Writ Petition – Ex-parte Decree – Order 5 Rule 17 CPC – Section 96(2) CPC – Section 224 Rajasthan Tenancy Act – Three impugned judgments quashed – Petitioner assailed ex-parte decree (09.05.2002) and affirming appellate orders (21.07.2004; 22.09.2020) on ground of defective service and denial of hearing – Held: Appeal under Section 96(2) CPC against an ex-parte decree is a substantive statutory remedy; where service via affixation lacked compliance with Order 5 Rule 17 (no witness identification/signature), service was incomplete and ex-parte proceedings unsustainable – Matter remitted to Assistant Collector for de novo trial; decide expeditiously, preferably within two years – Writ disposed of [Paras 6-8, 10-11, 15-16].

Service of Summons – Affixation without witness identification – Non-compliance with Order 5 Rule 17 CPC vitiates service – Process Server failed to obtain signature of any witness identifying the house; treating such unverified affixation as complete service was erroneous – Ex-parte proceedings could not have been drawn [Paras 8-10].

Appeal Against Ex-parte Decree – Dual remedies – Section 96(2) CPC vs. Order 9 Rule 13 CPC – Defendant may file either an application under Order 9 Rule 13 or a regular appeal under Section 96(2) challenging the decree on merits – Right of appeal is substantive and cannot be denied merely because no Order 9 Rule 13 application was filed – Respondents’ objection to maintainability rejected [Paras 6-7, 12-13].

Appellate Scrutiny – Technical rejection unsustainable – RAA erred in rejecting appeal on the technical count that no written statement was filed and no issues framed; record showed written statement existed – Failure to address improper service and ex-parte nature amounts to material irregularity [Para 11].

Natural Justice – Audi alteram partem – Passing ex-parte decree without proper service violates principles of natural justice; sufficient cause shown for non-appearance where summons service is doubtful – Ex-parte decree not sustainable [Para 14].

Decision – All three impugned judgments dated 09.05.2002, 21.07.2004 and 22.09.2020 set aside – Suit remitted to Assistant Collector for fresh decision after framing issues and granting opportunity to both sides; trial to be concluded expeditiously, preferably within two years from receipt of certified copy – Writ petition disposed of; pending applications also disposed [Paras 15-16].

Bail – Section 20(b)(ii)(A) read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act – Small Quantity of Contraband – Bail Granted – Petitioner found in possession of 4 kg of ganja, not a commercial quantity – Detained for 48 days – Material part of investigation completed, charge sheet pending – Court held that no apprehension of absconding or tampering with evidence exists – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 2, 6-8].

Judicial Discretion – Factors for Grant of Bail – Quantity of contraband and duration of custody considered relevant – Court exercised discretion in favour of bail as petitioner was cooperating, and offence did not involve commercial quantity – Conditions imposed to ensure appearance and prevent reoffending [Paras 6-8].

Conditions of Bail – Compliance Directed – Bail granted on execution of personal bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties – Weekly appearance before police mandated – Movement restricted to local district limits without trial court permission – Cooperation with investigation made mandatory [Para 8].

Final Order – Criminal Petition Allowed – Petitioner released on bail under specific conditions – Trial court directed to ensure compliance and monitor conduct [Para 8].

Writ Petition – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Section 230 Rajasthan Tenancy Act – Section 2(2) Hindu Succession Act – Maintainability of ST daughter’s suit for declaration of khatedari rights – Board’s revisional order quashed – Petitioner (sole daughter of a Meena ST father) filed revenue suit for declaration after civil court directed her to seek khatedari declaration – Board allowed O7 R11 relying on Section 2(2) HSA to hold daughters of ST have no succession – Held: In view of Supreme Court in Tirth Kumar and Ram Charan, discrimination against ST daughters is impermissible and rejection at threshold was illegal – SDO’s rejection of O7 R11 restored and suit to be tried on merits with expeditious timeline – Writ allowed [Paras 2, 5-8].

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 2(2) – Applicability to Scheduled Tribes vis-à-vis equality – Supreme Court’s rulings in Tirth Kumar (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3810) and Ram Charan (CA No. 9537/2025) – Court reiterates that while HSA is inapplicable to STs per S.2(2), exclusionary customs must be proved and in their absence denial of a daughter’s share violates Articles 14 & 15 – Reliance on S.2(2) to non-suit an ST daughter at the threshold is unsustainable – Board’s order set aside [Paras 6-7, 16-18].

Customary Law – Burden of proof – Where Hindu law is inapplicable by virtue of Section 2(2) HSA, succession among tribals turns on proved custom – Courts cannot presume an exclusionary (patriarchal) custom – In absence of proof of custom excluding female succession, equality principle controls – Outcome: Plaintiff’s claim is maintainable and must be adjudicated on evidence [Para 6].

