Property Law – Religious Endowments – Ownership of Temple Lands – Sale of Trust Property – Second Appeal – Dismissal – Suit Properties measuring 8.24 acres alleged to belong to the plaintiffs, claimed through a trust established by their predecessors – Defendants contended that the properties were religious endowment lands dedicated to the Idol of Lord Vinayagar and governed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – Trial Court decreed the suit, holding the properties as private trust properties – On appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed the decision, holding that the properties were public trust properties – Second Appeal dismissed, affirming that the Suit Properties were religious endowment lands absolutely belonging to the Suit Idol and could not be alienated without requisite permissions under Section 34 of the HR & CE Act – Held: Sale Deed relied upon by plaintiffs was unregistered and invalid – Indian Trusts Act, 1882 not applicable – Permission under HR & CE Act or Civil Court proceedings required for alienation of endowment properties [Paras 11–22].

Religious Endowment – Dedication of Property to Idol – Original purchase of 1.90 acres by Nanjundaiyyar in 1895 for performing poojas to the Suit Idol, confirmed through subsequent Will and Trust Deed executed by successors – Dedication reiterated in 1960 Trust Deed by adopted son Sankararamaiyar, adding an additional 6.10 acres – Held: Suit Properties absolutely belong to the Suit Idol Lord Vinayagar, and Trustees or Managers merely act as custodians without alienation rights – Dedication treated as a religious endowment – Idol treated as a juristic person holding title [Paras 12–16, 21].

Property Alienation – Legal Requirements for Sale of Religious Endowment Property – Trustees of the Suit Idol initiated proceedings to sell the properties via Trust OP under Indian Trusts Act, 1882 – Permission obtained from the Principal District Court in Trust OP – Defendants and HR & CE Department not made parties to the proceedings – Sale consideration fixed below market value, and no public auction conducted – Held: Trust OP not maintainable as properties were governed by HR & CE Act and not Indian Trusts Act, 1882 – Sale deemed invalid and not binding on Idol or HR & CE Department – Alienation requires compliance with Section 34 of the HR & CE Act or approval from competent Civil Court [Paras 17, 21].

Documentary Evidence – Invalid Sale Deed and Agreement – Sale Deed (Ex-A.16) relied upon by plaintiffs was unregistered and inadmissible under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Sale Agreement (Ex-A.12) transferring possession without registration held invalid under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 – Held: Plaintiffs failed to acquire title or possessory rights over the properties based on these documents [Paras 18, 22].

Limitations and Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Suit not barred by limitation under Section 77 of the Registration Act, 1908, as plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and not statutory relief under that provision – Suit dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties, including Trustees and HR & CE Department [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Plaintiffs have no title or ownership over the Suit Properties – Held: Properties are religious endowment lands belonging to the Suit Idol – Sale and Trust OP proceedings invalid – No costs imposed due to case circumstances [Paras 22].
 

Civil Law - Permanent Injunction – Possession and Title – Concurrent Findings – The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against the defendant, claiming possession and ownership of the plaint schedule property. Both the trial and first appellate courts found that the plaintiff had proven possession and ownership through documentary evidence, including registered sale deeds and a mortgage with the State Bank of India. The courts rejected the defendant’s claim of title to a different property and found no misrepresentation of the suit schedule property. – Held: The plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction; appeal dismissed. [Paras 18–21]

Second Appeal – Scope of Section 100 of CPC – No Substantial Questions of Law – The High Court reiterated that it can interfere in a second appeal only when the findings of the lower courts are perverse, based on inadmissible evidence, or contrary to law. The findings of the trial and appellate courts were based on admissible evidence, and the appellant failed to establish any substantial questions of law. – Held: No grounds for interference; judgments of lower courts upheld. [Paras 16–21]

Admissions in Evidence – Boundaries of Suit Property – Defendant’s Admissions Affirm Plaintiff’s Case – The defendant admitted during cross-examination that the boundaries of the plaint schedule property matched the registered sale deed (Ex.A-1), supporting the plaintiff’s possession and ownership claims. These admissions further weakened the defendant's case. – Held: Plaintiff’s evidence corroborated; defendant’s case unsustainable. [Paras 18–20]

Decision: The second appeal was dismissed. The judgments and decrees of the trial court and first appellate court granting a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff were upheld.
 

