Civil Law – Permanent Injunction – Maintainability of Suit – Grant of Land – Ownership in Question – Plaintiff's Suit Dismissed

Permanent Injunction – Suit Without Declaration – The plaintiff-Mutt sought an injunction to restrain the defendant-Mutt from interfering with its pooja and aradhana at the Brindavana of Sri Narahariteertharu, located on government land granted to the plaintiff-Mutt – Trial Court and First Appellate Court granted the injunction – High Court held that the plaintiff-Mutt's claim was clouded due to the cancellation of the land grant by the Government – Held: A bare injunction suit is not maintainable without seeking a declaration of ownership where title is disputed [Paras 24–32].

Possession of Land – Evidence and Admissions – PW1 admitted in cross-examination that the Government resumed possession of the land after cancelling the grant in 1996 – No evidence presented to establish reacquisition of possession by the plaintiff-Mutt – Courts below erred in ignoring the admission and granting relief to the plaintiff-Mutt [Paras 26–29].

Land Grant – Pending Proceedings – Deputy Commissioner set aside the Tahsildar’s cancellation of the grant, but the matter remains sub judice in writ proceedings before the High Court – High Court held that title over the land was not conclusively proved, rendering the suit for injunction unsustainable [Paras 25, 30].

High Court Jurisdiction – Section 100 CPC – Perversity in Findings – Despite concurrent findings by lower courts, High Court interfered due to misappreciation of evidence and the omission to consider the necessity of declaratory relief – A substantial question of law arose regarding the maintainability of a bare injunction suit without declaration when ownership was in dispute [Paras 21–24].

Decision: The appeal is allowed. Judgments and decrees dated 05/08/2006 (Regular Appeal No. 11 of 2003) and 16/01/2003 (Original Suit No. 15 of 1998) are set aside. The original suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff-Mutt is dismissed.
 

Virginity Test – Declared Unconstitutional – Right to Dignity under Article 21 Violated – Request for Virginity Test Rejected – The applicant sought virginity test of the wife alleging her illicit relationship and refusal to cohabit, while the wife alleged impotence – Held: Virginity test is unconstitutional, violates Article 21 guaranteeing right to dignity and personal liberty of women – No woman can be compelled to undergo such a test [Paras 6-

9].

Right to Personal Liberty – Includes Right to Dignity and Decency – Test Violates Fundamental Rights – The Court held that compelling a woman to undergo virginity test infringes Article 21 – Right to live with dignity and decency is non-derogable – Husband may prove his defence through permissible medical examination on himself, but not by compromising wife’s dignity [Paras 9-11].

Two-Finger Test – Prohibited Practice – Applicability Extended – Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai (2022) 14 SCC 299 and Delhi High Court in Sr. Sephy v. CBI, 2023 held that tests like virginity tests and two-finger tests are unconstitutional – Reliance placed on these precedents to deny relief [Paras 6-8].

Adjudication on Merits – Allegations Subject to Evidence – Trial Court’s Order Upheld – The allegations made by both parties regarding impotency and infidelity are to be adjudicated based on evidence in the pending proceedings – No illegality or perversity found in rejection of the application for virginity test [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Criminal Revision Dismissed – No Ground to Interfere with Trial Court’s Order – Court found no merit in the revision and upheld the trial court’s rejection of the request for virginity test [Para 13].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Refusal to Live with Husband – Sufficient Cause Established – Maintenance Upheld – Wife refused to live with her husband due to allegations of infidelity made by him, which were unsupported by any proof – Court held that such accusations constitute sufficient cause for the wife to live separately under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. – Held: Accusations of infidelity without proof justify the wife’s decision to stay apart, and she is entitled to maintenance [Paras 4-5].

Quantum of Maintenance – Husband’s Income Considered – ₹3,000/- Maintenance Upheld – Husband claimed to earn ₹9,000/- per month as a skilled laborer and objected to the maintenance amount as excessive – Court observed that ₹3,000/- per month (1/3rd of the husband’s income) was reasonable and in line with the standard of living of the husband – Held: Trial Court rightly awarded ₹3,000/- as monthly maintenance [Para 5].

