Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Application filed by Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 seeking rejection of plaint for cancellation of registered Sale Deed – Trial Court rejected application – Plaintiffs had prima facie raised triable issues based on registered transactional documents and alleged collusion between Defendants – Held: Cause of action disclosed – Issues require adjudication through trial – Application for rejection of plaint rightly dismissed by Trial Court [Paras 5-7, 18-19, 22].

Injunction Order – Impact on Subsequent Transactions – Injunction issued in RCS No.669 of 2015 restraining Defendant No.1 from dealing with Suit property – Defendant Nos. 3 to 5's transactional documents executed despite subsisting injunction order – Plaintiffs argued this affected the legality of Defendants' Sale Deed – Court found this a significant triable issue requiring adjudication [Paras 11-13, 18].

Registered Sale Deeds – Discrepancies in Consideration – Discrepancy noted in payments recorded in Sale Deed of Defendant Nos.3 to 5 – Total payment recorded as Rs.2,15,00,000/-; however, documents showed payments amounting to Rs.1,32,85,000/- – Whether full consideration paid and title transferred to be determined through trial – Plaintiffs' cause of action based on earlier Agreement for Sale and Sale Deed upheld [Paras 14-17, 19-20].

Cause of Action – Plaint Prima Facie Discloses Right to Sue – Court observed that Plaintiffs' claim based on registered Agreement for Sale dated 24.07.2014 and Sale Deed dated 28.06.2018 disclosed a substantive cause of action – Not a case of clever drafting – Issues raised by Plaintiffs required trial for resolution [Paras 21-22].

Decision – CRA Dismissed – Order dated 17.10.2019 passed by Trial Court upheld – Suit to proceed to trial – Trial Court directed to expedite hearing – Observations made by High Court to have no bearing on the merits of the trial [Paras 23-27].

Property Law – Permanent Injunction – Suit for Injunction – Plaintiffs sought permanent injunction against the Government and its agents from interfering with their possession of properties – Defendants claimed the properties were Government-assigned lands resumed for redistribution – Plaintiffs proved possession through registered sale deeds and historical ownership – No evidence provided by defendants to establish assignment conditions or resumption process – Held: Plaintiffs entitled to permanent injunction as their possession was not legally challenged or displaced by defendants [Paras 6–21].

Government-Assisted Lands – Resumption and Eviction Procedure – Defendants argued that properties were assigned lands subject to non-alienation conditions – Rule 3 notice under A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 not issued to plaintiffs or their predecessors – No assignment orders or documents filed to prove claims of resumption – Defendants failed to follow mandatory procedure for eviction or resumption of possession – Held: Resumption invalid due to non-compliance with statutory requirements [Paras 20–21].

Burden of Proof – Assignment Conditions – Defendants claimed plaintiffs’ lands were assigned lands subject to restrictions on alienation – No proof of such conditions or evidence of assignments produced – Witness (D.W.1) admitted lack of knowledge about assignment register and assignment orders – Burden of proof not discharged by defendants – Held: Plaintiffs’ possession legally supported by evidence, while defendants’ claims were unsubstantiated [Paras 18–21].

Possession and Enjoyment – Evidence of Ownership – Plaintiffs provided registered sale deeds and supporting link documents to prove uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of properties – Advocate Commissioner’s report corroborated possession of properties by plaintiffs – No credible evidence from defendants to refute plaintiffs’ possession – Held: Plaintiffs entitled to protection of possession through injunction [Paras 17–20].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees of trial court and first appellate court affirmed – No costs awarded [Paras 21-22].

Civil Law – Injunction – Dispute Over Vahivat Road – Plaintiffs seeking injunction to prevent Defendants from using or obtaining NA permission for vahivat road allegedly curated for Plaintiffs' exclusive use – Trial Court granted injunction in favor of Plaintiffs – Appellate Court reversed Trial Court order – Held: Plaintiffs' claim based on prescription not substantiated with prima facie evidence – Vahivat road recorded as public road in Gram Panchayat records and maintained with public funds – Balance of convenience and irreparable harm favor Defendants as road provides sole access to Gat Nos. 720/1 and 720/2 – Trial Court order overturned [Paras 10-11, 18-23].

Ownership Claim – Prescription and Long Use – Plaintiffs claimed exclusive right over vahivat road citing long use and conversion into private road – No evidence of perfected legal title or ownership presented – Held: Plaintiffs' claim to ownership of road not substantiated – Gram Panchayat records indicate road as public – No prima facie case for exclusive use established [Paras 15-20, 23].

Public vs. Private Road – Evidence of Public Use – Defendants demonstrated vahivat road as public road based on Gram Panchayat records, Tahasildar’s report, and history of maintenance using public funds – Plaintiffs’ assertion of private ownership conflicted with public records – Held: Status of road as public road likely, subject to trial [Paras 18-22].

