Civil Law – Declaration of Title and Recovery of Possession – Plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of title over agricultural land and recovery of possession, challenging the proceedings under the ROR Act as null and void – Trial Court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the ROR proceedings were void as no notice was served to the plaintiff – First Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court's decision – Second Appeal preferred by the defendants challenging both judgments – Held: Suit barred by limitation as it was filed after 6 years of denial of title by the defendants in the earlier suit – Appeal allowed [Paras 8, 9, 10, 24.9].

Limitation – Suit for Declaration – Plaintiff sought declaration of title based on Article 65 of the Limitation Act (12 years), but the Court found that Article 58 (3 years) was applicable for the relief of declaration of title – Defendants denied the plaintiff's title in 1990, and the suit was filed in 1997, beyond the 3-year limitation period – Courts below erred in applying Article 65 and placing the burden of limitation on the defendants – Suit barred by limitation [Paras 24.4, 24.5, 24.9].

Record of Rights Proceedings – Nullity of ROR Proceedings – Plaintiff challenged the ROR proceedings initiated by the defendants under Section 5-A of the ROR Act – No appeal was filed by the plaintiff under Section 5-B of the Act – MRO not made a party to the suit – Courts below declared the ROR proceedings null and void without proper consideration – Second Appeal held that without joining the MRO as a necessary party, the suit could not succeed – Declaration of nullity of ROR proceedings set aside [Paras 27, 28.1, 28.2].

Possession – Plea of Dispossession – Plaintiff failed to specify the date of dispossession by the defendants – No legal action taken between 1990 and 1997 – Evidence showed inconsistency in plaintiff’s claim of dispossession – Courts below overlooked the lack of specific pleadings on dispossession – Second Appeal upheld the defendants' possession of the land under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act – Relief of possession denied to the plaintiff [Paras 26, 26.4].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgments of Trial Court and First Appellate Court set aside – Suit dismissed – No costs [Paras 29].
 

Family Law – Interim Maintenance – Execution of Maintenance Orders – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant challenged the execution of an interim maintenance order passed under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, contending that the order was not enforceable under Section 39A, which applies to orders passed under Chapters V or VI, while Section 36 is in Chapter VII – Held: The Court ruled that orders passed under Section 36 are linked to proceedings under Chapters V or VI, and hence enforceable under Section 39A – The appeal against the execution was dismissed [Paras 7-12].

Adjustment of Payments in Domestic Violence Proceedings – Limited Credit Allowed – The appellant claimed an adjustment for amounts deposited in separate proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and additional cash payments – The Court allowed credit for Rs. 48,000 deposited in the Domestic Violence case but rejected the claim for Rs. 2,90,000 in cash, finding no evidence of direct payment for maintenance under the relevant order [Paras 13-17].

Limitation for Filing Execution Petitions – Recurring Cause of Action – The appellant argued that the execution petition was time-barred – The Court, citing Article 136 of the Limitation Act, held that the petition was filed within the 12-year limitation period and noted that maintenance orders create a recurring cause of action, enforceable monthly – The second execution petition was held valid, as the first one was withdrawn without being decided on merits, and thus, not barred by res judicata [Paras 19-25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Interim maintenance order upheld – Adjustment of Rs. 48,000 allowed from the amount due, but further claims rejected – Execution proceedings to continue [Paras 26-28].
 

Murder - Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence - Chain of Events Incomplete - The accused was convicted of murdering the deceased based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution failed to establish a continuous chain of events leading exclusively to the guilt of the accused, leaving room for doubt. The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain without any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The conviction was overturned, and the accused was acquitted [Paras 25, 28, 33, 49].

DNA Evidence - Delay in Collection and Chain of Custody - Acquittal - The prosecution relied on DNA evidence linking the accused to the crime. However, due to significant delays in collecting and forwarding samples for DNA testing, and a broken chain of custody, the court found the DNA evidence unreliable. The absence of proper documentation for the transfer of samples further weakened the prosecution's case, leading to acquittal [Paras 42, 44, 46].

Absence of Corroboration - “Last Seen Theory” Insufficient to Convict - The prosecution’s reliance on the “last seen theory” was insufficient for conviction due to a significant time gap between the accused being seen with the deceased and the time of death. The court held that in the absence of corroborative evidence, the accused could not be held guilty of murder solely based on the last seen theory [Paras 52, 55].