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Proof of Ownership and Possession – Concurrent Findings – The plaintiffs, being legal heirs of late A.R. Lakshmaiah Naidu, sought partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule properties. The trial court decreed the suit based on evidence, including oral testimony and 35 exhibits, which proved the plaintiffs' entitlement. The defendant’s claim of ownership through a will was unsupported by evidence. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s findings. – Held: Plaintiffs entitled to partition and possession; judgments of lower courts affirmed. [Paras 18–26]

Second Appeal – Scope of Section 100 of CPC – No Substantial Questions of Law – The High Court emphasized that it can interfere in a second appeal only when substantial questions of law arise. The appellant failed to show that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on inadmissible evidence, contrary to law, or perverse. – Held: No substantial questions of law raised; appeal dismissed. [Paras 15–28]

Will – Proof of Execution – Burden of Proof on Propounder – The appellant claimed title to the property through a will but failed to produce the will or call attesting witnesses. The court applied the settled principle that where the propounder fails to prove the will in accordance with law, the claim must fail. – Held: Will not proved; appellant’s claim dismissed. [Paras 20–23]

Patta Claim – No Evidence to Support Ownership – The appellant argued that a DKT patta was issued for the property, but no patta or evidence was produced to substantiate the claim. The court reiterated that unsubstantiated oral claims cannot overturn concurrent findings based on evidence. – Held: Appellant’s claim of patta rejected. [Paras 24–25]

Decision: The second appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission, confirming the concurrent findings of the trial and first appellate courts. No substantial questions of law were found to warrant interference.
 

Criminal Procedure – Recording of Second Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Legal Validity – The prosecutrix's father moved an application for recording her second statement under Section 164 CrPC, claiming that the earlier statement was false and implicating the applicant would amount to abuse of process – Held: While the law permits recording of multiple statements under Section 164 CrPC, such requests must not be used to negate or defeat the earlier statements, especially when not sponsored by the investigating agency – Application dismissed [Paras 6–10].

Section 164 CrPC – Role of Investigating Agency in Requesting Statements – Statements under Section 164 CrPC should ideally be recorded when sponsored by the investigating agency – Allowing unsponsored applications may derail the investigation and result in the misuse of the provision – Magistrates have discretion to reject such applications when unsupported by valid reasons – Held: The Trial Court rightly dismissed the application for recording the prosecutrix’s second statement [Paras 7–9].

Protection of 164 CrPC Statements – Sanctity of Evidence – Safeguards Against Misuse – Recording multiple statements under Section 164 CrPC should be exceptional and subject to proper safeguards – Repeated statements risk diluting the evidentiary value and sanctity of the process – Held: The Court must balance the legal rights of witnesses with the sanctity of investigation – The application for recording a second statement was rightly rejected by the Trial Court [Paras 6–10].

Judicial Caution – Statements Without Investigating Agency’s Sponsorship – Supreme Court Guidance – Following precedents from Jogendra Nahak v. State of Orissa and Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, the Court reiterated that Magistrates should exercise caution in recording unsponsored statements under Section 164 CrPC – Held: The Magistrate was justified in rejecting the unsponsored application, as the investigating agency did not support the request for the second statement [Paras 7–10].

Decision: The application under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed. The Trial Court's decision rejecting the application for recording the second statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC is upheld. The Court emphasized that statements under Section 164 CrPC must not be misused to negate earlier statements and should be recorded only in exceptional circumstances when supported by the investigating agency [Paras 10–11].