Character Assassination – Impact on Wife’s Rights – Maintenance Justified – Husband raised baseless allegations of infidelity against the wife, leading to her separation – Court held that such baseless character assassination violates the wife’s dignity and is a valid ground for living separately – Held: The wife’s refusal to live with the husband was justified, and her entitlement to maintenance remains unaffected [Para 4].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference with Maintenance Order – No Grounds Found – High Court declined to interfere with the Family Court’s order as it found no illegality or perversity in the findings – Held: Maintenance of ₹3,000/- per month upheld, and revision petition dismissed [Paras 5-6].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed. Maintenance of ₹3,000/- per month as directed by the Family Court is upheld.

Labour Law - Maintainability of Industrial Dispute - Definition of Workman - Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Supervisory Role and Salary Ceiling - Tribunal lacked jurisdiction - The Workman, designated as Senior Charge Hand, performed supervisory and administrative duties and earned above the statutory salary ceiling - Held: Employee does not qualify as a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Act - Tribunal's jurisdiction to entertain the dispute questioned and found lacking - Industrial dispute declared void and award set aside [Paras 21-33].

Judicial Discipline - Adherence to High Court Directions - Failure to Frame Issue on Workman Definition - Tribunal's Breach - Tribunal did not frame an independent issue regarding the employee's status as directed by the High Court - Held: Non-compliance with the High Court's orders amounts to judicial indiscipline, rendering the award coram non judice and void [Paras 34-43].

Jurisdiction - Doctrine of Coram Non Judice - Nullity of Tribunal’s Orders - Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Orders passed by a judicial forum without jurisdiction are a nullity - Subject matter jurisdiction is fundamental and cannot be waived - Tribunal's award held invalid due to lack of jurisdiction over the dispute [Paras 36-39].

Industrial Welfare - Applicability of Statutory Parameters - Balancing Welfare and Legal Compliance - Workman’s Claim Denied - Industrial Disputes Act's welfare intention must adhere to statutory provisions - Employee’s supervisory duties and salary disqualified him as a workman - Courts upheld statutory compliance over welfare claims [Paras 24-29, 43].

Decision - Management’s Writ Allowed - Workman’s Writ Dismissed - Liberty to Pursue Remedies - The Court allowed the Management's writ petition, setting aside the Tribunal's award and dismissing the Workman’s writ - Workman granted liberty to pursue alternative remedies under law [Paras 44(i)-(iv)].
 

Service Law - Recruitment - Disclosure of Pending Criminal Case - Bona Fide Mistake - Candidate failed to disclose pendency of criminal case due to lack of awareness - Not construed as suppression or fraud - Candidate acquitted honorably - Discharge order set aside - Reinstatement directed [Paras 3-16, 18].

Nature of Offence - Triviality of Alleged Crimes - Offences under Sections 341, 504, and 506 IPC held not to constitute serious crimes - Employer’s obligation to evaluate trivial cases for possible condonation - Non-disclosure found to lack dishonest intent [Paras 12-13, 17].

Employment in Disciplined Forces - Role of Character Verification - Mere omission or minor errors in disclosure cannot tarnish suitability for disciplined forces - Requirement to exercise discretion and consider the facts and circumstances holistically [Paras 14-16, 18].

Applicability of Supreme Court Precedents - Flexibility in Assessing Lapses - Principles in Avtar Singh v. Union of India applied - Omission due to bona fide error held not to disqualify the candidate [Paras 12-14, 16-17].

Decision - Appeal Allowed - Discharge order and Single Judge's decision set aside - Reinstatement of appellant with directions for continuation of service within eight weeks [Paras 18-19].
 

Temple Surplus Funds – Utilization for Religious and Charitable Purposes – Non-Compliance with HR & CE Act – The surplus funds of the temple cannot be utilized for purposes beyond those specified in Section 66(1) or Sections 36-A and 36-B of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – Held: Construction of a shopping complex does not align with the purposes outlined in the Act, such as propagation of religious tenets or other prescribed religious or charitable activities – Decision to construct the complex quashed [Paras 10-19].

Use of Partially Constructed Building – Repurposing for Charitable Objectives – Since a portion of the shopping complex was already constructed, the Court allowed its completion but restricted its use to charitable activities permissible under Sections 36-A and 36-B, such as feeding the poor or conducting Hindu marriages for those in need – Clarified that this should not set a precedent for constructing marriage halls using temple surplus funds [Paras 23-27].

Trusteeship – Lack of Appointment and Oversight – The absence of trustees for the temple meant that the decision to construct the shopping complex lacked legitimacy – Directed the authorities to expedite the appointment process while allowing the petitioner to challenge the appointments if dissatisfied [Paras 7-8, 14].

