11–12].

Wages and Coverage – Employees’ Compensation Insurance – Insurer contended policy covered only seven welders drawing wages up to ₹4,000 per month whereas claimant alleged wages of ₹15,000 – Commissioner assessed wages at ₹4,000 per month – Held: Once Commissioner fixed wages within policy limit, insurer cannot deny coverage solely based on higher wage claim by workman [Para 10].

Substantial Question of Law – Direction to Pay Interest Contrary to Policy Terms – Whether Commissioner was justified in directing insurer to pay interest despite express exclusion in policy – Held: Issue involves interpretation of insurance contract and statutory scheme – Constitutes substantial question of law – Answered in favour of insurer [Paras 18–20].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Award modified – Insurer directed to pay only compensation amount – Employer directed to pay interest as awarded by Commissioner – No liability on insurer for interest or penalty.

Criminal Law – Grievous Hurt – Conviction under Section 325 IPC – Reliability of Injured Witness – Sentence Modified – Appellants convicted by Trial Court for causing grievous hurt to victim by assaulting him with wooden stick and bicycle pump – Prosecution case supported by injured eyewitness (P.W.2), independent eyewitnesses and medical evidence – Defence contended inconsistencies regarding weapon used and role of accused – Held: Evidence of injured witness carries greater evidentiary value and inspires confidence – Minor discrepancies as to number of assailants or nature of weapon do not discredit core prosecution case – Conviction upheld [Paras …].

Evidence – Injured Eyewitness – Legal Principles – Statement of injured witness corroborated by medical evidence and eyewitnesses – No material contradictions elicited in cross-examination – Reliance placed on Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra – Held: Presence and testimony of injured witness cannot be doubted unless serious infirmities exist – Broad substratum of prosecution case to be accepted [Paras …].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Doctors (P.W.9 and P.W.12) proved grievous head injuries including fracture – Injury reports consistent with assault by hard and blunt objects – Seized weapons produced and proved – Medical evidence lends assurance to ocular testimony [Paras …].

Sentence – Reduction – Long Lapse of Time – Ends of Justice – Incident dated 12.06.2008 – Appellants already suffered custody for more than one month – After lapse of nearly 17½ years, sending appellants back to prison would serve no useful purpose – Sentence of two years’ simple imprisonment reduced to period already undergone – Conditional bond under Section 106(4) Cr.P.C. directed for two years [Paras …].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 325 IPC affirmed – Sentence modified to period already undergone subject to furnishing bond – Appeal disposed of.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 – Pre-cognizance Stage – Section 223 BNSS – Magistrate directed issuance of notice to accused before taking cognizance – Held impermissible in complaints under Section 138 N.I. Act, which is a special enactment – No requirement of issuing notice or summons to accused prior to taking cognizance [Paras 5–10].

Criminal Procedure – BNSS, 2023 – Section 223 – Interpretation of First Proviso – Opportunity of Hearing to Accused – Supreme Court clarified that proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS does not mandate pre-cognizance notice in cheque dishonour cases – Trial Court erred in applying proviso mechanically at pre-cognizance stage [Paras 6–10].

Precedent – Binding Nature – Supreme Court Decision – Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar – Law declared that issuance of notice to accused prior to cognizance is not required in N.I. Act cases – Held: Trial Court order contrary to binding precedent suffers from legal infirmity [Paras 8–10].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Motion Stage Disposal – Pure Question of Law – In view of settled legal position, criminal revision taken up and decided at motion stage – Issuance of notice to private respondents dispensed with [Paras 11].

Remand – Cognizance and Issuance of Process – Trial Court directed to reconsider matter afresh in accordance with law and Supreme Court ruling – Impugned order quashed to the extent of issuing pre-cognizance notice [Paras 10, 12–14].

Decision: Criminal revision allowed – Impugned order dated 25.09.2025 quashed to the extent it directed issuance of notice to accused at pre-cognizance stage – Trial Court directed to take fresh decision on cognizance and issuance of process in accordance with law.