Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant sought specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 29.11.1989 for 5 acres of land – The trial court rejected the relief on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his contractual obligations – Held: Readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act must be demonstrated throughout the proceedings – Mere assertion without evidence does not suffice – Appeal dismissed [Paras 22-25].

Contract Law – Breach of Agreement – No Proof of Compliance by Plaintiff – As per the agreement, the plaintiff had to pay the balance sale consideration by 01.08.1990 – The plaintiff neither paid the amount nor issued any legal notice expressing readiness and willingness – Held: Non-issuance of notice before filing suit weakens the plaintiff’s claim – Defendants had removed crops as per contract terms, but plaintiff failed to perform his part – Trial court rightly refused specific performance [Paras 15-19].

Judicial Precedents – Time and Essence of Contract – No Automatic Right to Specific Performance – Plaintiff contended that time was not of the essence – Relying on K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan, (1997) 3 SCC 1, and Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani, (1993) 1 SCC 519, the court held that even where time is not expressly stated as essential, performance must be within a reasonable period – Plaintiff’s inaction for a long period negates the claim for specific performance [Paras 21-22].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Refund of Advance Upheld – High Court upheld the trial court’s decree, confirming the refund of ₹2,50,000/- advance amount with interest – Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs [Para 26].
 

Waqf Law – Jurisdiction Over Waqf Property – Commission of Inquiry Lacks Authority – Writ Petitions Allowed – Petitioners challenged the Kerala Government’s order appointing a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to investigate ownership claims over a property declared as waqf – Held: Waqf Board has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a property is waqf – Section 40(2) of the Waqf Act makes the Waqf Board’s decision final, subject only to Tribunal review – Government’s appointment of the Commission contravenes Section 85 of the Waqf Act, which bars jurisdiction of any other authority over waqf matters – Commission’s appointment quashed [Paras 30-35].

Administrative Law – Competence of State Government – Commission of Inquiry Not Justified – The Kerala Government claimed authority under the Commissions of Inquiry Act to resolve a matter of “public importance” – Held: The dispute relates to property rights, which fall under the exclusive purview of the Waqf Tribunal – The Government failed to consider relevant legal provisions and the ongoing appeal before the Tribunal – Mere public protests or agitations cannot justify the appointment of an inquiry commission – Government’s action held arbitrary and legally unsustainable [Paras 24-26, 39-42].

Judicial Review – Government’s Decision to Appoint Inquiry Commission Lacks Legal Basis – Petitioners argued that the Government acted without jurisdiction and in violation of existing legal orders – Held: Government ignored previous High Court orders and the statutory framework of the Waqf Act – Section 85 of the Act prohibits interference in waqf matters by civil or revenue courts, reinforcing the exclusive jurisdiction of the Waqf Board and Tribunal – The decision to appoint the Commission was made without application of mind and is liable to be struck down [Paras 40-43].

Final Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Government Order Quashed – Kerala High Court quashed the Government’s order appointing the Commission of Inquiry – Held: The Waqf Board’s authority stands, and any challenge to its decision must be adjudicated before the Waqf Tribunal – Government directed not to interfere in waqf-related disputes contrary to the Waqf Act [Paras 43-44].
 

Land Acquisition – Delay and Laches – Writ Petition Dismissed – The petitioner challenged the acquisition of land in Village Akurdi, Pune, which was acquired under the MID Act in 1971, with possession taken in 1972 – Petition filed in 2010, nearly 38 years after the acquisition – Held: Delay of over three decades is unexplained and renders the petition non-maintainable – Principles of delay and laches bar the challenge, as acquisition proceedings had attained finality [Paras 1-4, 10-12].

Property Law – Land Acquisition and Possession – Once Vested, Cannot Be Reversed – The petitioner’s father had agreed to the acquisition in consent terms recorded before the High Court in 1968 – Held: Once land vests in the government upon acquisition, it cannot be challenged after decades on the ground that the petitioner was unaware of the process – Petitioner’s plea that possession was not taken is contradicted by official records – Land deemed lawfully acquired [Paras 8-10, 15-17].

