Civil Law – Property Law – Ancestral Property – Inheritance under Hindu Succession Act – Plaintiff claimed co-parcenary rights in the suit land, alleging it to be ancestral property inherited from her grandfather – Trial Court and First Appellate Court found the plaintiff failed to provide documentary evidence proving the ancestral nature of the property – Appellate Court held that the suit property was self-acquired by the father under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act after the death of the grandfather in 1989 – Held, no cogent evidence was provided by the plaintiff to establish that the property was ancestral – Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 6-9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The findings of the lower courts upheld, affirming that the property in question was not ancestral and therefore could not be claimed as co-parcenary property by the plaintiff.

Recall of Witness – Section 311 CrPC – Denial of Adjournment – The petitioner’s counsel sought to recall the prosecutrix for cross-examination after the right to cross-examine was closed on the same day as re-examination due to counsel’s personal reasons – Trial Court rejected the application, noting that adequate opportunity had been provided – High Court emphasized that Section 311 CrPC allows recall to prevent a failure of justice, especially when the testimony is crucial for a fair trial – The Court held that while unwarranted adjournments should be avoided, the denial of cross-examination after a single opportunity was insufficient, especially given the critical nature of the witness's testimony [Paras 10-21].

Fair Trial – Opportunity to Cross-Examine – The Court highlighted that ensuring the accused has a fair trial is paramount, and it is better to err on the side of caution – The Court found that a final opportunity should be granted for cross-examination, balancing the need to avoid undue harassment of the prosecutrix as mandated under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act [Paras 19-23].

Decision: Petition allowed – The Trial Court’s order was set aside, and one final opportunity was granted for the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, with a direction that no further adjournments be sought by the petitioner [Paras 22-24].

Civil Procedure—Jurisdiction—Maintainability of suit before Civil Court for cancellation of Will—Bar under Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950—Plaintiff’s suit for cancellation of Will challenged on grounds of fraud—Defendants argued bar under Section 331, contending the suit should be before Revenue Court—High Court held the suit for cancellation of Will is maintainable in Civil Court—Section 331 does not oust Civil Court’s jurisdiction in such cases where cancellation of a voidable document is sought—Second appeal dismissed. [Paras 30-34]

Specific Relief Act—Cancellation of Voidable Instruments—Applicability of Section 31—Court discussed the circumstances under which a Will, alleged to be executed under fraud, can be cancelled by Civil Court—Held, only Civil Court has jurisdiction to cancel such documents and send necessary intimation to Sub-Registrar under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. [Paras 13-31]

Decision:

Appeal dismissed. Civil Court’s jurisdiction upheld for the cancellation of the Will. The suit was found to be maintainable under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the bar under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, was held not to apply.

Property Law – Interpretation of Will – Declaration of Title – Plaintiff (appellant) claimed exclusive rights to the plaint B schedule property based on a will executed by Devarakonda Suramma. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the plaintiff appealed. The court held that the plaintiff, being the male progeny of the fourth defendant (another beneficiary under the will), could not claim rights to the B schedule property, which was intended for the male progeny of the first defendant’s husband, who died issueless. The court emphasized that in cases of declaratory suits, the plaintiff must establish a clear title independently of the defendant’s weaknesses [Paras 1-28].

Life Interest and Vested Remainder – The court found that the will granted life interests to the first defendant’s husband and the fourth defendant, with vested remainder to their respective male progeny. Since the first defendant’s husband died issueless, the plaintiff could not claim the property meant for the first defendant’s male descendants. The court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled only to the property associated with the fourth defendant’s life interest, and not the B schedule property claimed in the suit [Paras 21-26].

Burden of Proof in Declaratory Suits – The court reiterated that the burden of proof in suits for declaration of title lies squarely on the plaintiff, who must succeed on the strength of his own title, not on the weaknesses of the defendant’s case [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment dismissing the suit. It was held that the appellant/plaintiff was not entitled to the declaration of title or possession of the plaint B schedule property, and the suit was rightly dismissed [Paras 27-28].