Benefit of Doubt - Evidence Inconsistent with Prosecution's Case - The evidence provided by witnesses, particularly the minor son of the deceased, was inconsistent with the prosecution's case of enmity and animosity between the accused and the deceased. The court granted the accused the benefit of the doubt due to inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies and evidence [Paras 58, 62].

Decision - The appeal was allowed, and the conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside. The accused was acquitted and ordered to be released if not required in any other case [Paras 67, 69].

Civil Law – Second Appeal – Permanent Injunction – The appellant sought a permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering with possession of the disputed property – The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the dismissal – Held: Both the trial court and the first appellate court did not err in dismissing the suit as the appellant failed to identify and prove possession of the property on the ground – The appeal was dismissed [Paras 1-9].

Burden of Proof – Failure to Prove Possession – In a suit for permanent injunction, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove possession of the property as on the date of filing the suit – Held: The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as the exact location of the property, and was unable to identify the property on the ground when the Advocate Commissioner visited – The suit and appeal were rightly dismissed [Paras 10-20].

Appointment of Advocate Commissioner – Delayed Petition – The appellant filed a petition for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner after a delay of 12 years, claiming that the respondent had obstructed the survey – Held: The court rejected the application as the delay was unexplained, and the appellant had opportunities to appoint a commissioner earlier but failed to do so [Paras 21-30].

Decision: Second appeal and interlocutory applications dismissed – No costs awarded to either party.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Petitioner accused of sexual assault under sections 376, 417, 420, and 354(D) of IPC – Allegations based on a promise to marry, which later did not materialize – The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual, and the promise to marry was not false from the outset – High Court examined the distinction between breach of promise and false promise – Held: The factual disputes raised require evidence to be recorded, and it cannot be quashed at this stage [Paras 1-9].

Consent – Misconception of Fact – The victim alleged that the consent for a sexual relationship was based on the petitioner’s promise to marry her, which he did not fulfill – The court considered whether the promise was made with mala fide intentions or if the circumstances changed subsequently – Held: The issue of whether consent was obtained through a misconception of fact must be decided after a full trial, as the material prima facie indicates a possible false promise [Paras 10-15].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Invocation – The court dismissed the petition to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., citing the need for the trial to resolve contested facts – It noted that the allegations made by the complainant were not inherently absurd or baseless – Held: Criminal petition dismissed, as this case does not meet the criteria for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 16-20].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Proceedings under P.R.C. No. 38/2022 to continue in the trial court – Interlocutory applications, if any, are also dismissed.

Civil Procedure – Recall of Witness – Change of Counsel – Ineffectiveness of Previous Cross-examination – Petitioners sought to recall the respondent-landlord for further cross-examination after changing their counsel, arguing that the previous counsel had not effectively cross-examined the witness – Rent Controller dismissed the application, holding that inefficiency or omission by previous counsel does not warrant recall of the witness – Held: The Court found that the petitioners had ample opportunity for cross-examination, and allowing the recall application would lead to unnecessary delays – Application for recall rejected – Revision petition dismissed [Paras 3, 4, 7, 10, 11].

Powers of Court – Order 18 Rule 17 CPC – Court's Discretion to Recall Witness – It was reiterated that Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is intended for the convenience of the Court and not for parties to re-open or fill lacunae in their case – Recalling a witness cannot be allowed merely due to a change of counsel or dissatisfaction with the previous cross-examination – Reference made to various judgments reinforcing this principle [Paras 7, 8, 9].

Eviction Proceedings – Personal Necessity – Delay Tactics – Petitioners accused of delaying the proceedings by filing repeated applications for further cross-examination – Held: The application was a tactic to delay the eviction proceedings, filed more than eight months after the previous cross-examination – Repeated adjournments were noted in the order [Paras 3, 10].

Decision:

The revision petition was dismissed as meritless, upholding the Rent Controller's order rejecting the application for recalling the witness. The Court found no error of jurisdiction and emphasized that the petitioners had sufficient opportunity for cross-examination previously [Paras 11, 12].