Judicial Review – High Court Cannot Interfere After Conclusion of Acquisition Process – Petitioner argued that no compensation was paid, and therefore, the acquisition lapsed – Held: The remedy for non-payment of compensation lies in seeking proper legal recourse, not in challenging acquisition decades later – Supreme Court rulings reaffirm that land acquisition cannot be nullified solely on non-payment of compensation [Paras 20-25].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No Relief Granted – High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the acquisition – Held: No case for interference as the petitioner’s challenge was barred by delay, acquiescence, and past judicial orders – Costs imposed on the petitioner for abuse of legal process [Paras 30-32].
 

Interim Maintenance – Non-compliance with Supreme Court Guidelines – Order Set Aside - petitioner challenged an interim maintenance order passed by the Family Court, Kollam, contending that the order was issued without compliance with the mandatory requirement of filing an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities as prescribed in Rajnesh v. Neha. The Supreme Court mandated that all maintenance proceedings must be accompanied by disclosure affidavits to ensure transparency in financial status. Held: Since neither party filed the required affidavits, the interim maintenance order is unsustainable and is set aside. The case is remitted to the Family Court for fresh adjudication in compliance with Rajnesh v. Neha [Paras 5-7].

Family Court Jurisdiction – Requirement of Financial Disclosure in Maintenance Cases – Mandatory Compliance Directed

The Kerala High Court observed that despite the Supreme Court’s directions in Rajnesh v. Neha and Aditi alias Mithi v. Jithesh Sharma [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1451], various Family Courts continue to decide maintenance applications without ensuring the submission of affidavits disclosing financial status. Held: All courts in Kerala dealing with maintenance cases must strictly adhere to the Supreme Court guidelines, ensuring that affidavits of financial disclosure are filed before passing any interim or final maintenance orders [Paras 6, 8].

Procedural Fairness – Remand for Fresh Consideration – Compliance with Supreme Court Guidelines - High Court directed the Family Court to reconsider the interim maintenance application after ensuring both parties file their financial disclosure affidavits. Petitioner granted ten days to file an affidavit, failing which the Family Court may decide the matter based on available records. Held: The case is remanded for fresh disposal, and all courts in Kerala handling maintenance cases are instructed to follow Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines in all future proceedings [Paras 7-11].

Decision: The interim maintenance order is set aside. The case is remitted to the Family Court, Kollam, for fresh adjudication, ensuring compliance with Rajnesh v. Neha. All courts in Kerala are directed to enforce financial disclosure requirements before deciding maintenance cases.

Criminal Law - Rash and Negligent Driving – Absence of Direct Evidence – Conviction Set Aside – The petitioner, a bus driver, was convicted for rash and negligent driving, causing an accident that resulted in multiple injuries and one fatality – The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, as no witness directly observed the petitioner driving negligently – Held: In criminal trials, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – Since none of the witnesses, including the passengers and the complainant, saw the petitioner driving rashly, the conviction could not be sustained [Paras 7-10].

Eye-Witness Testimony – Lack of Direct Observation – Benefit of Doubt – The trial court relied on witness statements that were based on hearing the accident rather than seeing the petitioner’s driving behavior – The complainant (P.W.1) himself admitted that he did not see the petitioner’s driving before the accident – Held: Conviction under Section 304(A) IPC requires clear evidence of culpable negligence, which was absent in this case – The petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the doubt [Paras 9-10].

Judicial Review – Failure of Lower Courts to Properly Appreciate Evidence – Both the trial court and the appellate court convicted the petitioner without properly assessing the lack of direct evidence – The High Court found that the findings of both courts were perverse and resulted in a miscarriage of justice – Held: The revision petition was allowed, and the petitioner was acquitted [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Conviction and sentence set aside. The petitioner acquitted, and any fine amount paid to be refunded.
 