Balance of Convenience – Road Access to Defendants – Vahivat road is sole access for Defendants' properties – Restriction on Defendants' use of road would render properties landlocked – No alternate access established – Appellate Court rightly balanced equities in Defendants' favor while preserving Plaintiffs’ usage rights until trial [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Appellate Court orders in MCA Nos. 48 and 50 of 2024 upheld – Status quo maintained for eight weeks to allow Plaintiffs to approach Superior Court – Observations made in judgment to have no bearing on final trial outcome [Paras 25-27].

Civil Law - Land Ownership and Possession – Permanent Injunction – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Plaintiffs purchased the suit lands under registered sale deeds and sought a permanent injunction against interference by the Government – Defendants claimed the lands were assigned to others under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act and resumed by the Government – Held: Plaintiffs established continuous possession through documentary evidence; Government failed to prove that lands were assigned or resumed as claimed – Permanent injunction upheld [Paras 17-22].

Assigned Lands – Rule 3 Notice – Mandatory Requirement – Defendants failed to serve Rule 3 notice under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act before claiming possession – Tahsildar admitted that no notice was served, and assignment records were unavailable – Held: Without mandatory Rule 3 notice, defendants’ claim over the lands is unsustainable [Paras 20-21].

Government Land Claims – Lack of Evidence – Defendants relied on Ex.B1 (RSR) and Ex.B3 (Subdivision Record) to prove assignment – Records were incomplete, with corrections and overwriting – Held: Defendants failed to substantiate claims of assignment or resumption with credible evidence; Ex.B3 lacked probative value [Paras 19-20].

Suit for Injunction – Title Not Essential – Plaintiffs sought only permanent injunction without claiming declaration of title – Held: Relief of permanent injunction can be granted if possession is established, even without declaration of title, provided the plaintiff’s case is unchallenged [Paras 21-22].

Appellate Review – Limited Scope in Second Appeal – High Court reiterated the limited scope of interference under Section 100 CPC – Held: Concurrent findings of lower courts supported by evidence cannot be disturbed in the absence of perversity or misapplication of law [Paras 16, 21-22].

Decision – Second appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees of trial and appellate courts affirmed – No costs imposed [Para 22].

Partition Suit – Exclusive Ownership Claims – Contribution to Construction – Equal Shares Upheld – The appellants claimed exclusive ownership of the first and second floors of the suit property, alleging sole funding for their construction – Held: No documentary evidence substantiating exclusive ownership produced – Contributions by a co-sharer do not confer exclusive title unless proven by consent or separate agreement – Preliminary decree declaring equal shares affirmed [Paras 15-19].

Joint Property – Sanctioned Plan as Evidence – Co-sharers Entitled Jointly – Both parties consented to the G+2 sanctioned plan; additional constructions deemed part of the joint property – Adjustments for contributions can be made during the final decree stage [Paras 16-18].

Final Decree Stage – Contributions and Possession Claims – Adjustments Allowed – Parties permitted to establish claims for contributions and possession for owelty money allocation during final decree proceedings [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed; judgment and preliminary decree of the trial court affirmed – Trial court directed to expedite disposal of the case at the final decree stage with cooperation from all parties [Paras 20-23].
 

Criminal Law – Cyber Harassment – Conviction – Petitioner, a former MLA, challenged his conviction under Sections 504, 509 IPC, and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, for forwarding a derogatory social media message against women journalists – Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner based on evidence, including screenshots of the forwarded message (Ex.P-3) and testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3 – Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the forwarded message harmed the reputation of the complainant (P.W.2) – Held: Apology by the petitioner insufficient to negate the criminal intent or consequences of the act [Paras 3, 15-19, 23-24].

Evidence Law – Admissibility of Electronic Evidence – Section 65-B Certificate – Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to produce a Section 65-B certificate for the screenshot of the forwarded message – Court held that Ex.P-3, coupled with testimonies of prosecution witnesses, sufficiently proved the case – Certificate under Section 65-B not mandatory in the circumstances, as the petitioner admitted forwarding the message and tendering an apology – No legal infirmity or perversity in appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court [Paras 5, 9, 15-17, 21].

Revision Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – Court emphasized the limited scope of revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. – Held: Revisional Court need not re-appreciate evidence unless there is a legal bar or perversity in appreciation of evidence – No grounds to interfere with the Trial Court's findings and conviction [Paras 13, 23].

Decision – Criminal Revision Case dismissed – Conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court confirmed – Trial Court directed to secure custody of the petitioner to serve the remaining sentence – Execution of sentence stayed for 90 days to allow for filing of Special Leave Petition [Paras 24].
 

Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheque – Conviction Compounded – Petitioner convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of a cheque amounting to ₹2,48,000/- – Trial Court sentenced him to six months simple imprisonment and compensation of ₹2,48,000/-, affirmed by the Sessions Judge on appeal – High Court allowed compounding of the offence based on a compromise deed entered between the petitioner and the complainant – Held: Offence compounded as per Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663 – Petitioner acquitted, and conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 10-14].

