Dowry Harassment and Cruelty – Section 498A IPC – Insufficient Evidence – Appellant alleged harassment and demands for ₹1,50,000/- on two occasions for job recruitment and transfer – Trial Court found no corroboration for the incidents, with gaps in medical and material evidence – Held: Mere allegations without supporting evidence cannot sustain conviction under Section 498A IPC – Acquittal upheld [Paras 10–15].

Delay in Filing FIR – Impact on Credibility – Incidents allegedly occurred in 2012, but the FIR was filed in May 2014 after failed counseling efforts – Delay and inconsistencies in testimony undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s case – Held: Courts rightly dismissed allegations due to procedural delays and lack of corroborative proof [Paras 16–20].

Marital Cruelty – Evaluation of Witness Testimony – Prosecution relied on testimonies of the appellant, her mother, and sister – Courts found evidence from interested witnesses inconsistent and lacking material proof – Held: Findings of the trial and Sessions Courts do not warrant interference [Paras 22–24].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Trial Court's judgment dated 18/01/2019 and Sessions Court's judgment dated 15/09/2022 upheld – Interim Application disposed of as a result of appeal dismissal [Para 25].

Scope of Section 100 CPC – Interference in Second Appeal – Court reiterated that its jurisdiction in second appeal is limited to substantial questions of law and not errors in factual findings or re-appreciation of evidence – Decision: Appeal dismissed as the issues raised were factual and lacked a substantial question of law [Paras 16-19].

Interest on Claims – Determination of Interest from Suit Filing Date – Plaintiff sought interest on withheld amounts and damages from an earlier date – Court held that interest was rightly awarded from the date of suit as no prior claim for interest was made before filing – Decision: Judgment of the appellate court upheld as consistent with settled principles [Paras 28-30].

Reassessment of Damages – Consistency with Documentary Evidence – Plaintiff challenged the exclusion of watchman charges and withheld amounts – Appellate court justified in excluding claims due to lack of proof and endorsement relinquishing claims – Decision: Findings of the appellate court were held valid and affirmed [Paras 24-26].

Substantial Questions of Law – Requirement for Review – Court emphasized that second appeals must involve debatable legal issues or contraventions of settled legal principles – Decision: Appeal dismissed as no such substantial legal issues were presented [Paras 32-34].

Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed. The judgment of the III Additional District Judge, Guntur, in A.S. No. 6 of 1997 was affirmed, and the trial court’s decree was upheld to the extent of Rs. 21,000 with appropriate interest. Pending miscellaneous applications were also closed.

Definition of Built-Up Area – Open-to-Sky Ramp – Inclusion in Built-Up Area Excluded – The appeal considered whether a ramp providing access to terrace parking falls within the definition of "built-up area" under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019 – Held: Open-to-sky ramps or driveways for vehicular access are not included in the built-up area, provided they comply with other regulations – Clarified that the term "ramp" in Rule 2(aa)(iii) applies to pedestrian ramps and does not cover vehicular ramps – Literal and purposive interpretations support exclusion of open driveways from built-up area calculations [Paras 10–19].

Parking Regulations – Terrace Parking Access – Interpretation of Rules – The Rules allow open-air parking on terraces as a policy to address space constraints in urban areas – The open driveway providing access to terrace parking must be treated as part of the parking space and not the built-up area – Including the driveway as part of the built-up area would defeat the purpose of incentivizing terrace parking [Paras 14–18].

Policy Implications – Urban Development – Terrace Parking Encouraged – The affidavit of the Chief Town Planner emphasized that open terrace parking is promoted to mitigate parking shortages caused by urbanization – Interpretation aligned with policy goals to encourage efficient use of space, ensuring compliance with safety and structural stability requirements [Paras 15–19].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment of the Single Judge affirmed with modified reasoning – Open ramps providing vehicular access to terrace parking do not constitute built-up area under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019, when open to the sky and supported by pillars [Para 17].
 

Compensation – Railway Accident – Enhanced Compensation – Appellant, a survivor of the Kadalundi train accident of 2001, sustained grievous injuries resulting in prolonged treatment and permanent disability – Initial compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- awarded by the Railway Claims Tribunal in 2005 – Appellant underwent multiple surgeries and produced extensive medical evidence, including 85 medical bills, claiming Rs.4,00,000/- under Rule 3(2) of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 – Tribunal denied enhancement in judgments dated 2010 and 2017, citing technicalities and failing to consider the appellant’s disabilities adequately – Division Bench of the High Court twice remanded the matter, directing consideration of all medical records and evaluation of incapacity to work – Tribunal ignored High Court directions, relying instead on an alleged statement that the appellant continued teaching [Paras 2–7].