Civil Law - Lis Pendens – Applicability to Court Auction Sale – Better Title of Decree Holder – The appellant, having obtained a decree for specific performance, was delivered possession of the property through execution proceedings – Subsequently, the respondent, an auction purchaser in a money decree execution, sought delivery of possession – The Court held that since the specific performance suit was filed prior to the money suit, the principle of lis pendens applies – Held: A purchaser in a court auction sale is bound by the result of pending litigation concerning the same property – The respondent’s title derived through the auction was inferior to the appellant’s title [Paras 17-21].

Attachment Before Judgment – Effect on Prior Suit for Specific Performance – The first respondent obtained an attachment before judgment in a money suit, but the attachment was not immediately communicated to the Sub-Registrar as required under Order 38 Rule 11-B CPC (Madras High Court Amendment) – The Court held that failure to notify the attachment in a timely manner meant that the decree holder in the specific performance suit had a superior right – Held: Since the sale deed in favor of the appellant was executed pursuant to a court decree, the attachment in the money decree did not affect the transfer of title [Paras 8-10].

Collusion Between Judgment Debtor and Money Suit Plaintiff – Burden of Proof – The appellant alleged that the money suit was collusive, filed after receiving a legal notice regarding the agreement for sale – The Court observed that the money suit was filed only after the suit for specific performance was instituted and that the judgment debtors remained ex parte throughout the proceedings – Held: The circumstances indicated collusion, supporting the appellant’s contention that the money decree was obtained to defeat the specific performance decree [Paras 11-12].

Execution of Sale Deed – Compliance with Order XXI Rule 34 CPC – The respondent contended that the sale deed in favor of the appellant was invalid due to non-compliance with procedural requirements under Order XXI Rule 34 CPC – The Court held that since the judgment debtors had remained ex parte, objections to procedural irregularities could not be raised by a third party – Held: Any challenge to the execution of the sale deed could only be made by the judgment debtor, not by the respondent auction purchaser [Paras 12-13].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens vs. Attachment Before Judgment – Priority of Rights – The Court reaffirmed that while an attachment prevents private alienation, it does not create ownership rights – In contrast, lis pendens imposes a complete embargo on property transfer during pending litigation – Held: The sale in favor of the respondent was ineffective against the doctrine of lis pendens, as the specific performance suit predated the money decree proceedings [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Appeal allowed. Order of the Executing Court set aside. The appellant’s title upheld, and execution petition filed by the respondent for possession dismissed.
 

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Legality of Adoption – Rejection of Adoption Based on Registration Date Held Invalid – The respondent sought compassionate appointment on the demise of her adoptive father, a Railway employee – The Railways rejected her claim, arguing that the adoption deed was registered on 02.06.2017 when she was above 20 years old – Held: As per Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, once an adoption deed is registered, a presumption of valid adoption arises – The adoption was performed through customary methods in 2010, and delay in registration does not invalidate it – Rejection of the claim was arbitrary and against settled legal principles – Tribunal's order upheld [Paras 6-7].

Adoption Law – Validity of Adoption – Presumption Under Section 16 of HAMA – Adoption Relates Back to the Date of Ceremony – The Railways contended that the adoption deed was not valid as it was executed after the respondent turned 20 years old – Held: Adoption under HAMA does not require registration, and once a deed is registered, it raises a presumption of validity – Adoption ceremonies were performed in 2010, and the registration in 2017 only formalized the earlier act – Adoption was legally valid, and the rejection of compassionate appointment was unjustified [Paras 6-8].

Compassionate Appointment – Documentary Evidence – School Certificate Not Decisive for Determining Adoption – The Railways argued that the respondent’s school records did not mention her adoptive father’s name, proving that adoption was not recognized – Held: School records typically reflect biological parents, and non-mention of the adoptive father does not invalidate a legally recognized adoption – Compassionate appointment cannot be denied solely on this ground [Para 7].

