Transfer of Property Act – Joint and Undivided Property – Sale by Co-owner – Section 44 – Validity – Sale deed No.408 dated 5.2.1996 was executed by Defendant No.1 (father of plaintiff and Defendant No.2) in favour of Defendant No.3 (wife of Defendant No.2) in respect of suit properties comprising ancestral Bari and Gharabari land – Plaintiff sought declaration that the sale deed was void, alleging fraud and absence of consideration – Trial Court dismissed the suit; First Appellate Court reversed and declared the sale deed void – Held: Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882 empowers a co-owner to alienate his undivided share in joint properties without the consent of other co-owners – Such a sale deed is neither void nor voidable but remains valid to the extent of the share of the transferor – Even where a co-owner sells a specific portion or the entirety of joint properties in excess of his share, the transfer is valid to the extent of his interest – The vendee obtains a joint interest in the properties without entitlement to any specific portion until partition [Paras 21–22].

Transfer of Property – Unilateral Cancellation of Registered Sale Deed – Non Est – After execution of the sale deed vide Ext.1, Defendant No.1 executed a registered deed of cancellation bearing No.148 dated 13.1.1997 (Ext.A) purportedly cancelling the sale deed on the ground that he had executed it under a mistaken belief – Held: Unilateral cancellation of a duly registered sale deed by the vendor/executant is void and non-est in the eye of law and carries no legal value – There is no express provision under the Registration Act, 1908 empowering the Registrar or Sub-Registrar to recall or cancel a registered deed – The deed of cancellation vide Ext.A is accordingly excluded from consideration – Followed: Thota Ganga Laxmi and Another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2010) 15 SCC 207; Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2016) 10 SCC 767; M/s. V.Marc India Limited v. Jaan Illahi and Another, 2025 (3) Civil Court Cases 190 (Uttarakhand) [Paras 18–19].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Substantial Questions of Law – Perversity – First Appellate Court declared sale deed void without recording any specific finding on the alleged fraud and misrepresentation – Held: The findings of the First Appellate Court that the sale deed is void, based solely on the ground that Defendant No.1 had a "fickle mind" and had cancelled the deed, without addressing the fraud allegation, are legally untenable and perverse – Both substantial questions of law answered in favour of the appellant [Paras 12, 14, 22].

Transfer of Property – Co-owner – Execution of Sale Deed – Intention and Knowledge – Evidence – Defendant No.1 in his own evidence stated that he executed the sale deed believing it to be a power of attorney and later cancelled it on realising the mistake – Held: The very fact that Defendant No.1 realised his alleged mistake subsequent to execution and then proceeded to cancel the deed establishes that the sale deed was executed with his intention and knowledge – The evidence of P.Ws.1 and D.W.1 clearly establishes execution with the knowledge of Defendant No.1 [Para 18].

Specific Relief Act – Declaratory Relief – Proviso to Section 34 – When the suit properties are joint and undivided ancestral properties and the plaintiff has not sought partition, a mere declaration that the sale deed is void is not available as the plaintiff's remedy lies in seeking partition of the joint properties – Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit on this ground as well [Para 8].

Decision: Second appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and decree dated 30.06.2005 and 12.07.2005 passed by the First Appellate Court in Title Appeal No.23 of 2003 set aside – Judgment and decree dated 3.1.2003 and 21.1.2003 passed by the Trial Court in Title Suit No.26 of 1997 dismissing the plaintiff's suit confirmed – Sale deed No.408 dated 5.2.1996 held valid to the extent of Defendant No.1's share in the joint suit properties [Paras 23–25].

Co-operative Milk Union – Government Land – Lease – Resumption – Validity of G.O. – Petitioner/E.R.C.M.P. Union challenged Ext.P15 G.O. dated 11.06.2025 bifurcating two acres of puramboke land, limiting 70 cents to the petitioner and allotting 130 cents to the 6th respondent/K.L.D. Board for a Central Government scheme – Petitioner contended that a 99-year lease was subsisting and could not be unilaterally resumed – Government contended that no formal lease deed existed and the Munnar chilling plant was never transferred to the 4th respondent/K.C.M.M.F – Held: Lease in favour of K.C.M.M.F. established through Government decisions and orders despite absence of formal deed – Munnar chilling plant included in the transfer – Government power to resume under Rule 15(4) of Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 lawfully exercised – Sufficient notice given – Writ Petition dismissed [Paras 2, 9, 14, 19, 21].