Disability Assessment – Rule 3(2) of the Rules – Tribunal failed to consider appellant’s medical evidence and proof affidavit detailing his inability to walk more than 100 meters, carry weights, and perform pre-accident tasks – Permanent disability of 30% certified by doctors – Tribunal's finding, based on alleged employment continuation, that Rule 3(2) did not apply, deemed erroneous – High Court clarified that Rule 3(2) does not require the appellant to be in a vegetative state or terminated from service – Held: Evidence supports that the appellant was incapacitated and eligible for Rs.4,00,000/- compensation as per Rule 3(2) [Paras 6–7].

Compensation Enhancement – Applicability of Updated Rules – After amendment to Rule 3(2) in 2016, compensation increased to Rs.8,00,000/- – High Court applied the Apex Court decision in Union of India v. Rina Devi (2018) to calculate compensation with 6% annual interest from 2001 – Held: Appellant entitled to Rs.9,62,000/-, being the higher of calculated amount and updated compensation rate [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal set aside – Respondent directed to pay Rs.9,62,000/- to appellant within 30 days, failing which interest at 9% per annum to apply from 28.12.2024 until payment [Para 10].
 

Public Land – Unauthorized Construction – Jurisdiction of Authorities – The petitioner alleged unauthorized construction on government land under Dag Nos. 1320 and 1321 belonging to the Irrigation Department – Private respondents admitted partial encroachment and sought long-term lease – Held: Encroachment on Jola and Doba land, classified as irrigation land, requires specific permission – Sub-Divisional Officer directed to take necessary steps for eviction and demolition of illegal construction under the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962, within eight weeks [Paras 11-15].

Locus Standi – Right to Challenge Encroachment on Public Land – Petitioner, as an affected neighbor, has locus standi to lodge complaints about encroachment on public land – Responsible individuals can approach authorities for violations of public land laws – Authorities are duty-bound to act in accordance with law [Paras 12-13].

Parallel Proceedings – Impact on Writ Jurisdiction – Private respondents contended that parallel proceedings in civil court barred the writ petition – Court clarified that writ jurisdiction is maintainable for illegal encroachment on public land even if civil proceedings address related disputes – Relief granted without impinging on pending title suit [Paras 9-10, 15].

Demolition of Encroachment – Directions to Authorities – Sub-Divisional Officer directed to proceed with eviction and demolition under statutory provisions, ensuring proper hearing to all parties – Order made keeping pending civil proceedings in view to avoid conflict of decisions [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of with directions for eviction and demolition – Sub-Divisional Officer to comply within eight weeks – No order as to costs [Paras 15-17].

Maintainability of Public Interest Petition – Parallel Civil Litigation – Petitioners filed a PIL alleging encroachment of a historic public road while disputes over the same subject were pending in civil courts – Decision: PIL dismissed as the matter pertains to private rights and cannot be entertained under public interest jurisdiction [Paras 15-17].

Public Interest Jurisdiction – Misuse for Private Disputes – Court emphasized that PIL jurisdiction is reserved for genuine public causes – Found that the petitioners, being defendants in civil suits over the disputed road, sought to circumvent the civil court proceedings – Decision: Petition dismissed for lack of bona fides and misuse of PIL mechanism [Paras 18-20].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Exclusive Domain over Private Disputes – Court reiterated that PIL cannot be used to challenge or interfere with civil court orders in private disputes – Decision: Relief sought to set aside interim civil court orders was declined, upholding separation of judicial domains [Paras 22-23].

Road Development Allegations – Lack of Evidence – Petitioners alleged non-development of a 100-year-old mud road and encroachment by a private respondent – Court found no substantive proof of public utility status or wrongful encroachment – Decision: Petitioners failed to substantiate claims, leading to dismissal [Paras 25-27].

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, citing the pending civil suits and the lack of bona fide public interest. The Court declined all reliefs, including setting aside civil court orders or issuing directions for road development.