Procedure – Prior civil suit for cancellation of gift and liberty to seek revenue declaration – Petitioner correctly approached SDO for declaration of khatedari rights – Order 7 Rule 11 cannot be invoked to decide disputed rights or to foreclose claims on a debatable legal position – Direction issued to decide the pending 2018 suit expeditiously, preferably within two years, uninfluenced by observations – O7 R11 application rejected [Paras 2, 5, 8].

Constitutional Law – Articles 14, 15(1), 15(3), 16, 21 & 51-A – Equality and non-discrimination for tribal women – Court echoes and builds on Supreme Court’s recommendation in Kamla Neti urging Union of India to revisit Section 2(2) HSA to secure parity in intestate succession for female tribals – Observation made as a way forward and not as a binding direction on merits of the suit [Paras 10-18].

Criminal Law - Speedy Trial – Senior Citizen Complainant – Section 528 BNSS – Trial Court’s Leniency Towards Accused Decried – Petition Allowed – FIR registered on 31.03.2021 for offences under IPC and IT Act—challan filed 30.09.2021—trial delayed with only two witnesses examined in four years—accused repeatedly absent, granted numerous exemptions (30 to one accused, 10 to another), only bailable warrants issued—High Court held such leniency impermissible in serious crimes—reaffirmed Article 21 right to speedy trial citing Kartar Singh and Abdul Rehman Antulay—Directed trial court to conclude proceedings within eight months—District & Sessions Judge to convene meeting advising judicial officers against casual approach, especially in senior citizens’ cases [Paras 5–12].

Family Law - Domestic Violence – Right to Appeal – Section 29 of the DV Act – Leave to Appeal Denied – The petitioner, mother-in-law of the aggrieved woman, filed for leave to appeal against an order passed by the Trial Court under Section 12 of the DV Act – Held: She did not qualify as an “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) and was not a party to the proceedings nor subject of the impugned order – Consequently, she lacked locus to maintain an appeal under Section 29 [Paras 2, 4-5].

Aggrieved Person – Interpretation of Section 2(a) of DV Act – Limitation on Scope – The Court reaffirmed that “aggrieved person” under the DV Act only includes a woman who has been in a domestic relationship and subjected to domestic violence – Held: Petitioner, being a mother-in-law and not the victim of violence, did not fall within this definition and thus could not invoke the appellate mechanism under Section 29 [Paras 3-5].

Alternative Remedy – Liberty Granted to Seek Impleadment – The petitioner sought liberty to move the Trial Court for impleadment as a party – Held: Liberty granted – The Trial Court to consider any such application after hearing objections and decide as per law [Paras 7-8].

Final Decision – Petition Disposed of with Liberty – The revision petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an application for impleadment before the Trial Court – No opinion expressed on merits – Trial Court directed to decide such application in accordance with law [Para 8-9].

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR – Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the BNS - Cross Allegations in Family Dispute – Trial Not to Be Short-Circuited – Petitioners sought quashing of FIR citing contradictions in medical records and prior police intimation by complainant – Held: Allegations prima facie disclose cognizable offences – Disputed facts and evidence must be addressed at trial – FIR not liable to be quashed at this stage [Paras 1-5, 7-10].

Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Limited Role of High Court – High Court reaffirms that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are to be exercised sparingly – Courts cannot evaluate evidence or conduct mini-trials during quashing petitions – Petitioners failed to show case was among rarest of rare – FIR disclosure sufficient for trial to proceed [Paras 6, 6.1-6.8].

Prima Facie Offence – Obstruction and Assault Established – Complaint and MLCs alleged wrongful restraint of a long-time resident and use of weapons (stick, rod, hammer) – Held: Offence under Section 126(2) BNS clearly made out – Question of further charges to be determined by Trial Court independently [Para 10].

Petition Dismissed – Costs Imposed – All four petitions dismissed with costs of ₹10,000 on each petitioner, payable to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee – Trial Court directed to proceed uninfluenced by observations in this judgment [Para 11].

Civil Law  – Declaration and Injunction Suit – Title not established – Appeal dismissed – The plaintiff-appellant sought a declaration claiming ownership over 5 kanals of land on the basis of a sale deed executed by her husband Gurlal Singh, but the lower courts dismissed the suit holding that Gurlal Singh’s ownership was limited to 1/4th share and there was no evidence of ownership of 3/4th share as mentioned in the sale deed – The High Court upheld the concurrent findings observing that execution of a sale deed without lawful title cannot confer ownership – Held: No substantial question of law arises, second appeal dismissed [Paras 2-10].

Sale Beyond Ownership – Effect of Invalid Title – Legal Principle Reaffirmed – The Court reiterated that a vendor cannot sell more than his ownership share – Jamabandi entries recorded only 1/4th share of Gurlal Singh while the sale deed wrongly mentioned 3/4th share – Held: Execution of sale deed by a person without title does not vest ownership rights in vendee [Paras 7-9].

