Animal Welfare – Fundamental Rights of Animals – Rule 20 of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 – Constitutionality Affirmed – The petitioners challenged the validity of Rule 20 of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, which mandates Resident Welfare Associations or Apartment Owner Associations to provide designated feeding spots for community animals – The respondents argued that the rules safeguard animal welfare while balancing human convenience – Held: Rule 20 is constitutionally valid, as it ensures the rights of animals under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and upholds the constitutional duty under Article 51-A(g) – Petitioners’ objection to feeding dogs within their premises is untenable under law [Paras 13-18].

Fundamental Rights – Feeding of Community Animals – Right to Feed Animals Recognized – The Court emphasized that fundamental rights of individuals feeding community animals are constitutionally protected under Articles 14 and 21 – The added respondent’s right to feed community dogs was upheld, and the petitioners were restrained from obstructing the respondent's staff and municipal authorities from implementing lawful measures for animal welfare – Held: Rights of those caring for animals must be respected, subject to reasonable regulation [Paras 8-11].

Locus Standi – Petitioners' Locus to Challenge Animal Feeding Rights – Question of Maintainability – The Court raised serious doubts about the locus standi of petitioners 2 to 7 to pursue the proceedings, particularly as they were not residents of the society directly affected – The verification of the petition did not clarify their connection to the dispute – Held: Petitioners must first establish locus standi to sustain the challenge [Paras 2-3].

Animal Rights – Recognition under Law – Right to Life for Animals – The Court reiterated that animals are entitled to rights under Sections 3 and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, read with Article 51-A(g) – The concept of animal rights has evolved to recognize animals as sentient beings, requiring their protection and welfare to be treated with dignity – Reference was made to Supreme Court judgments emphasizing animal rights as essential to constitutional values [Paras 13-16].

Societal Responsibility – Obligation of Housing Societies to Facilitate Animal Welfare – Housing societies are bound by Rule 20 of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, to designate feeding spots for community animals, ensuring the welfare of stray animals and avoiding conflict with residents – Held: The society cannot hinder designated feeders or cause harm to animals, and such actions are against constitutional ethos and statutory provisions [Paras 5-7].

Decision – Petition Partly Allowed – The petitioners were restrained from preventing the added respondent’s staff from accessing her premises or obstructing lawful feeding of community dogs – Petitioners directed to adhere to Rule 20 of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, and cooperate with municipal authorities – Matter adjourned for further hearing [Paras 10-12].

Service Law – Discrimination in Allowances – Parity with Police Personnel – Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – Writ Petition Allowed – Petitioners, Warders and Head Warders under the Home (Jail) Department, were initially granted Kit Maintenance Allowance and Ration Money Allowance under the 15th June 2017 notification, similar to police, fire, and forest personnel – However, subsequent enhancement of these allowances for police personnel was not extended to them – The matter was reviewed in a meeting chaired by the Chief Minister on 7th October 2021, wherein uniformity in allowances was recommended – Despite this, the Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura, rejected the proposal without assigning any reason – Held: Such exclusion is illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – Direction issued to extend the revised allowance benefits to all Warders and Head Warders with immediate effect [Paras 8-11] – Writ petition allowed.

Service Law – Retrospective Benefits – Claim for Arrears – Rejected – Petitioners sought arrears of enhanced allowances from 18/01/2020 and 26/04/2022 – Court held that since they approached belatedly, they were not entitled to arrears – However, direction issued for future implementation by February 2025 [Paras 12-14] – Held: No arrears shall be granted, but enhanced benefits to be implemented prospectively – Writ petition partly allowed.

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed with Directions – Government directed to extend revised Kit/Dress Allowances (₹7,500/- per annum) and Ration Money Allowance (₹2,000/- per month) to all Warders and Head Warders by end of February 2025 – No arrears granted as petitioners approached belatedly – Judgment declared as Judgment in rem, ensuring benefits to all similarly situated personnel [Paras 15-16].

Landlord-Tenant Dispute – Recovery of Possession – Arrears of Rent – Suit Allowed – Plaintiff, a registered Sangam, sought recovery of possession of a marriage hall and movables (furniture and utensils) leased to the defendant, along with arrears of rent, damages, and mesne profits – Defendant admitted tenancy but failed to pay fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Tribunal and did not vacate the premises despite termination notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act – Held: Plaintiff proved ownership and entitlement to possession through oral and documentary evidence – Defendant failed to rebut claims of arrears or establish the existence of a valid lease – Civil suit allowed with costs, ordering ejectment and payment of arrears and damages [Paras 18–24].

