Writ Jurisdiction – Disputed Questions of Fact – Fixed Deposits – Claim for maturity proceeds of deposits allegedly made in 1995–1996 in erstwhile Nedungadi Bank and Bank of Baroda – Banks contended that no such deposits were reflected in takeover records and accounts – Petitioners relied on original/photostat fixed deposit receipts retrieved from locker – Held, dispute requires adducing of evidence and detailed examination of records – Such issues cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings under Article 226 – Proper remedy is civil suit – Impugned judgment directing disbursement set aside [Paras 11, 12].

Bank Amalgamation – Liability of Transferee Bank – Punjab National Bank took over Nedungadi Bank in 2003 – Stand of Bank that alleged deposits, said to have matured in 1997, were not part of asset-liability schedule at time of takeover – Whether deposits existed and were carried forward is a matter requiring evidence – Cannot be conclusively determined in writ proceedings [Paras 2.1, 3.3, 12].

Delay and Limitation – Claim Raised After More Than Two Decades – Petitioners approached Banks in 2018–2019 for deposits allegedly matured in 1997 – Banks raised plea of delay and limitation – Learned Single Judge rejected plea considering retrieval of receipts from locker in 2018 – Division Bench held that limitation and related factual aspects are matters to be adjudicated by civil court – Petitioners contended applicability of Section 10 of Limitation Act on fiduciary relationship – No opinion expressed – Issue left open [Paras 13, 14].

Scope of Article 226 – Enforcement Not Establishment of Rights – Where foundational facts are seriously disputed and rival claims depend on documentary and oral evidence, writ court ought not to undertake fact-finding exercise – Reliance placed on settled principles that merits of rival claims to property and money are to be decided in properly constituted civil suit – Discretion under Article 226 not to be exercised in such circumstances [Para 11].

Interim Deposit and Withdrawal – Amount deposited by Bank pursuant to interim order and withdrawn by petitioners under protest – Held, such withdrawal subject to final decision of civil court – Rights of parties preserved [Paras 6, 7, 14].

Decision: Writ Appeals allowed – Common judgment dated 20.12.2024 in W.P.(C) Nos.1304 of 2019 and 19940 of 2019 set aside – Parties relegated to competent Civil Court – Liberty granted to petitioners to institute suit within 15 days – Amount withdrawn pursuant to interim orders subject to outcome of civil proceedings.

Revenue Law – Mutation Entry – Fraudulent succession entry – Challenge to Entry No.760 mutated in revenue record in 1984 in favour of persons who were not direct lineal descendants of the original owner – Petitioner's father, owner of the land, had died abroad leaving legal heirs including petitioner – Taking advantage of absence of heirs in India, private respondents allegedly obtained mutation by suppressing material facts, showing incorrect place of death and using forged power of attorney – Held: Mutation entry obtained by fraud is void and liable to be quashed – Collector rightly cancelled the entry – Order of SSRD remanding matter set aside [Paras 14–16, 22].

Fraud – Effect on judicial or administrative orders – Court relied on Supreme Court decision in A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P. – Held: Any judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on court or authority is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law and can be challenged at any stage – Fraud vitiates all solemn acts [Paras 15–16].

Revenue Proceedings – Delay in challenging mutation entry – Entry challenged after nearly 29 years – Authorities rejected challenge solely on ground of delay – Held: Delay cannot defeat justice where entry was obtained by fraud and petitioner had no knowledge due to residence abroad – Cause of action arises from date of knowledge – Revenue authorities ought to examine merits instead of rejecting claim on technical ground of delay [Para 17].

Bombay Land Revenue Code – Section 135D – Requirement of notice before certification of mutation entry – Court held that mandatory procedure under Section 135D requiring notice to interested parties before certifying mutation entry was not followed – Failure to issue notice vitiates certification of mutation entry – Mutation entry certified without following statutory procedure is illegal [Paras 19–20].