Lease – Creation Without Formal Deed – Co-operative Entities – Government Decisions – Cabinet Resolution – Petitioner Union claimed benefit of 99-year lease granted in favour of 4th respondent/K.C.M.M.F. vide Ext.P3 G.O. dated 24.06.1985 – Government disputed existence of concluded lease in absence of formal lease deed – Held: A narration of chronological events from 1969 through Cabinet Notes (Ext.P19), G.O.s (Exts. R3(d), P3, P5, P5(a)) and valuation reports clearly establishes lease in favour of K.C.M.M.F. – Absence of formal lease deed cannot, by itself, lead to conclusion that no lease was created – Petitioner Union, acting under the Federation, is entitled to claim the benefit of such lease [Para 9].

Transfer of Munnar Chilling Plant – Whether Excluded From Lease – G.O. Interpretation – Respondents relied on clause 5.0 of Ext.R6(j) G.O. dated 07.11.1998 to contend that the Munnar chilling plant does not find mention therein and was therefore never transferred to K.C.M.M.F – Held: Ext.R6(j), issued to effect financial re-adjustments and share arrangements, cannot nullify transactions already completed – Specific reference to the Munnar chilling plant in Ext.R6(e) G.O. and earlier instruments establishes its inclusion in the transfer – Non-mention in clause 5.0 of Ext.R6(j) cannot be given extra significance against the weight of other G.O.s – If Government intended to exclude the Munnar plant from transfer, it ought to have expressly stated so and resumed possession in a manner known to law [Paras 12–14].

Government Power – Resumption of Leased Land – Rule 15(4), Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 – Government lease of puramboke land governed by the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960 and Rules framed thereunder – Rule 15(4) empowers the competent authority to terminate a lease after 60 days' written notice to the assignee, if land is required for Government or public purposes – Impugned Ext.P15 resumed 130 cents out of the leased 2 acres for use by the K.L.D. Board in connection with a Central Government scheme, which constitutes a public purpose – Held: Action of the Government is traceable to Rule 15(4) and legally sustainable [Paras 16–19].

Notice – Substantial Compliance – 60 Days' Notice – Rule 15(4) – Petitioner Union contended that mandatory 60 days' notice under Rule 15(4) was not given before issuance of Ext.P15 – Held: A series of meetings commencing from 01.02.2024, committee inspections, deliberations by Secretaries, and multiple opportunities to produce title documents afforded sufficient notice to the petitioner Union – The purpose of the notice requirement is to enable the lessee to relocate; since 70 cents were retained by the petitioner for its continued operations, no question of relocation arose – Doctrine of substantial compliance applies – No violation of notice requirement [Paras 20–21].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed.

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Substantial Question of Law – Section 100 CPC – Second appeal admitted in 1979 on grounds mentioned in memo of appeal without framing any substantial question of law – Held: Admission of second appeal on mere grounds without stating a substantial question of law as required under Section 100(3) CPC was not appropriate – A substantial question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case – Question must emerge from sustainable findings of fact and it must be necessary to decide it for a just decision – No substantial question of law found to exist on facts – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 4–5, 11–12].

Order 41 Rule 31 CPC – Points for Determination – Mandatory or Directory – Framing of points for determination by First Appellate Court is not always mandatory – Whether there has been substantial compliance must be determined on the nature of judgment delivered in each case – Non-compliance by itself does not vitiate the judgment or render it wholly void if there has been substantial compliance – Where no points are actually raised by appellant, First Appellate Court is not required to frame points for determination – Judgment of First Appellate Court rejecting all grounds need not separately frame points where none were in issue [Paras 6–8].

Second Appeal – Findings of Fact – Non-Interference – It is settled law that findings of fact, howsoever erroneous, cannot be reopened or disturbed in second appeal – Second appeal must be adjudicated only upon a substantial question of law – Once no substantial question of law is found to exist, there is no occasion to re-appreciate evidence so as to arrive at a different conclusion [Para 11].

Pecuniary Jurisdiction – Suit Valuation – Defect Cured by Amendment – Suit originally under-valued was subsequently amended by plaintiffs who corrected the valuation and made good the deficiency in court fee – Issue of pecuniary jurisdiction accordingly held to be non-existent at appellate stage – Issue not pressed in first appeal – Not a substantial question of law [Para 10].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law involved – Interim order, if any, vacated [Para 12].

