Tenancy Law – Decree of Eviction – Original lease deed not marked as exhibit – Certified copy challenged – Appellant argued for applicability of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – Appellate court upheld the trial court’s judgment dismissing appeal – No notice of renewal issued by appellant – Acceptance of rent post-lease expiry did not imply assent to continued tenancy [Paras 1-19].

Admissibility of Evidence – Certified Copy of Lease Deed – Appellant custodian of original lease deed – Certified copy authenticated by appellant’s officer admitted in evidence – No objection during trial – No prejudice caused to appellant – Admission of facts by appellant negates challenge [Paras 10-12].

Renewal of Lease – Clause 14 of Lease Deed – Requirement of notice for renewal – No notice given by appellant – Lease expired – Appellant’s failure to follow procedure – No illegality in eviction decree [Paras 14-16].

Applicability of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – Rent exceeding Rs. 10,000/- per month – Act not applicable – Tenant at sufferance [Paras 5, 17].

Arbitration Clause – Waiver by parties – No objection to suit without arbitration – Appellant's inaction implies waiver [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Decree of eviction affirmed – No costs awarded – Urgent Photostat certified copies to be provided on compliance [Paras 19-20].

Rejection of Plaint – Limitation and Court Fees – Appeal challenging rejection of plaint on the basis of being barred by limitation and inadequately stamped – Plaintiff executed sale deeds under misrepresentation – Claimed sale deeds intended as security for a loan, to be re-conveyed upon repayment – Defendant argued the suit barred by Article 59 of the Limitation Act, three-year period from sale execution – High Court emphasized meaningful reading of the plaint, found the limitation period began from alleged fraud discovery, not sale date – Undervaluation of relief addressed at trial, not ground for initial rejection [Paras 1-21].
Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Interpretation – Pleadings in plaint alone to determine cause of action and limitation – High Court stressed the necessity of examining whether facts in the plaint constitute cause of action – Observed that limitations and adequacy of court fees are mixed questions of fact and law, inappropriate for summary rejection at initial stage [Paras 12-20].
Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court set aside trial court’s order rejecting the plaint – Suit restored for trial on merits – Directed trial court to dispose of the suit without influence from prior observations – Emphasized that detailed scrutiny of pleadings should await trial, not preempted by procedural technicalities [Para 21].
 

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Essential Ingredients – Mens Rea – Petitioner’s reluctance to marry deceased after engagement and harsh communication leading to her suicide – Examination of mental process and direct acts of instigation or aid necessary for conviction under Section 306 IPC – Charge-sheet and statements lack sufficient evidence to establish essential ingredients of the offence – Cognizance quashed [Paras 1-17].

Mens Rea in Abetment of Suicide – Requirement of Direct or Active Act – No clear evidence of instigation or direct act by petitioner leading to deceased’s suicide – Psychological and societal pressures examined – Legal precedents applied emphasizing the necessity of clear mens rea and direct instigation for conviction under Section 306 IPC [Paras 10-14].

Evidence – Admissibility of Statements – Res Gestae – Immediate disclosure of facts by the victim before her death admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act – However, discrepancies in statements and lack of precise conversation details between petitioner and deceased weaken the prosecution’s case [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Order of Cognizance and Related Proceedings Quashed – Held – Lack of clear mens rea and direct act of instigation by petitioner – Emotional and psychological aspects considered but not sufficient for penal liability under Section 306 IPC – Petitioner’s reluctance to marry does not constitute criminal offence [Paras 15-17].
 

Motor Accident Claims – Contributory Negligence – Compensation – The insurance company contested the award of compensation to the claimants on the grounds of contributory negligence by the driver of the deceased’s vehicle – The Court held that the insurance company failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim of contributory negligence – Affirmed the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 74,94,600/- with interest at 6% per annum – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-27].

Contributory Negligence – Proof Requirements – The insurance company must provide direct or corroborative evidence to prove contributory negligence – Mere allegations or assumptions are insufficient – The evidence showed the truck was parked without any lights or indicators in violation of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, making it primarily responsible for the accident [Paras 18-24].

Negligence – Parking Regulations – Violation of Central Motor Vehicles Rules by the stationary truck was a significant factor – The truck was parked on the highway without the required parking lights or indicators, contributing to the accident – Compliance with parking regulations is critical for determining liability in road accidents [Paras 25-26].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Tribunal’s award affirmed – Directed the disbursement of the deposited compensation to the claimants along with accrued interest – Payment of compensation subject to ascertainment of deficit court fee, if any [Paras 27-32].

Property Law – Possession and Title – Plaintiffs sought direction for defendants to vacate and deliver possession of property and pay damages for illegal occupation – Defendants claimed property was ancestral and sale by predecessor was invalid – Court found sale deed executed by Mehanatha Mudaliar in 1995 valid and binding, plaintiffs perfected title – Defendants’ possession unlawful, suit decreed in favor of plaintiffs [Paras 18-27].

Ancestral Property – Validity of Settlement Deed – Defendants contended property was ancestral and settlement deed executed in 1953 was non-est – Court held settlement deed and subsequent sale deeds binding – Plaintiffs established title through sale deeds, revenue records, and statutory payments – Defendants failed to counterclaim or challenge settlement deed within limitation period [Paras 19-27].