Property Law – Rights of legal heirs – Self-acquired property – Land in question was self-acquired property of petitioner’s father – Only direct lineal descendants were entitled to succeed – Mutation in favour of relatives not forming part of direct lineal descent was illegal and contrary to revenue law principles [Paras 21–22].

Revenue Jurisdiction – Remand by SSRD – Improper remand – Where Collector had already examined entire material and passed a reasoned order cancelling fraudulent mutation entry, remanding the matter for fresh consideration was unnecessary and unjustified [Para 17].

Decision: Petitions allowed – Orders of Special Secretary, Revenue Department dated 19.07.2016 set aside – Order of Collector dated 28.01.2015 restored – Mutation Entry No.760 quashed – Revenue authorities directed to mutate petitioner’s name in accordance with law after following due procedure.

Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce – Adultery, Cruelty and Desertion – Appeal against dismissal of divorce petition – Allegation that wife developed illicit relationship and fled with alleged paramour – No specific pleading or cogent evidence of voluntary sexual intercourse – Witnesses gave generalized statements based on suspicion – No proof of continuous desertion for statutory period – Held: Findings of Family Court well-reasoned and not perverse – Appeal dismissed [Paras 32-50, 63-67, 79-81, 82-85].

Adultery – Standard of Proof – Section 13(1)(i), Hindu Marriage Act – Though matrimonial proceedings governed by preponderance of probabilities, charge of adultery being grave requires high degree of probability – Bald and generalized allegations without specific instances or corroborative evidence insufficient – No proof of adulterous act or continuing adulterous relationship at time of petition – Allegations based on suspicion and surmises – Divorce rightly refused [Paras 35-42, 44-47].

Cruelty – Mental Cruelty – Section 13(1)(i-a), Hindu Marriage Act – Allegation that wife stopped physical relations and frequently left matrimonial home – No specific act of misconduct proved – Ordinary marital discord and quarrels do not amount to cruelty – No evidence that conduct was so grave and weighty as to render cohabitation unsafe or impossible – Finding of no cruelty upheld [Paras 51-62, 64-67].

Desertion – Essential Ingredients – Factum of Separation and Animus Deserendi – Section 13(1)(i-b), Hindu Marriage Act – Petition filed within two months of alleged departure of wife – Statutory requirement of continuous desertion for not less than two years immediately preceding presentation of petition not satisfied – Desertion ground not maintainable [Paras 68-76, 79-81].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 19, Family Courts Act – High Court can reappreciate evidence both on facts and law – Interference warranted only if findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to law – No perversity found in appreciation of evidence by Family Court – Judgment affirmed [Paras 23-31, 49-50, 83-84].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and Decree dated 15.10.2022 and 03.11.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda in Original Suit No. 75 of 2021 affirmed – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Transfer of Property Act – Section 58(c) – Mortgage by Conditional Sale – Distinction from Sale with Condition to Repurchase – Deed dated 24.09.1979 executed for Rs.13,000/- with stipulation to reconvey on repayment within 7 years – Restriction on enjoyment of property and indication of borrowing for household and agricultural expenses – Relationship of debtor and creditor established – Held: Transaction was mortgage by conditional sale and not outright sale or independent right to repurchase – Intention to be gathered from document as a whole applying literal rule of interpretation – Decree for reconveyance and possession upheld [Paras 9-15, 18].

Interpretation of Document – Literal Rule – Court must read document as a whole and assign natural meaning where language is clear and unambiguous – Surrounding circumstances secondary when terms are explicit – Supreme Court principles reiterated – True intention discerned from contents of Exh.26 – Document created security for debt and not absolute transfer of title [Paras 10-11].

Civil Procedure Code – Section 100 – Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Substantial Question of Law – Appellant contended that appellate court erred in not examining readiness and willingness and in granting specific performance – High Court held that findings regarding nature of transaction were based on proper appreciation of document and settled legal principles – No substantial question of law survived for consideration – Appeal dismissed [Paras 4, 18-20].