Compounding Fee – Reduction in Special Circumstances – Graded scheme for compounding fee under Damodar S. Prabhu provides for 15% of the cheque amount to be imposed when compounding is sought at the appellate or revisional stage – However, High Court reduced the fee to ₹5,000/- considering the petitioner’s financial condition and other facts – Held: Reduction in compounding fee allowed under discretionary powers of the Court [Paras 16-17].

Judgment of Acquittal – Release from Custody – Petitioner undergoing sentence in Model Central Jail, Kanda – High Court directed immediate release of the petitioner upon quashing of conviction and sentence, subject to the absence of any other pending case – Held: Petitioner to be released forthwith [Para 18].

Decision: Petition allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act set aside – Offence compounded, and petitioner acquitted – Token compounding fee of ₹5,000/- to be deposited with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority within four weeks – Release of petitioner ordered [Paras 14, 17-18].
 

Accident Claim - Motor Vehicle Act – Limitation Period – Applicability of Section 166(3) – Delay Condoned – The petitioner insurance company challenged the Tribunal's order condoning a delay of 9 days in filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. It was argued that Section 166(3), as amended in 2019, imposed a strict limitation period of six months for filing claims, and the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, were inapplicable. The Court rejected this argument, holding that the Limitation Act applied to relax the statutory limitation period in the absence of explicit exclusion under Section 166(3). – Held: Delay condonation was valid, and the petition was dismissed [Paras 7, 35-37].

Police and Insurance Company’s Duty – Procedural Obligations under Sections 149 and 159 – Compliance Mandated – The Court emphasized the statutory obligations of police officers and insurance companies to promptly file accident information reports (AIR), interim accident reports (IAR), and detailed accident reports (DAR) under Sections 149 and 159 of the Motor Vehicle Act. These reports are intended to facilitate swift adjudication of claims and reduce procedural delays, underscoring the benevolent nature of the legislation. – Held: Procedural compliance by police and insurers is mandatory [Paras 14, 15, 30-33].

Relief under Section 166(4) – Claims Tribunals’ Role – Automatic Treatment of Reports as Claim Applications – The Court clarified that under Section 166(4), any report forwarded under Section 159 must be treated as a claim application, thereby safeguarding victims’ rights irrespective of the limitation under Section 166(3). – Held: Claims Tribunal must process reports as applications for compensation [Paras 19, 34].

Children and Legal Disability – Sections 6 and 7 of the Limitation Act – Extended Timelines – In cases involving minor claimants, as in the present matter, the Court held that Sections 6 and 7 of the Limitation Act extended the timeline for filing claims until the disability ceased, further reinforcing the victim-centric approach of the Motor Vehicle Act. – Held: Minors’ legal disability allowed extension of time for filing claims [Para 38].

Legislative Intent – Harmonization of Amended Provisions – Liberal Interpretation Favoured – Observing that the Motor Vehicle Act is a benevolent statute, the Court harmonized the amended provisions, highlighting the legislature's intent to ensure expeditious compensation while balancing procedural fairness. Strict interpretation of limitation periods would undermine this objective. – Held: Liberal interpretation of the Act upheld the right to compensation [Paras 33, 34].

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Burden of Proof – Section 114(i) of Evidence Act – Plaintiff’s Suit Dismissed – The plaintiff sought specific performance of an unregistered sale agreement, asserting that the entire consideration was paid, and possession handed over. Defendants claimed refund of consideration and cancellation of the agreement – Held: The First Appellate Court rightly relied on Section 114(i) of the Indian Evidence Act to presume that possession of the original documents by the defendants indicated a refund – Plaintiff failed to rebut this presumption [Paras 14-16].

Conduct of Parties – Principle of Equity – Specific Relief Act – The conduct of the plaintiff, including delay in filing the suit and failure to explain possession of original documents by defendants, negates his claim – Equity under Specific Relief Act bars relief when the plaintiff’s conduct raises doubts [Paras 15, 18].

Bar under Section 53-A, Transfer of Property Act – Effect of Unregistered Sale Agreement – Post-amendment, Section 53-A bars relief of injunction based on unregistered agreements if possession is claimed under such documents – Plaintiff failed to prove possession and is not entitled to an injunction under Specific Relief Act [Paras 17].

Non-Compliance with Order XLI Rule 31, CPC – Allegation Dismissed – First Appellate Court complied with Order XLI Rule 31 by framing points for consideration and providing reasons for reversing the Trial Court’s judgment – Judgment upheld [Paras 18].

Limitation Act – Article 54 – Suit Timely Filed – While the suit was filed within three years from the refusal of execution of the sale deed, other factors, including plaintiff’s failure to prove readiness and willingness, precluded relief [Paras 10.1, 15].

Decision: The Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment of the First Appellate Court is upheld, and the plaintiff’s suit for specific performance and injunction is dismissed. No costs are imposed.

Appeal Dismissed. CMP Closed.