Permanent Injunction – Alienation and Alteration – Plaintiffs sought permanent injunction to restrain defendants from alienating or altering property – Court granted injunction, holding plaintiffs’ title affirmed and they are entitled to recover possession and prevent unauthorized changes to property [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Suit decreed with costs – Defendants directed to vacate and hand over vacant possession within four weeks – Permanent injunctions granted as prayed.
 

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction and Sentencing – Appellant convicted for the murder of his father and nephew and for destruction of evidence – Acquittal of co-accused (appellant’s mother) due to lack of evidence – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence found unreliable – Trial Court’s judgment set aside due to lack of conclusive proof and inconsistencies in witness testimonies [Paras 1-15].

Witness Testimony – Reliability – Witnesses PW1 (daughter of deceased and mother of another deceased) and PW2 (neighbor) – PW1 turned hostile, not supporting prosecution’s case – PW2’s testimony on motive found insufficient – Inconsistencies and delays in statements of key witnesses (PW8, PW9, PW10) undermined their reliability [Paras 8-10].

Motive – Insufficient Proof – Prosecution failed to establish motive convincingly – PW1’s hostility and PW2’s uncertain testimony did not support the alleged property dispute as motive – Document (Ex.P15) did not establish motive for murder [Paras 7-8].

Discovery of Evidence – Doubtful Credibility – Gunny bags containing deceased’s bodies allegedly discovered based on appellant’s confession – Inconsistencies in timing and involvement of police and witnesses (PW11, PW15, PW17, PW18) cast doubt on discovery’s credibility – No conclusive evidence that discovery was based on appellant’s information [Paras 11-12].

Defense of Alibi – Appellant’s Claim – Appellant and acquitted co-accused (A2) claimed to be in Thiruvannamalai at the time of the incident – Appellant’s claim not disproved by prosecution – DW1’s (A2’s) testimony supported appellant’s alibi, creating reasonable doubt [Para 13].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentences imposed on the appellant in S.C.No.32 of 2017 dated 12.12.2019 set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Ordered immediate release unless required in connection with any other case – Refund of fine amount, if paid – Bail bond discharged [Para 15].
 

Property Law – Will Disputes – Appellant challenged the Lower Appellate Court's decision, which found Ex.X1 Will genuine and Ex.B1 Will suspicious – Lower Court’s appreciation of evidence upheld – Appellate Court's modification corrected to align with the terms of Ex.X1 Will – Second appeal dismissed and cross-objection partly allowed [Paras 1-32].

Genuineness of Wills – Evidence and Suspicion – Ex.X1 Will executed by the testator Mari Chettiar in favor of plaintiffs, Ex.B1 Will in favor of the first defendant – Trial Court’s erroneous preference for Ex.B1 corrected by Appellate Court – Ex.B1 found shrouded with suspicion due to lack of reference to earlier Will and non-registration [Paras 11-24].

Partition – Shares Allocation – Trial Court dismissed suit – Appellate Court partially allowed appeal but did not allocate shares per Ex.X1 Will – High Court rectified this, granting plaintiffs 1/6th share each and an additional 1/6th share to the second plaintiff from the testator's share [Para 31].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Cross Objection allowed to the extent of proper shares allocation as per Ex.X1 Will – No costs – CMP No. 13232 of 2021 closed [Para 32].
 

Hostile Witnesses – Evidentiary Value – Reliance on Admissible Portion – The Court held that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded entirely and must be considered with due care. The admissible portion of PW-5’s testimony, corroborated by other reliable witnesses, indicated that the appellants had kidnapped the deceased. [Paras 9-10, 12-14].

Circumstantial Evidence – Delay in Lodging FIR – The trial court observed no undue delay in lodging the FIR and found the evidence regarding the kidnapping and subsequent murder of the deceased credible, notwithstanding the partial hostility of PW-5 and PW-6. [Paras 9, 13-14].

Burden of Proof – Homicidal Death – The Court reiterated that once the kidnapping is proved and the deceased is found dead, the burden shifts to the accused to explain the cause of death, which they failed to do. The conviction under Sections 302, 364, and 201 IPC was upheld based on the evidence and the failure of the accused to rebut the prosecution’s case. [Para 14].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The High Court confirmed the trial court’s judgment, dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment and fines for the offences under Sections 302, 364, and 201 IPC. [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appeal against conviction for murder – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for brutally killing Vinod Kumar – Trial court’s judgment based on eye-witness testimonies and corroborative evidence upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-23].

Witness Testimony – Interested Witnesses – Evidence of PWs 1 to 3 scrutinized despite their relationship with the deceased – Court finds their testimonies reliable and corroborated by circumstantial evidence – The presence of eye witnesses at the crime scene confirmed by timely FIR and inquest report [Paras 13-22].

FIR and Inquest Report – Timeliness and accuracy – FIR lodged within short time after the incident – Inquest report conducted soon after FIR, listing the same eyewitnesses – Validates the presence of witnesses and the occurrence of the crime as described [Paras 20-22].

Motive – Political Disputes – Political rivalry between the families of the accused and deceased traced back to 2006 MPTC elections – Despite the lapse of time, lingering enmity considered credible motive – Court emphasizes that motive is secondary to direct evidence [Paras 13-14].

Section 313 Cr.P.C. Examination – Accused’s denial and alternative defense rejected – Court finds no merit in the appellant’s claims – Accused’s defense of false implication due to political rivalry dismissed based on strong evidence [Paras 15-19].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and life sentence affirmed – No costs [Para 23].