Mortgage vs. Sale – Essential Tests – Single document embodying condition – Consideration amount indicative of borrowing – Restrictions on enjoyment – Right of redemption subsists – Applying tests laid down in Bhoju Mandal and Patel Ravjibhai Bhulabhai – Held: Exh.26 satisfied ingredients of mortgage by conditional sale – Plaintiffs entitled to redeem and obtain reconveyance upon payment of Rs.13,000/- [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of first Appellate Court directing plaintiffs to deposit Rs.14,610/- (mortgage money) and directing defendant to execute reconveyance deed and hand over peaceful possession upheld – Interim relief vacated – Record and Proceedings directed to be sent back to trial Court.

Specific Performance – Agreement to Sell – Extension of Time – Concurrent Findings Upheld – Defendant admitted execution of Agreement dated 11.02.2009 and receipt of Rs.2,25,000/- as earnest money out of total consideration of Rs.3,80,000/- – Target date 25.03.2009 extended to 08.06.2009 and thereafter to 10.08.2009 through written endorsements – Defendant admitted signatures on endorsement dated 25.03.2009 – Allegation of police coercion found contradictory and unsubstantiated – Held extensions duly proved by documentary evidence and attesting witnesses – Concurrent findings not liable to interference [Paras 23-27, 33-35, 37].

Readiness and Willingness – Section 16 Specific Relief Act – Plaintiff paid substantial portion of consideration in cash – Affidavit dated 10.08.2009 (Ex.P2) sworn before Tehsildar proved plaintiff’s presence before Sub-Registrar with balance sale consideration – Defendant failed to prove his alleged presence on 25.03.2009 – Defendant admitted construction of his kothi was ongoing necessitating extension – Held plaintiff continuously ready and willing to perform contract [Paras 28-33, 37].

Conduct of Parties – Contradictory Stands by Defendant – Defendant denied and admitted signatures at different stages including on written statement and endorsements – Withdrawal of suit against police and no action after adverse report on Human Rights complaint – Conduct rendered defence unreliable – Held defendant attempting to wriggle out of agreement after receiving earnest money [Paras 31, 35].

Evidence – Objection under Sections 61 & 62 Evidence Act and Order 13 Rule 4 CPC – Objection not raised before Trial Court or First Appellate Court – Cannot be permitted to be raised for first time in Second Appeal – Distinction between legal plea and legal objection noted – Held objection untenable at this stage [Para 19].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact unless substantial question of law arises – Findings regarding execution, extensions, readiness and breach are pure findings of fact – No perversity or procedural illegality shown – Appeal dismissed [Paras 38-40].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court dated 08.08.2017 and First Appellate Court dated 17.02.2018 decreeing suit for specific performance affirmed – No interference warranted under Section 100 CPC.

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Scope of Sections 4 and 5 – Power of Tribunal – Eviction of Children – Senior citizen sought maintenance and eviction of sons from residential property – Tribunal directed sons to vacate premises and pay monthly maintenance – Held: Sections 4 and 5 empower Tribunal only to grant maintenance – No provision under Chapter II authorises eviction except in circumstances under Section 23 – Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction in directing eviction – Eviction direction set aside [Paras 22-24].

Maintenance – Statutory Ceiling – Section 9(2) – Maximum maintenance prescribed not to exceed Rs. 10,000 per month – Tribunal directed payment of Rs. 15,000 by one son – Though statutory ceiling noted, aggrieved party confined challenge to eviction direction – Court refrained from interfering with quantum at instance of son – Clarified statutory position regarding ceiling under Section 9(2) [Paras 19-20].

Eviction under Senior Citizens Act – Applicability of Section 23 – Conditions precedent – Court held Section 23 can be invoked only where property is transferred subject to condition of providing amenities and transferee fails to comply – No pleading or material to attract Section 23 – Hence eviction not sustainable under said provision [Paras 26-28].