Criminal Law - Adjournments – Excessive and Repeated Requests – Court’s Duty to Prevent Abuse of Process – Repeated adjournments sought by the petitioner/accused for leading defence evidence were granted, including a final opportunity on 11/11/2024 – Despite this, no evidence was produced on 21/12/2024 – Held: The petitioner’s conduct was aimed at delaying proceedings, and the order of the trial court closing the defence evidence is proper and justified [Paras 4-6, 9].

Fair Trial – Right to Lead Defence Evidence vs. Timely Justice – While the right to lead defence evidence is a fundamental component of a fair trial, it cannot be used as a tool to delay justice – The petitioner’s repeated failure to comply with court orders to produce defence evidence demonstrated gross negligence, justifying the closure of his right to lead evidence [Paras 7, 9].

Judicial Responsibility – Addressing Adjournment Culture – Courts have a duty to discourage adjournments granted in a mechanical or routine manner, which harm the justice delivery system – Reiterating the principles in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs. Gopal, (2021) 12 SCC 612, the Court emphasized the need to avoid delays that erode public trust in the judicial process and undermine the rule of law [Paras 7-8].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Speedy Remedy Undermined by Delays – The petitioner’s dilatory tactics in a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act undermined the efficacy of the Act, which is designed to provide a speedy remedy – Held: The trial court rightly refused to tolerate delays that obstruct the purpose of the law [Para 10].

Decision: The criminal revision petition is dismissed, and the impugned order dated 21/12/2024, closing the petitioner’s right to lead defence evidence, is upheld.
 

NDPS - Interim Custody of Seized Vehicle – Confiscation Not Automatic – Section 457 Cr.P.C. – Order Denying Custody Set Aside – The trial court erred in rejecting interim custody of the seized vehicle merely on the ground that it may be confiscated if the offence is proved – Confiscation is subject to trial and can only be ordered upon proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt – At the interim stage, denial of custody is unjustified [Paras 4-5].

Ownership of Seized Vehicle – Non-Accused Owner Entitled to Custody – No Evidence of Involvement in Crime – The petitioner was the registered owner of the vehicle, with hypothecation to Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited – He was not an accused in the case – Keeping the vehicle unused at the police station or court premises would lead to deterioration – Held, the rightful owner is entitled to interim custody subject to conditions ensuring production of the vehicle when required [Paras 5-6].

Trial Court’s Order – Lack of Proper Legal Reasoning – Erroneous Interpretation of Confiscation Law – The trial court incorrectly presumed that the vehicle would necessarily be confiscated – Confiscation arises only upon conviction, not at the stage of investigation or trial – Held, the trial court’s reasoning was legally flawed, and interim custody should have been granted [Paras 4-6].

Decision: The criminal revision case is allowed, and the trial court’s order is set aside. The trial court is directed to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner upon execution of a self-bond for the vehicle’s value, as assessed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, along with two sureties of like amount. The petitioner must also execute an undertaking not to alienate, transfer ownership, or make any physical modifications to the vehicle. Further, the petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the trial court until the final disposal of the case.
 

Matrimonial Law - Divorce – Cruelty – Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – The respondent-husband filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty, citing that the appellant-wife displayed unruly behavior, threatened suicide, and created disturbances at the matrimonial home – The appellant denied these allegations and, in turn, claimed that she was subjected to physical abuse and forced to consume poison – The Family Court found that the allegations of cruelty were established and granted divorce – Held: Findings of cruelty by the Family Court were justified based on evidence presented, and no interference is warranted [Paras 2.2, 5-6].

False Allegations – Filing of Section 498-A IPC Case – Impact on Divorce – The appellant filed a criminal complaint under Section 498-A IPC against the respondent and his family after the filing of the divorce petition – The respondent and his parents were acquitted – The High Court, relying on Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2023 SC) and K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013 SC), held that false allegations leading to acquittal amount to mental cruelty, justifying the grant of divorce [Paras 2.2, 6].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Long Period of Separation – The parties had been separated for 23 years since 2001, and the marriage had irretrievably broken down – Relying on Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (2003 SC) and Jorden Diengdeh v. S.S. Chopra (1985 SC), the High Court observed that prolonged separation is a strong indicator of irretrievable breakdown, which is a valid ground for divorce – Held: The appeal lacks merit, as the long separation further justifies the decree of divorce [Paras 7-9].