Bail under UAPA – Long Custody – Article 21 of the Constitution – The appellant has been in custody for over 2 years, 4 months, and 17 days. The appellant was nominated based on a co-accused’s disclosure statement, and despite serious allegations, no charges have been framed yet. Held: The appellant’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution was being violated due to prolonged custody. The court emphasized that long custody without trial progress is grounds for bail under UAPA, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs K.A. Najeeb and similar cases. Bail was granted, subject to conditions [Paras 6-8].

Serious Allegations Alone Not Sufficient to Deny Bail – The court referred to the principle that serious charges alone cannot justify the denial of bail if the accused’s prolonged incarceration infringes on their constitutional rights. The court highlighted that other co-accused had been granted bail and noted the lack of progress in the trial as a critical factor in granting the appellant bail [Paras 9-10].

Decision:

Bail Granted – The court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The appellant was released on regular bail subject to conditions, including furnishing a bond of ₹1 lakh with two sureties, surrendering his passport, and adhering to court dates. The court underscored that the observations made were limited to the bail appeal and did not affect the merits of the ongoing trial [Paras 12-14].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonor of Cheque – Presumption of Liability – The petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 8,00,000, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The complainant provided evidence of the cheque, the dishonor memo, and service of legal notice, which the petitioner failed to rebut. Held: The presumption of liability under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies, and the petitioner failed to present a probable defense [Paras 7-10].

Legal Notice – Proper Service Established – The petitioner disputed the proper service of the legal notice but failed to provide sufficient evidence to support this claim. The court found that the notice was served at the address mentioned by the petitioner, and the statutory requirements were satisfied [Paras 12-13].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – The court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC is limited to supervisory review and cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is a gross miscarriage of justice. Held: No such miscarriage of justice was found, and the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts were upheld [Paras 17-19].

Decision:  The criminal revision petition is dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of two years' imprisonment and compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are upheld. The petitioner is directed to surrender to serve the sentence, and the trial court is instructed to release any amount deposited by the petitioner to the respondent on filing the appropriate application [Paras 20-21].

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Cause of Action, Locus Standi, Limitation, Court Fees, Non-Joinder of Parties – Plaintiffs (appellants) sought declaration and injunction regarding property inherited from Tej Partap Singh – Suit challenged the validity of a Will dated 20.03.1971 and alleged oral Wills of other deceased family members, and contested over 23 sale deeds – Trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, ruling that plaintiffs lacked locus standi, the suit was time-barred, and there was non-joinder of necessary parties – Findings upheld by First Appellate Court [Paras 2, 8-9].

Locus Standi and Cause of Action – Grandchildren’s Claim Over Ancestor's Property – Court held plaintiffs, as grandchildren of the deceased Tej Partap Singh, lacked locus standi to challenge his Will, as inheritance rights crystallize upon death – Grandchildren are excluded from Class-I heirs when direct children are alive under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act – Plaintiffs could only claim a share in their mother’s (deceased daughter of Tej Partap Singh) property, but not directly challenge the Will or other transactions regarding Tej Partap Singh's estate [Paras 30-32, 35, 40-41].

Limitation Period – Bar on Challenging Old Transactions – Claims against transactions executed from 1971 to 2005 were time-barred – Trial Court observed plaintiffs’ attempt to circumvent the limitation law by asserting a later "discovery" of facts – Held: Plaintiffs cannot claim inheritance rights directly from Tej Partap Singh or his wives as their mother never contested the Will during her lifetime, and limitation cannot be bypassed by creative drafting [Paras 50-51, 53, 58].

Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Numerous transactions involved third-party transferees who were not joined in the suit, making the suit defective under Order I Rule 9 CPC – Effective decree could not be passed in their absence, thus defeating the relief sought [Paras 59-62].

Court Fees – Applicability of Ad Valorem Fees on Challenged Transactions – Plaintiffs required to pay ad valorem Court fees as they sought cancellation of transactions executed by the deceased without being in possession – Relief sought was substantive and plaintiffs were held liable to pay fees based on transaction values, rather than a nominal amount [Paras 63-65, 71].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Trial Court’s rejection of plaint upheld as plaintiffs lacked cause of action and locus standi – Suit was barred by limitation, non-joinder of necessary parties, and improper valuation of Court fees – Reaffirmed that plaintiffs, as non-Class I heirs, have no direct claim over the ancestral property while direct heirs are alive, and inheritance rights cannot be challenged decades after the succession is settled [Paras 73-74].