Ferry Ghat – Transfer During Pendency of Writ Petition – Circumvention of Court Proceedings – Zilla Parishad transferred Ramchandrakhali ferry ghat to the Panchayat Samity by resolution dated 12.03.2025, after receipt of notice of the writ petition served on 06.01.2025 – Transfer effected despite pendency of proceedings amounts to defiance of court and an attempt to overreach the Court – Transfer held devoid of legal sanction – All subsequent acts including lease granted to added respondent declared illegal – Zilla Parishad directed to take back the ferry ghat within two weeks and float fresh tender within one week thereafter under the Jaladhara scheme notification dated 28.01.2020 [Paras 7, 9, 10].

Ferry Ghat – Classification as "Small" – Revenue Loss – Lease Amount – The Zilla Parishad sought to justify transfer on the ground that Ramchandrakhali was a small ferry ghat – Held: Classification unsustainable as the ferry ghat carries a lease amount of Rs. 17,96,850/- compared to Rs. 72,000/- for Chandipur Masjidbati ferry ghat – Panchayat Samity leased out the ghat at a much lower rent than could have been fetched by the Zilla Parishad, resulting in revenue loss to the State exchequer – Ferry ghat similarly placed with the other three ghats reverted to the Zilla Parishad; pendency of writ petition cannot be a ground to distinguish it [Paras 2, 9].

Writ Jurisdiction – Acts in Defiance of Court – Principle Against Overreaching – Where a respondent, upon receiving notice of court proceedings, hurriedly effects a transfer with a view to circumventing the impending order or to steal a march over the opponent, such act is liable to be set aside – Reliance placed on Ranjit Kumar Halder v. State of West Bengal (CPAN 1424 of 2003 in WPST No. 612 of 2003) and Daniel v. Ferguson, (1891) 2 Chancery Division 27 – Held: Transfer of ferry ghat after notice of writ petition falls squarely within this principle [Paras 8, 9].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Transfer of Ramchandrakhali ferry ghat to Panchayat Samity set aside – Zilla Parishad directed to take back the ferry ghat within two weeks and float fresh tender within one week thereafter – Added respondent permitted to participate in fresh tender and to take necessary steps in accordance with law if aggrieved by acts of Panchayat Samity – Added respondent to continue operating the ferry ghat until fresh tender notice is floated – No order as to costs.

Motor Accident Claim – Insurance Company – Opportunity to Lead Evidence – Remand – Appellant-Insurance Company challenged the Tribunal's award fastening liability upon it, contending that the driver of the offending vehicle did not hold a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and that the Tribunal had closed the appellant's evidence without affording reasonable opportunity – The Tribunal had directed the Insurance Company to produce the Licensing Authority as a witness on dasti summons, but when the witness failed to appear and summons remained unserved or unreturned, the evidence was closed – Held: When summons sent by the Tribunal were not returned served or unserved, the Tribunal was duty bound to proceed under Order 16 CPC and take coercive measures to secure the presence of the witness; the appellant had no authority to enforce the attendance of witnesses on its own; closing the evidence in such circumstances amounted to denial of reasonable opportunity – Matter remanded for fresh adjudication of Issue No. 4 (validity of driving licence) alone – Findings on all other issues to remain undisturbed – Tribunal directed to take coercive measures if witness fails to appear despite service – Case to be decided by 31-10-2026 [Paras 10–19].

Income Tax – Pre-Operative Period – Interest on Bank Deposits – Capital Receipt or Income from Other Sources – Inextricable Link Test – Appellant company incorporated in 1992 for manufacture of ecological brake-shoes – Raised loans from Directors and deposited unutilised funds in bank pending deployment for purchase of plant and machinery and payment of balance technical know-how fee – Earned interest of Rs. 1,33,151/- and Rs. 2,37,770/- for AYs 1993-94 and 1994-95 respectively – Interest adjusted against pre-operative expenses – AO on reassessment treated interest as income from other sources relying on Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals – ITAT upheld reassessment – Held: Funds were not surplus but earmarked for meeting committed project obligations and were inextricably linked to setting up of business – Ratio of Bokaro Steel Ltd. applicable and not Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals – Question of law (2) answered in favour of appellant – ITAT order set aside [Paras 48–57].