No Proof of Excess Sale by Defendants – Courts’ Findings Upheld – The appellant failed to prove that defendants/respondents had sold land in excess of their share – The courts below rightly relied on revenue records showing that the land sold by respondents was within their recorded share – Held: No illegality in the sale deed executed by respondents, suit rightly dismissed [Paras 9].

Concurrent Findings – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal dismissed – The Court found no perversity or misapplication of law in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial and First Appellate Courts – Held: In the absence of any substantial question of law, second appeal not maintainable and liable to be dismissed [Para 10].

Decision of the Case – Appeal dismissed – The judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissing the plaintiff’s suit for declaration and injunction are affirmed – Pending applications also disposed of [Para 10].

Land Acquisition – Repeated Challenge to Acquisition Proceedings – Section 4(1), Section 6(1), and Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act – Writ Petition Dismissed with Exemplary Costs – The petitioners, legal representatives of original grantees, challenged the acquisition of 2 acres and 20 guntas of land granted in 1979, citing a purported Section 48(1) notification issued in 1993 – The acquisition process had concluded in 1987 with compensation paid, possession taken, and multiple prior petitions dismissed, including by Division Bench and Supreme Court – Held: The current petition, the ninth in succession, amounts to abuse of process of law, is barred by constructive res judicata, and is dismissed with exemplary costs of ₹10,00,000/- [Paras 1-29].

Abuse of Process – Suppression of Material Facts – Petitioners’ Non-disclosure of Eight Prior Litigations – Exemplary Costs Imposed – The petitioners suppressed the history of eight previous unsuccessful litigations, thereby misleading the Court to invoke Article 226 jurisdiction – Held: Approach with unclean hands, suppression of material facts, and vexatious relitigation renders the petition liable for dismissal with exemplary costs to discourage unscrupulous litigants [Paras 23-25].

Constructive Res Judicata – Application of Henderson Principle – Bar on Fresh Plea after Prior Adjudications – Section 11 Explanation IV of CPC – The Court applied the doctrine of constructive res judicata and the Henderson principle to reject the petitioners' belated plea based on a 1993 notification that could and ought to have been raised in earlier proceedings – Held: Re-litigation on same cause of action with new grounds after multiple rounds of adjudication is impermissible [Paras 26-27].

Judicial Policy – Finality of Litigation – Public Policy Against Multiplicity of Proceedings – The Court emphasized that litigation must conclude and cannot be re-opened indefinitely by introducing new grounds – Held: The petitioners’ conduct undermines judicial finality, causes harassment, and wastes judicial resources, warranting dismissal with costs to uphold sanctity of judicial process [Paras 24, 27, 28].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed with Exemplary Costs – ₹10,00,000/- directed to be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within four weeks from receipt of the order to deter abuse of judicial process [Para 29].

Civil Law - Property Ownership – Co-ownership Rights – Mandatory Injunction for Rectification of Records – Dismissal of Appeal – The appellant challenged concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court which decreed mandatory injunction for rectification of municipal records to reinstate plaintiff’s name as co-owner – Supreme Court found the registered sale deed showed joint purchase of property and no proof was provided by appellant justifying exclusive ownership – Held: Both Courts rightly directed rectification of records in favour of co-owner; second appeal dismissed [Paras 3-11].

Registered Sale Deed – Evidentiary Value – Conclusive Proof of Joint Ownership – The registered sale deed dated 01.05.1996 (Ex.P-2) conclusively proved joint ownership of the suit property by plaintiff and appellant – Held: Official municipal records and RTI information corroborated the joint ownership status, and appellant could not rebut documentary evidence of co-ownership [Para 10].

Res Judicata – Prior Litigation on Distinct Property – No Bar to Current Claim – The Court rejected the plea of res judicata based on a 2004 judgment regarding a different property (common Haveli and flour mill), holding that the suit property was separately purchased by the plaintiff and appellant – Held: Mere pendency of other proceedings regarding different properties does not extinguish rights derived from a valid registered sale deed [Para 10].

Municipal Record Mutation – Mutation Entries Do Not Create Ownership – Mutation Change Invalidated – The Court held that mutation entries changed during a 2002 survey without supporting documentation or legal basis could not override title under a registered sale deed – Held: Mutation entry in favour of appellant without plaintiff’s knowledge is illegal; plaintiff’s name directed to be restored [Para 10].

No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings Upheld – The High Court found no substantial question of law arose in the matter since the findings were based on clear documentary evidence of ownership – Held: Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Para 11].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – High Court affirmed judgments of both lower Courts – Mandatory injunction in favour of co-owner plaintiff upheld, rectification of municipal record ordered, and no merit found in appeal [Paras 10-11].