Judicial Precedents – Supreme Court Ruling on Adoption Relating Back to Ceremony Date – Adoption Cannot Be Invalidated Due to Delay in Registration – The High Court relied on a recent Supreme Court ruling in Prema Gopal v. Central Adoption Resource Authority & Others (SLP No. 14886 of 2024, decided on 29.01.2025), which held that an adoption deed, even if registered later, relates back to the date of adoption ceremonies – Following this principle, the rejection of respondent’s adoption was erroneous, and she was entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment [Paras 9-10].

Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the CAT’s order directing the Railways to consider the respondent’s case for compassionate appointment within three months. The rejection of her claim based on a delayed adoption deed was found to be erroneous and arbitrary.
 

Administrative Law – Policy Decision on FASTag – No Judicial Interference – PIL Dismissed – The petitioner challenged the government’s circulars mandating FASTag for toll payments and imposing double charges for non-FASTag users – Held: The decision to implement FASTag is a policy measure aimed at seamless traffic flow and cannot be interfered with unless it is arbitrary or unconstitutional – The petition lacked merit as the policy was introduced in phases, with adequate time given for compliance – PIL dismissed [Paras 10-15].

Motor Vehicles and Highways Law – FASTag Implementation – Not a Violation of Fundamental Rights – Petitioner argued that compulsory FASTag use violated citizens’ rights by restricting cash payments – Held: There is no prohibition on cash payments; however, users without FASTag must use a designated lane and pay double toll as per Rule 6(3) of the 2008 Rules – The measure is regulatory and not punitive – No fundamental right is violated [Paras 16-18].

Judicial Review – Courts Cannot Interfere in Economic and Infrastructure Policy – The petitioner argued that the FASTag system lacked proper technological infrastructure and caused inconvenience – Held: Courts should not interfere in policy decisions unless there is clear evidence of irrationality or unreasonableness – Policy decisions on transport infrastructure fall within the executive’s domain – Precedents support limited judicial review of economic policies [Paras 14, 19].

Final Decision – PIL Dismissed – FASTag Policy Upheld – High Court held that FASTag regulations were legally valid and not unconstitutional – Petition dismissed with no costs – Interim application also disposed of [Paras 19-20].
 

Service Law – Eligibility Criteria – Equivalence of Qualifications – Diploma and B.Tech in Civil Engineering – Petitioners disqualified from selection to the post of Surveyor Grade II in KWA on the ground that their qualifications (Diploma and B.Tech in Civil Engineering) were not equivalent or presupposed the lower prescribed qualification of National Trade Certificate (NTC) – Petitioners relied on Government Orders issued by Higher Education Department declaring Diploma and B.Tech as higher qualifications – Held: As per Rule 10(a)(ii) KS&SSR, only qualifications declared by competent authority—i.e., Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department—can be relied upon – Higher Education Department lacks authority to declare equivalence or sufficiency – Exts. P4 to P6 cannot form basis for eligibility [Paras 7-10]

Recruitment – Role of Competent Authority – PSC and Government – Division Bench holds that only Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department of Government and PSC are competent to assess and determine sufficiency of qualifications under Rule 10(a)(ii) KS&SSR – Other departmental orders are merely recommendatory – Exts. P4 to P6 issued by Higher Education Department are ultra vires [Paras 9-10]

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Recruitment Process – Court reiterates limited scope of judicial review in recruitment matters – Review restricted to checking whether PSC and Government applied correct legal test (Jyoti K.K. test) – No retrospective application of Government or PSC decisions unless made before issuance of recruitment notification [Para 9]

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgments in W.P.(C) Nos. 2159 and 12312 of 2025 set aside – Writ petitions dismissed – Orders of disqualification upheld – Government Orders relied upon by writ petitioners held incompetent and without binding effect on PSC.