Reassessment – Section 147/148 – Change of Opinion – Assessment under Section 143(1) – Where original assessment is completed under Section 143(1) and no order under Section 143(3) is passed, the Assessing Officer cannot be said to have formed any opinion – Reassessment proceedings in such cases are not vitiated as change of opinion – Only requirement under new Section 147 (w.e.f. 01.04.1989) is that income has escaped assessment – Held: ITAT correctly upheld validity of reassessment – Question of law (1) answered in favour of Revenue [Paras 42–45].

ITAT Powers – Scope of Appellate Jurisdiction – Section 254 – ITAT has wide powers to pass such orders "as it thinks fit" on the subject matter of appeal – Powers not confined to grounds raised in memorandum of appeal – ITAT may decide any issue going to the root of the subject matter even if not specifically raised by either party, provided it falls within the confines of the subject matter of appeal – Revenue's failure to raise jurisdictional issue before ITAT did not preclude ITAT from deciding the same [Paras 46–47].

Tuticorin vs. Bokaro – Distinction – Interest on Surplus Funds vs. Inextricably Linked Funds – Where funds borrowed or raised are surplus and independently invested to generate interest, interest is taxable as income from other sources per Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals – Where funds are inextricably linked to setting up of project and temporarily deposited pending deployment, interest earned is a capital receipt liable to be set off against pre-operative expenses per Bokaro Steel Ltd. – Test is not whether there was compulsion to deposit funds but whether the funds bore an inextricable nexus with the project [Paras 54–56].

Decision: Question of law (1) answered in favour of Revenue – Question of law (2) answered in favour of Appellant – Order of ITAT set aside – Appeals allowed [Para 57].

Criminal Law – Discharge Petition – Section 228 Cr.P.C. – Murder – Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – Revision dismissed – Petitioner challenged the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad rejecting his discharge petition and framing charge against him in connection with the murder of the deceased, who was found dead in the office of the petitioner's Sudha Agency – Deceased had reportedly sought to obtain the Sudha Dairy agency in his own name, for which the petitioner had allegedly threatened him with dire consequences two days prior to the incident – Final form submitted for lack of evidence, but cognizance taken by the trial court differing with the final form – Discharge petition dismissed and charge framed – Held: Prima facie materials on record justify framing of charge; no illegality in the orders rejecting the discharge petition, taking cognizance, or framing the charge – Revision dismissed and interim order vacated [Paras 2–9].

Cognizance Against Final Form – Competence of Court – It is well settled that a court is competent to differ from the final form and take cognizance, provided the order taking cognizance is a reasoned one and prima facie materials are reflected therein – The trial court considered materials in paragraph nos. 21, 22, and 4 of the case diary, including the presence of the deceased's body in the petitioner's office and the motive of a dispute over the Sudha Dairy agency – Held: Order taking cognizance was elaborate and in accordance with law [Paras 6–7].

Discharge Petition – Standard of Proof – At the stage of deciding a discharge petition under Section 228 Cr.P.C., neither guilt of the accused has to be determined nor an elaborate inquiry undertaken – The standard of proof applicable to trial judgments is not applicable at this stage – If prima facie case is made out and there is a chance of the accused facing trial, the discharge petition cannot be allowed as a matter of routine – Held: Trial court rightly dismissed the discharge petition [Para 8].

Decision: Cr. Revision No. 660 of 2019 dismissed – Orders of the trial court rejecting the discharge petition, taking cognizance, and framing the charge upheld – Interim order vacated – Trial court directed to proceed in accordance with law.

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder vs. Grievous Hurt – Sections 307 and 325 IPC – Conviction – Accused stabbed complainant PW-1 in the abdomen and PW-2 (son of complainant) on the neck and abdomen with a knife during a sudden quarrel over sprinkling of water – Trial Court convicted accused under Section 325 IPC and not Section 307 IPC on the ground that weapon was not recovered and MLCs did not specify depth of injuries – State filed appeal for conviction under Section 307 IPC and enhancement of sentence – High Court finds no perversity or illegality in Trial Court's appreciation of evidence – Held: Non-recovery of weapon and absence of medical opinion on depth of injuries, coupled with the fact that the act was not premeditated but arose from a sudden quarrel, disentitle the prosecution from establishing the intent requisite under Section 307 IPC – Conviction under Section 325 IPC maintained – State's appeal dismissed [Paras 22–32].