Domestic Violence – Maintenance to Divorced Wife – Applicability of PWDV Act – Applicant challenged the enhancement of maintenance awarded to his divorced wife under the PWDV Act – Contended that divorce dissolves the domestic relationship, negating claims under the Act – Held: As per Supreme Court rulings in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi and V. D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot, a divorced wife is entitled to reliefs under the PWDV Act for acts of domestic violence committed during the domestic relationship – Appeal dismissed, and maintenance upheld [Paras 8-13].

Definition of Domestic Relationship – Divorce Irrelevant to Past Violence – The PWDV Act protects divorced women for acts of violence occurring during the marriage – Court emphasized that the absence of a subsisting domestic relationship at the time of filing the application does not bar claims under Section 12 of the PWDV Act – Relief granted if the violence is linked to the period of domestic relationship [Paras 11-13].

Maintenance Enhancement – Validity of Order – Trial court awarded maintenance of ₹1,500/month, later enhanced to ₹3,000/month by appellate court – High Court upheld the enhancement, finding no perversity in the orders and affirming the divorced wife's entitlement to monetary relief under the PWDV Act [Paras 2, 14].

Legal Principles – Wider Scope of PWDV Act – Observations in Prabha Tyagi clarified that the Act provides comprehensive protection to women, including divorced wives, for violence occurring during the marriage – Supreme Court jurisprudence supports maintenance for acts of domestic violence irrespective of marital status at the time of filing [Paras 8-13].

Decision: Revision application dismissed – Maintenance of ₹3,000/month upheld – No interference warranted in the appellate court’s judgment [Paras 13-14].

Second Appeal – Substantial Questions of Law – Interpretation of Ownership Rights and Possession – Appellant challenged the decree of mandatory injunction for recovery of possession without a declaration of title – Held: Under Section 100 of CPC, a second appeal lies only if substantial questions of law are involved – No substantial question arises in this case since the findings were based on evidence and principles of Mohammedan Law – Appeal dismissed [Paras 13-16, 28-29].

Mohammedan Law – Oral Gift – Validity of Gift Without Writing – Under Mohammedan Law, oral gift is valid without a written instrument if three essentials are met: declaration of gift, acceptance by donee, and delivery of possession – Evidence including notices and testimony proved these essentials in this case – Gift upheld as valid despite absence of written documentation [Paras 21-27].

Possession Under Oral Gift – Constructive Delivery Sufficient – 1st Plaintiff established constructive possession of the gifted property, supported by notices and acknowledgment by the defendant – Defendant’s plea of joint family property dismissed, as the concept is inapplicable under Mohammedan Law – Possession and ownership rights upheld [Paras 24-27].

Injunction Without Declaration of Title – Exception Applied – Suit for mandatory injunction without declaration of title is maintainable when no genuine dispute regarding title arises – Courts below correctly granted injunction for recovery of possession based on valid oral gift [Paras 25-26].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of trial and appellate courts affirmed – No costs [Paras 28-29].

Challenge to the selection process - Fair Price Shop - Re-enquiry of Godown Suitability – Lack of Authority under Clause 20(iv) of WBPDS – District Level Fair Price Shop Selection Committee (DLFPSSC) directed re-enquiry into the private respondent’s godown suitability after awarding marks in the original enquiry – Held: DLFPSSC had no authority under Clause 20(iv) of WBPDS Order, 2013, or the notification dated 17th August 2021, to order re-enquiry post-assessment – Re-enquiry process held illegal and void [Paras 30-33] – Decision: The FPS license granted to the private respondent was quashed.

Bias in Selection Process – Article 14 Violation – Petitioner alleged bias in selection favoring the private respondent despite unsuitable godown conditions – Court observed the re-enquiry lacked justification and was conducted in disregard of the petitioner’s better suitability – Held: State action violated Article 14 principles of fairness, transparency, and non-arbitrariness [Paras 25-27] – Decision: Selection process invalidated, and petitioner recognized as eligible for FPS license if meeting statutory conditions.

Judicial Review in Administrative Actions – Limited Scope – Reaffirmed that High Courts cannot substitute administrative decisions but can intervene when the decision-making process is arbitrary, biased, or contrary to statutory provisions – Decision: Intervention justified due to procedural violations and mala fide selection process [Paras 40-42].

Relief Granted to Petitioner – Issuance of FPS License – Court directed respondent authorities to issue the FPS license to the petitioner within six weeks if found eligible as per law – Held: The private respondent’s license was quashed, and further directions issued to rectify procedural lapses [Para 45].