Enforcement of Maintenance Order – Alternative Statutory Remedy – Section 11 – Mother sought implementation of Tribunal’s order by writ petition – Held: Act provides specific mechanism for enforcement of maintenance orders – Petitioner had not invoked Section 11 – Writ petition for implementation not maintainable in absence of exhaustion of statutory remedy – WPA No. 10504 of 2025 dismissed with liberty to approach Tribunal [Paras 25-28, 40].

Constitutional Law – Maintainability of Writ Petition by Children/Relatives – No statutory appeal provided to children under Section 16 – In view of Division Bench decision in Smt. Mamata Sarki – Writ petition maintainable at instance of aggrieved children against order of Tribunal [Paras 29-31].

Article 226 vs Article 227 – Orders of Maintenance Tribunal – Tribunal is quasi-judicial body and not civil court – Judicial review under Article 226 available against orders of Tribunal – Distinction between certiorari jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction explained with reference to T.C. Basappa, Umaji Keshao Meshram and Radhey Shyam – Held: Orders of Tribunal amenable to Article 226 jurisdiction – Aggrieved party may invoke Article 226 depending on nature of relief sought [Paras 33-39].

Judicial Review – Scope – Certiorari not appellate in nature – High Court can quash orders passed without jurisdiction or in excess thereof – Tribunal having no jurisdiction to order eviction under Sections 4 and 5, impugned direction liable to be set aside [Paras 35-39].

Decision:

WPA No. 10504 of 2025 (filed by mother) dismissed with liberty to approach Tribunal for enforcement under Section 11 of the Act – WPA No. 16316 of 2025 disposed of – Direction of Tribunal ordering eviction of son from property set aside – Maintenance direction left undisturbed.

Civil Law - Partition – Claim as Coparcener – Proof of Paternity – Plaintiff claimed to be son of late Hanuma Reddy through alleged second wife – Defendants denied marriage and paternity – No pleading as to date, month and place of alleged second marriage – Mother (PW2) gave inconsistent version regarding year of marriage – No independent evidence of marriage or cohabitation produced – Held: Plaintiff failed to discharge burden of proving valid marriage and paternity – Not entitled to share in suit properties [Paras 13-16, 22, 31-32].

Documentary Evidence – Voter List – Affidavits – SSC Certificate with Corrections – Evidentiary Value – Voter list held to be self-serving and only corroborative – Affidavits (Ex.A6, A7) found self-serving and not proved through attestors – SSC certificate (Ex.A9) contained material corrections in name, father’s name and date of birth without proper authentication – Birth letter (Ex.A10) not proved as public document under Section 76 Evidence Act – Held: Documents insufficient to establish paternity [Paras 16-21, 31].

Prior Partition – Admissions – Land Reforms Proceedings – Plaintiff admitted registered partition dated 19.02.1971 between deceased and defendants – In 1975 land reforms proceedings deceased declared he had only wife and two daughters and no son – Held: Strong circumstance against plaintiff’s claim of paternity [Paras 23-24, 31].

Non-joinder of Necessary Parties – Partition Suit – Plaintiff admitted alienations of suit properties under registered sale deeds (Ex.A11 to A15) prior to suit – Alienees not impleaded – No pleading regarding alienations – Held: Suit defective for non-joinder of necessary parties – Relief of partition cannot be granted in absence of alienees [Paras 26-28].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Delay of 21 Years – Appellant sought to produce Gazette, service register extracts, transfer certificate and duplicate SSC certificate at appellate stage – No satisfactory explanation for non-production during trial – Documents not essential for pronouncing judgment – Attempt to fill lacunae – Held: Conditions under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC not satisfied – I.A.No.1 of 2024 dismissed [Paras 36-43].

DNA Test – Appellate Stage – Request after 21 Years – Plaintiff sought direction to respondents for DNA test to prove paternity – No foundational pleadings regarding marriage – Trial concluded long back – DNA test not to be ordered as matter of course – Relied on Goutam Kundu principles – Held: No strong prima facie case – Application belated and unwarranted – I.A.No.2 of 2024 dismissed [Paras 46-50].