Section 307 IPC – Ingredients – Intention – Non-Recovery of Weapon – To sustain conviction under Section 307 IPC it must be shown that the act was done with such intention or knowledge as would have made it amount to murder had death ensued – Where the incident arose not from premeditation but from sudden provocation over a trivial issue, and medical evidence does not establish depth of stab injuries or sufficiency to cause death in the ordinary course, the requisite intent for Section 307 IPC is not made out – Non-recovery of the weapon assumes significance in such cases where the weapon constitutes the core of the prosecution story [Paras 30–32].

Quashing – Post-Conviction Compromise – Section 528 BNSS – Non-Compoundable Offence – Inherent Powers – High Court's power under Section 528 BNSS is not curtailed by the non-compoundable nature of an offence – Where parties have amicably settled their disputes of their own free volition, and the offence is non-heinous and predominantly of a private nature, the High Court may quash proceedings including post-conviction, keeping in view the nature and circumstances of the offence, the manner of settlement, and the conduct of the accused – Ends of justice do not invariably require incarceration and the Court may adopt a pragmatic approach – Accused being first-time offender, sole earning member, having shown good conduct, and the dispute arising from a trivial matter between neighbours are relevant considerations [Paras 35–40].

Sentence – Probation – Post-Conviction Settlement – Belated Compromise – While compromise arrived at after conviction warrants caution, the Court may release accused on probation where the offence is non-heinous, not premeditated, and arose from a sudden quarrel – Accused to be placed on probation of good conduct for one year upon furnishing personal bond – Accused directed to deposit cost of Rs. 50,000/- with Army Central Welfare Fund as a condition of settlement given the belated stage at which compromise was arrived at [Paras 38–41].

Decision: CRL.A. 442/2023 filed by the State dismissed – Conviction of accused under Section 325 IPC maintained – Accused released on probation of good conduct for one year upon furnishing personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with surety – Accused directed to deposit cost of Rs. 50,000/- with Army Central Welfare Fund within four weeks – CRL.A. 255/2021 and CRL.M.C. 1952/2025 disposed of accordingly.

Electricity Law – Unauthorized Use – Assessment – Remand Order – Writ Petition – Maintainability – Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 – Petitioner electricity company assessed respondents for unauthorized use of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 – Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh assessment limited to the actual period of unauthorized use – Petitioner challenged the remand order under Article 227 – Preliminary objection raised that the Appellate Authority's order is not amenable to writ jurisdiction – Held: The Appellate Authority, being a statutory quasi-judicial body constituted under Section 127 of the Electricity Act read with the Appeal to the Appellate Authority Rules, 2004, falls within the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India – Preliminary objection rejected – However, writ petition against remand order not maintainable as no prejudice is caused, both parties having equal opportunity before the Assessing Officer – Petitions disposed of with direction to decide within six months [Paras 4–13].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Quasi-Judicial Authority – Scope – Any authority constituted by statute and deciding disputes in accordance with rules made thereunder is a quasi-judicial authority amenable to supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 – High Court's power under Article 227 is wider than under Article 226 but must be exercised with great care, caution and circumspection – Jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of judgment; interference warranted only in cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice [Paras 10–11].

Remand Order – Writ Petition – Not Maintainable – It is trite law that a writ petition against an order of remand is not maintainable – Remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer causes no prejudice to either party, as both sides retain full opportunity to place their material on record – Order of Appellate Authority remanding matter for reassessment of tariff held to be in consonance with Section 126 of the Electricity Act [Para 12].

Section 126(5) – Electricity Act – Period of Unauthorized Use – Where the period of unauthorized use is not ascertainable, the Assessing Officer is entitled to assess usage for the entire preceding year – Remand for fresh assessment restricted to actual period of unauthorized use is consistent with the statutory scheme [Para 7].

Decision: Preliminary objection rejected – Writ petitions disposed of in terms of order dated 01.04.2026 in W.P. No. 16781/2014 – Parties at liberty to raise all questions before the Assessing Officer – Assessing Officer directed to decide within six months from production of certified copy of this order [Paras 12–14