Fair Rent – Use and Occupation – Damages and Interest Awarded – Plaintiff claimed arrears of ₹2,17,000/- for the period 01/06/2021 to 10/04/2022 and sought damages of ₹1,50,000/- per month for unauthorized use and occupation of immovable and movable properties – Defendant failed to prove payment of rent or justify continued possession – Held: Fair rent of ₹1,00,000/- per month for the building, as fixed by the Rent Control Tribunal in prior proceedings, accepted as damages for unauthorized occupation – Additional rent of ₹25,000/- for movables allowed – Plaintiff entitled to arrears with 6% interest and mesne profits [Paras 23–24].

Lease Agreement – Termination Notice – Applicability of Rent Control Act – Lease initially governed by written agreements, later continued orally after expiry in 2010 – Rent Control proceedings initiated by both parties were nullified on technical grounds as the lease was composite (building and movables) – Plaintiff subsequently issued termination notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act – Held: Termination notice valid, and defendant had no right to continue possession post-expiry of the lease [Paras 20–23].

Procedural Delays – Defendant’s Conduct – Applications to Reopen Evidence Dismissed – Defendant sought to reopen and recall plaintiff's witness after multiple opportunities were granted for cross-examination – Defendant repeatedly delayed proceedings and failed to file evidence or produce documents despite adjournments – Held: Defendant’s conduct amounted to abuse of process, justifying rejection of applications to reopen evidence – Plaintiff’s evidence remained uncontroverted [Paras 17, 19].

Decision: The Civil Suit is allowed with costs - Defendant directed to vacate and deliver possession of the schedule ‘A’ property (immovable property) and return the schedule ‘B’ property (movables) to the plaintiff immediately - Defendant directed to pay ₹2,17,000/- as arrears of rent for the period 01/06/2021 to 10/04/2022, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realization - Defendant directed to pay ₹1,50,000/- per month (₹1,25,000/- for the immovable property and ₹25,000/- for the movables) from the date of the suit till delivery of possession.
 

Constitutional Law – Freedom of Speech and Assembly – Article 19 – Right to Hold Public Meetings – Held: The right to hold public meetings and rallies is integral to a democracy and is protected under Article 19 of the Constitution, subject to reasonable restrictions – Petitioners granted permission to hold the assembly with conditions to ensure public order and minimize inconvenience.

Administrative Law – Discretionary Powers of Police – Refusal of Permission for Public Meeting – Held: Police discretion must be exercised reasonably and proportionately – Past incidents of violence cannot indefinitely deprive a political party of its constitutional rights – Permission granted with safeguards against potential public disturbances.

Public Order and Fundamental Rights – Balancing Conflicting Interests – Held: Public ways and spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely, but peaceful assemblies at designated locations must be facilitated to maintain the democratic ethos – Petitioners directed to follow strict conditions, including limiting attendance and parking arrangements, to balance rights and public order.

Decision: Petition allowed in part – Permission granted for a meeting at Shahid Minar Maidan with conditions – Petitioners and police authorities instructed to ensure compliance and maintain public order – No order as to costs.
 

Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302 IPC – Single Fatal Blow – Applicability of Clause 3rdly of Section 300 IPC – Held: Intentional infliction of a fatal blow aimed at a vital part of the body establishes intention to cause death – Use of dangerous weapon (iron rod) and absence of provocation confirmed premeditated intention – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld [Paras 24-27].

Criminal Law – Evidence – Sole Testimony of Related Witness – Reliability – Held: Testimony of PW9, the deceased’s daughter-in-law, was consistent, natural, and credible – Relationship with the deceased does not render her testimony unreliable when supported by circumstances – Conviction can be based solely on such reliable testimony [Paras 15-22].

Criminal Law – Hostile Witnesses – Partial Reliability – Held: Testimony of hostile witnesses PW2 and PW3 partially relied upon to establish motive – Courts are not bound to discard entire testimony of hostile witnesses but may accept parts that inspire confidence [Paras 21].

Sentencing – Life Imprisonment for Murder – Proportionality – Held: The sentence of life imprisonment for murder and rigorous imprisonment for trespass is commensurate with the gravity and nature of the offences – No leniency warranted [Paras 28].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 447 IPC upheld.
 