Alimony – Right of Wife to Withdraw Maintenance Amount – The Family Court had ordered alimony, which was deposited by the respondent – The High Court directed that the appellant-wife is permitted to withdraw the amount from the Family Court, Vadodara – Held: The respondent’s obligation towards alimony remains intact [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Divorce Granted on Grounds of Cruelty – Wife Permitted to Withdraw Alimony from Family Court – The Family Court’s findings were upheld, as the allegations of cruelty were supported by evidence – The long separation and the false criminal complaint further justified the decree of divorce [Paras 9-10].
 

Civil Law - Limitation – Time-barred Claims – Section 31, State Financial Corporations Act – A petition for recovery of dues filed 22 years after foreclosure and 6 years after the last payment without acknowledgment of debt is barred by limitation – Held: The petitioner failed to establish any renewal of guarantees or acknowledgment of debt within the limitation period; claim dismissed as time-barred [Paras 3, 11, 13].

Recovery under Section 31 – Requirements for Mortgage Validity – For invoking Section 31, the petitioner must establish the existence of a validly executed and registered mortgage or hypothecation – Held: The properties of respondents 4 and 6 were not legally mortgaged as the mortgage deed was signed by company directors and not the property owners; hence, the petition is not maintainable [Paras 11, 13].

Competency of Witness – Authorization and Evidence Admissibility – A corporate petitioner must be represented by an authorized officer under a valid Board resolution – Held: The Junior Officer representing the petitioner lacked proper authorization; his evidence was inadmissible, rendering the petition unsustainable [Paras 14, 15].

Breakup of Loan Amounts and Repayment Details – Lack of Specifics – The petition did not provide a clear breakup of the sanctioned amounts, repayments, and interest calculations for term loans and hire purchase loans – Held: The absence of material details and unexplained inflated claim of ₹1842 crores for loans of less than ₹2 crores demonstrates suppression of material facts and renders the claim illegal and misleading [Paras 8-10, 15].

Application of Bankers' Book Evidence Act – Financial statements must comply with the Bankers' Book Evidence Act, including proper certification – Held: The petitioner's financial records were uncertified, and the witness was unable to explain entries or substantiate the claim, rendering the evidence unreliable [Para 15].

Decision: The petition was dismissed as time-barred, unsubstantiated, and devoid of merit. The court held that the petitioner failed to comply with statutory requirements under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, lacked proper evidence, and did not establish valid mortgages or guarantees. The inflated claim of ₹1842 crores was also deemed misleading.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Compounding of Offence – Effect on Conviction – The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 NI Act for dishonour of a cheque for ₹8,85,000/- – The conviction and sentence were upheld by the appellate court – During pendency of the revision, parties amicably settled the dispute and entered into a Joint Memorandum of Compromise – Held: As the offence under Section 138 NI Act is compoundable under Section 147, the conviction and sentence are set aside – The petitioner is acquitted on account of the compromise [Paras 44-48].

Power of High Court to Compound Offences at Revisional Stage – Scope of Section 147 NI Act – The High Court has the power to permit compounding at any stage of proceedings, including during revision, as Section 147 NI Act overrides Section 320 Cr.P.C. – Judicial precedents support the view that compounding can be allowed even after conviction to meet the ends of justice – Held: The High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, can permit compounding and quash the conviction [Paras 33-38, 46].

Withdrawal of Deposited Amount – Direction to Trial Court – The petitioner had deposited ₹4,42,500/- before the trial court as part of the appellate process – The respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount with accrued interest, if any, within four weeks [Paras 51-52].

Decision: The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of in terms of the Memorandum of Compromise – The conviction and sentence imposed by the XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, and confirmed by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, are annulled – The petitioner is acquitted – The respondent is permitted to withdraw ₹4,42,500/- from the trial court with accrued interest [Paras 48-53].