Finality of Litigation – Clean Hands – Plaintiff suppressed material facts regarding alienations and possession of third parties – Held: Plaintiff approached Court without clean hands – Not entitled to equitable relief [Paras 26-27].

Decision: I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 dismissed – Appeal Suit No.4145 of 2003 dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 06.08.2003 in O.S.No.55 of 1996 confirmed – Each party to bear own costs – Miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

Employees’ Compensation – Employer-Employee Relationship – Jurisdictional Fact – Insurer challenged award contending absence of employer-employee relationship – Commissioner relied on oral evidence of applicant, admission of employer in written statement and union identity card – No contra evidence adduced by opposite parties – Held, finding based on evidence on record and not perverse – Findings of fact under Section 30 cannot be interfered with unless perverse or unsupported by evidence – Substantial question of law answered against insurer [Paras 9, 11].

Scope of Appeal – Section 30 of Employees’ Compensation Act – Interference with Findings of Fact – High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence merely to substitute a different view – Interference warranted only if findings are perverse or without evidence – Rejection of insurer’s applications to summon documents not illegal – No jurisdictional error established [Paras 7, 9].

Compensation – Functional Disability – Permanent Total Disablement – Commissioner assessed 50% loss of earning capacity based on certificate issued by Medical College Doctor – Claimant contended that disablement rendered him incapable of performing work as lorry worker – Held, as per law laid down in Indra Bai v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2023) 8 SCC 217, relevant consideration is functional disability and not mere physical disability – If injury incapacitates workman from performing work he was doing at time of accident, it may amount to permanent total disablement irrespective of percentage of physical disability [Paras 10, 11].

Medical Evidence – Need for Assessment by Medical Board – Disability certificate issued by single doctor – In interest of justice, claimant to be examined by competent Medical Board of Government Hospital – Commissioner directed to reassess functional disability and determine compensation afresh based on medical board report [Para 11].

Decision: M.F.A.(ECC) No.22 of 2024 dismissed – Finding regarding employer-employee relationship upheld – M.F.A.(ECC) No.80 of 2024 disposed of by remitting matter to Employees’ Compensation Commissioner for assessment of functional disability through competent Medical Board and fresh determination of compensation – Parties directed to appear before Commissioner – Records to be transmitted expeditiously.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Conviction and Sentence – Accused convicted by Trial Court and conviction confirmed in appeal – During pendency of criminal revision, parties filed joint application under Section 147 of the N.I. Act read with Section 359 BNSS seeking permission to compound offence – Held, Section 147 makes offence under Section 138 compoundable at any stage – Once parties voluntarily settle dispute and complainant acknowledges receipt of settled amount, Court can permit compounding even after conviction [Paras 3–6].

Compounding After Conviction – Settlement for Lesser Amount – Cheque amount Rs.3,00,000/- – Parties settled for Rs.2,25,000/- as full and final settlement – Respondent/complainant present in Court and acknowledged receipt in cash – Settlement found voluntary and without coercion – Prayer to compound allowed [Paras 3, 5, 6].

Effect of Compounding – Setting Aside Conviction – Upon allowing application under Section 147 N.I. Act, judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court and confirmed by Appellate Court liable to be set aside – Accused entitled to acquittal of offence under Section 138 N.I. Act – Direction issued to prison authorities to release petitioner forthwith [Order].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Power to Give Effect to Settlement – In exercise of powers under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. read with relevant provisions of BNSS, High Court can set aside concurrent findings of conviction in view of lawful compounding of offence [Paras 1, 6].

Decision: Application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act allowed – Parties permitted to compound offence – Judgments of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court in C.C. No.439/2023 and confirmed in Crl.A. No.7/2025 set aside – Petitioner acquitted of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act – Prison authorities directed to release petitioner forthwith.