Criminal Law – Bail in Rape Case – Compromise with Victim’s Family – The petitioner sought bail in a case involving the rape of an 11-year-old girl, citing a compromise with the victim's family. The court rejected the bail application, emphasizing that in cases involving minors, any compromise lacks legal validity. The State has a duty to prosecute such offenses rigorously, irrespective of any private settlements. The court held that minors are vulnerable and their families might be influenced by financial incentives, making such compromises inadmissible in law. The court also noted that the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. confirmed the incident, making the petitioner's request for bail untenable [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Bail application dismissed. The court directed that the trial court should endeavor to record the statements of the victim and her parents at the earliest opportunity [Para 9].
 

Civil Law – Property Law – Mandatory and Permanent Injunction – Common Passage – Plaintiffs sought injunction to prevent the defendant from obstructing a common passage used by multiple property owners – Defendant claimed the passage as private property – Both lower courts found that the defendant failed to prove the passage was private property and upheld the passage as common – Held, the previous judgment, though not inter-parties, had persuasive value in establishing the passage as common – Defendant’s appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 6-9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The findings of the lower courts upheld, affirming that the disputed passage is a common passage, and the defendant had no right to obstruct it.

Civil Law – Declaration of Ownership and Permanent Injunction – Family Settlement – Validity of Consent Decrees – Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, which set aside two consent decrees obtained by fraud and misrepresentation by the appellant. The decrees were found void as they created rights in immovable property exceeding ₹100 without registration, violating the Registration Act, 1908 and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-11].

Evidence Law – Admissibility of Oral Family Settlement – The Court held that the oral family settlement was duly proved by the evidence on record, including admissions during cross-examination – No substantial question of law arose – Findings of lower courts affirmed [Paras 10-11].

Property Law – Adverse Possession Claim – The appellant's claim of adverse possession was dismissed as the appellant was never in possession of the property as claimed under the impugned decrees – The decrees were void and did not confer ownership rights [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – The appellant's claims were rejected due to lack of evidence and failure to establish any substantial question of law – Consent decrees declared void [Paras 11].

Ex Gratia Compensation – Interest on Delayed Payment – Appellant, a victim of the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots, received ex gratia compensation after multiple litigations spanning decades – Appellant sought interest on the delayed payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- – High Court held that although ex gratia compensation traditionally does not attract interest, Constitutional Courts have the authority to grant reasonable interest in cases of significant delay – Given the protracted litigation and delayed compensation, the Court awarded 10% interest per annum from the date of the Rehabilitation Policy (16th January, 2006) until the actual payment on 8th April, 2016 – Emphasized that policies for victim rehabilitation must be implemented in a time-bound manner to remain meaningful [Paras 13-17].

Delay in Government Disbursements – Judicial Remedy – Courts empowered under Article 226 of the Constitution can grant relief in cases where administrative delays cause significant prejudice – Held that failure to implement policies within stipulated timelines warrants judicial intervention to ensure justice for affected parties [Paras 12-15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Respondents directed to pay 10% interest per annum on the delayed compensation amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from 16th January, 2006, to 8th April, 2016 – Respondents also ordered to pay Rs. 25,000/- as costs to the appellant within six weeks [Paras 17-18].

Habeas Corpus – Custody of Minor Child – The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, the natural mother, granting her custody of the minor child. The Court held that the welfare of the child is paramount, and in this case, the mother, who is a well-educated government servant, is better suited to ensure the child's welfare compared to the grandparents who have no regular income and live in a rural area [Paras 1-12].

Natural Guardian – The Court emphasized that under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the mother is the natural guardian of a minor child, especially when the father is deceased. The Court dismissed concerns raised by the respondents about the safety and welfare of the child under the mother's care [Para 10].

Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction – The Court reiterated that habeas corpus petitions are maintainable in cases concerning the custody of minor children, particularly when the child is being unlawfully detained by persons other than the natural guardian [Para 9].

Decision:

Petition allowed. The Court directed the respondents to hand over the custody of the minor child to the petitioner-mother immediately in the court. The concerned Station House Officer (SHO) was instructed to ensure the safety of the petitioner and her child during their return to their residence.