Violation of Interim Orders – Apologies and Assurance Accepted – Respondents breached an interim stay order but offered apologies and assurances to halt further construction – Contempt proceedings disposed of upon acceptance of the apologies [Paras 20-21].

Decision: The Court quashed the decision to construct a shopping complex using temple surplus funds, restricting its use to charitable purposes under Sections 36-A and 36-B of the HR & CE Act. The contempt petition was disposed of after apologies were accepted.
 

Civil Law - Execution of Will - Validity - Compliance with Sections 63 of the Indian Succession Act and 68 of the Evidence Act - Attestation duly proved - Whether discrepancies in dates and overwriting vitiate the Will - Held: No - Overwriting in date rectified by the scribe’s signature - Misdescription of date on one page immaterial when consistent with the rest of the Will - Will execution upheld [Paras 12-19, 29].

Mental Capacity of Testatrix - Advanced Age Not Conclusive of Incapacity - Testatrix aged 87 - Sound mental and physical capacity corroborated by executor and attesting witnesses - Validity of the Will affirmed in absence of contrary evidence - Presumption in favor of notarized documents applied [Paras 26-27].

Role of Executor and Scribe - Executor Not Mandated to Confirm Signing in Presence of Witnesses - Compliance limited to attesting witnesses proving execution - Executor’s corroboration suffices when combined with attestation [Paras 24-25].

Signatures at Multiple Locations - Additional Signatures Strengthen Validity - Testatrix’s signature on every page and at the bottom affirms intention to execute the Will - Adherence to Section 63(b) of the Indian Succession Act established [Paras 21-22].

Discrepancy in Bengali and English Year - Error in Trial Court’s Interpretation - Bengali Year 1409 corresponds to English Year 2003, not 2002 - Will executed on January 16, 2003, validated by evidence and corroboration [Para 20].

Decision - Appeal Allowed - Trial Court’s findings deemed perverse and based on extraneous considerations - Will execution upheld - Probate granted to the appellant [Paras 30-32].

POCSO Offences – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Petition to quash proceedings for rape and penetrative sexual assault under IPC and POCSO Act, based on an affidavit by the victim’s mother retracting the allegations and attributing the case to retaliation. Held: Allegations of serious sexual offences cannot be quashed solely on the basis of subsequent withdrawal of allegations – The accusations must be tested through a trial – No case for quashing made out under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 5-6, 13-14].

Serious Offences – Withdrawal of Allegations – Section 482 CrPC – In cases involving heinous offences like rape or offences under POCSO Act, the victim's or complainant's subsequent retraction or settlement does not justify quashing criminal proceedings – The trial process is essential for judicial scrutiny of allegations. Held: The Trial Court to consider all aspects, including retraction, during discharge hearing or trial [Paras 6, 13-15].

Decision – Petition dismissed. Criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 845/2019 not quashed. Trial Court directed to consider the petitioner’s discharge plea on merits, including the victim's mother’s affidavit. Petitioner permitted to appear through counsel except when personal presence is necessary [Paras 14-15].
 

Recruitment Rules – Eligibility of Candidates – Applicability of Rule 11 of Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1963 – Final Year Examination – Ineligible Candidates Removed – The petitioners challenged the inclusion of candidates who had only enrolled in the Final Year of the B.V.Sc. program without appearing in the Final Year Examination. The court emphasized that under Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1963, only candidates who have “appeared” or are “appearing” in the Final Year Examination on the last date of application submission are eligible. It held that merely securing admission in the Final Year does not satisfy the eligibility criteria. The court ordered the preparation of a fresh merit list, excluding ineligible candidates. [Paras 72-93].

Interpretation of Advertisement – Faulty Draftsmanship – Prevailing Rule to Apply – The court observed that the advertisement's language mistakenly suggested that candidates merely enrolled in the Final Year were eligible. It clarified that the statutory rules under Rule 11 of the 1963 Rules take precedence over the advertisement, which had a drafting error. [Paras 76-78].

Principle of Acquiescence – Participation in Selection Process – No Bar on Challenging Selection – The petitioners of Group ‘A’ were not barred from challenging the inclusion of ineligible candidates despite participating in the selection process, as their challenge was directed at the violation of statutory rules rather than the selection process itself. [Paras 66-70].

Relief Granted – Preparation of Fresh Merit List – The court directed the Rajasthan Public Service Commission to prepare a revised merit list, excluding candidates who neither appeared in the Final Year Examination nor submitted the examination form before the application deadline. [Paras 92-93].