Criminal Law - Rape on False Promise of Marriage – Consent and Misconception of Fact – The appellant was accused of sexual intercourse with the complainant on the false promise of marriage. The relationship lasted six years, and the complaint was lodged 25 months after the alleged incident. The court found that the relationship was consensual and that the complainant, being a mature adult, was aware of the consequences of her actions. There was no evidence of a false promise at the inception of the relationship. – Held: Conviction under Sections 376 r/w 90 IPC and 417 IPC set aside; appellant acquitted. [Paras 9-14]

Delay in Filing Complaint – Impact on Credibility – The court noted that the complaint was lodged 25 months after the alleged incidents, with no explanation for the delay. While delay alone cannot discredit a complaint, in this case, it assumed significance, especially given the consensual nature of the relationship. – Held: Delay undermined the prosecution’s case. [Paras 9-12]

Prolonged Consensual Relationship – No False Promise of Marriage – The appellant and the complainant were in a relationship for over six years, during which they shared financial transactions and mutual trust. The evidence did not support the claim that the relationship was based on a false promise of marriage. – Held: Prosecution failed to prove deception; relationship characterized as consensual. [Paras 10-14]

Recent Supreme Court Guidance – Application – The court relied on the principles laid down in Mahesh Damu Khare v. The State of Maharashtra & Another (2025), emphasizing that prolonged consensual relationships, even if they later turn sour, cannot automatically attract criminal liability under Sections 376 or 417 IPC. – Held: Criminal liability diluted in cases of consensual relationships without clear evidence of initial deception. [Paras 13-14]

Decision: The criminal appeal was allowed. The appellant was acquitted of all charges under Sections 376 r/w 90 IPC and 417 IPC. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were set aside, and the fine, if any, was directed to be refunded.
 

Bail in NDPS Cases – Possession of Commercial Quantity – Section 37 NDPS Act – Rigorous Conditions for Bail – Applicant was accused of possessing 220 grams of Mephedrone (MD), a quantity far exceeding the commercial threshold – Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for bail, requiring the court’s satisfaction that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to reoffend – Held: Despite the statutory bar, extended incarceration (1 year and 11 months) and delay in trial proceedings warranted grant of bail under Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 7–8, 14, 17].

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution – Long Incarceration as Ground for Bail – Applicant was in custody for nearly two years, with no charges framed and no likelihood of trial concluding in the foreseeable future – The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that prolonged detention without trial infringes the fundamental right to life and liberty – Held: Continued detention of the applicant, given the delay in trial, violated his rights under Article 21, warranting bail [Paras 9, 10.3, 14].

Procedural Irregularities – Delay in Forensic Analysis – Non-Compliance with NDPS Act Procedures – Applicant argued that there were procedural lapses, including a 15-day delay in sending the seized contraband for forensic analysis and discrepancies in the appearance of the sample packets – Such lapses were held to weaken the prosecution's case, further supporting the grant of bail [Paras 4, 17].

Principle of Bail as the Rule and Jail as the Exception – Judicial Discretion in NDPS Cases – Despite the severity of NDPS offences, courts must exercise discretion judiciously to strike a balance between public interest and individual liberty – Held: Denial of bail in cases of prolonged detention would lead to indefinite incarceration, which is contrary to constitutional principles – Bail granted with stringent conditions to ensure fairness and accountability [Paras 9.1, 12, 16].

Decision – Bail granted to the applicant under stringent conditions, including a PR bond of Rs. 1,00,000, regular attendance at trial proceedings, prohibition on influencing witnesses, and restriction on leaving the state without permission. The observations were limited to the purpose of bail and did not affect the merits of the case [Paras 17, 18].
 

Property Law – Partition Suit – Will Validity – Second Appeal – Dismissal – Plaintiff filed a suit seeking 1/6th share in the self-acquired property of late K.V. Vengadasamy Chettiar – Defendant No. 1 claimed exclusive ownership of the suit property based on an unregistered Will dated 20.05.2000 executed by the deceased, bequeathing the property to him – Subsequent sale of the suit property by Defendant No. 1 to Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 – Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed the suit, upholding the genuineness of the Will – Held: Will executed in compliance with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act – No suspicious circumstances proved – Second Appeal dismissed, confirming the judgments of the lower courts [Paras 6–34].

Will – Proof of Genuineness – Compliance with Legal Formalities – Plaintiff alleged suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will, including absence of signature on each page, corrections in property description not attested by the testator, and non-registration of the Will – Defendant No. 1 proved the execution of the Will through attesting witnesses and the notary who prepared it – Held: Corrections made under the testator's instructions were initialed by the notary; absence of signatures on each page not fatal – Non-registration of the Will does not affect its validity as per Indian law – Evidence showed that the testator executed the Will in a sound and disposing state of mind and of his own free will [Paras 13–18, 26–31].

Inheritance Law – Disinheritance of Legal Heirs – Testator's Discretion – Will excluded other legal heirs and bequeathed the suit property to Defendant No. 1 – Held: Disinheritance alone is not a ground to invalidate a Will if the testator provides specific reasons – Testator explicitly stated that Defendant No. 1 cared for him and his wife during their lifetime – Evidence substantiated that the testator was of sound mind and understood the consequences of the bequest [Paras 13–14, 22–23].

Suspicious Circumstances – Rebuttal of Allegations – Plaintiff alleged that the testator traveled 11 km to a notary office instead of visiting a nearby Sub-Registrar’s office, and claimed contradictions in the evidence of attesting witnesses – Held: Testator's choice of the notary office explained by circumstances, including the day of execution (Saturday) – Minor discrepancies in the witnesses' testimony do not invalidate the Will – Courts below rightly held that the alleged suspicious circumstances were not sufficient to invalidate the Will [Paras 24–30].

Standard of Proof for Wills – Sound Disposing State of Mind – Propounder established that the testator signed the Will voluntarily, understanding its contents – Evidence showed that the Will was read out to the testator, who instructed corrections and signed it in the presence of witnesses – Plaintiff failed to produce contrary evidence or prove fraud, coercion, or undue influence – Courts below correctly applied principles from precedents, including Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan (2023) 9 SCC 734 and H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma AIR 1959 SC 443 [Paras 19–20, 26–31].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Will held genuine and valid – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court confirmed – Plaintiff not entitled to 1/6th share in the suit property – No costs [Paras 32–34].
 

Property Law – Revocation of Power of Attorney – Validity of Sale Deed Executed by Power Agent – Second Appeal – Dismissal – Suit Property originally owned by the plaintiffs through inheritance and subsequent acquisition – Plaintiffs executed a General Power of Attorney (G.P.A.) in favor of the first defendant as security for a loan – G.P.A. revoked by a registered Cancellation Deed, which was communicated to the Sub-Registrar – First defendant executed a Sale Deed in favor of the second defendant, which was presented for registration after the revocation of the G.P.A. – Sub-Registrar refused to register the Sale Deed – Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and other reliefs – Trial Court decreed the Suit, holding the G.P.A. as a security document and its cancellation valid – First Appellate Court confirmed the decision – Held: Sale Deed was executed after the cancellation of the G.P.A. came to the notice of the defendants; sale was incomplete in the absence of registration – Second Appeal dismissed, with liberty to the second defendant to file a Suit for Specific Performance based on the Sale Agreement and unregistered Sale Deed [Paras 6–19].

Agency Law – Power Coupled with Interest – Revocation and Termination – Plaintiffs contended that G.P.A. was executed as security for a loan and revoked through a Cancellation Deed – Defendants argued that the G.P.A. was irrevocable as it was coupled with interest, and revocation was not validly communicated – Held: G.P.A. was not coupled with interest as possession of the Suit Property was not handed over to the power agent – Revocation was validly communicated to the Sub-Registrar and came to the notice of the power agent before the registration of the Sale Deed – Sale Deed executed without a valid G.P.A. is invalid [Paras 14–18].

Sale Deed – Incomplete Sale Without Registration – Sale Deed executed by the power agent was presented for registration after the G.P.A. was revoked – Sub-Registrar rightly refused registration, as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a sale is incomplete without registration – Held: The Sale Deed is not binding on the plaintiffs and does not convey any title to the second defendant – Remedy available to the second defendant is to seek specific performance [Paras 17–18].

Procedural Compliance – Registration of Cancellation Deed – Cancellation Deed was registered at a Sub-Registrar Office (S.R.O.) different from where the G.P.A. was registered – Plaintiffs sent a letter of objection to the Jurisdictional S.R.O. – Held: Registration of Cancellation Deed at a different S.R.O. is valid as per the Registration Act, 1908, and it was the duty of the Sub-Registrar to communicate the cancellation to the concerned Jurisdictional S.R.O. – No evidence suggests procedural non-compliance by the Sub-Registrar [Paras 15–16].

Liberty to File Suit for Specific Performance – Plaintiffs retain possession and title to the Suit Property – Second defendant granted liberty to file a Suit for Specific Performance based on the Sale Agreement and unregistered Sale Deed – Parties directed to raise all available contentions in the said Suit, including seeking exclusion of time spent in the present proceedings under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 [Para 18].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Plaintiffs' title and possession upheld – Sale Deed declared invalid – Liberty granted to second defendant to file a Suit for Specific Performance – No order as to costs [Paras 19].