Partition – Joint Family Property – Second Appeal – Divergent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court – Trial Court decreed suit for partition holding that suit schedule properties were ancestral and joint family properties and that alleged oral partition of 1972 and registered partition deed dated 21.12.2004 were not binding on plaintiffs – First Appellate Court reversed the decree holding that parties had already partitioned in 1972 and acted upon the same – High Court reappreciating evidence in light of substantial questions of law – Held: Findings of First Appellate Court erroneous and unsustainable – Judgment of Trial Court restored [Paras 1, 16, 31–32].

Partition – Proof of Prior Oral Partition – Unregistered Palupatti dated 03.11.1972 – Evidentiary Value – Defendants relied on unregistered document to contend severance of joint family – No cogent documentary evidence showing allotment of specific shares or mutation pursuant to 1972 partition – Revenue records and RTCs continued to reflect joint names of parties – Held: Mere plea of oral partition without reliable corroboration insufficient to prove earlier partition [Paras 4, 7, 24, 30].

Registered Partition Deed – Allegation of Fraud and Incapacity – Partition deed dated 21.12.2004 – Plaintiffs pleaded that their father was illiterate, aged, suffering from burn injuries and was taken to Sub-Registrar’s Office in an autorickshaw – Evidence of DWs admitted poor health and burn injuries of executant – No recital in registered deed regarding prior partition of 1972 – Held: Circumstances surrounding execution raise serious doubt about free and conscious consent – Trial Court rightly held partition deed not binding on plaintiffs [Paras 19–20, 25, 29–30].

Joint Re-grant of Inam Lands – Effect – Properties re-granted jointly in favour of plaintiffs’ father and defendant under Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act – Mutation entries and RTCs showed joint cultivation and possession – Subsequent grant in sole name of defendant did not negate earlier joint cultivation evidenced by records – Held: Suit properties retained joint family character and were liable for partition [Paras 18, 23–24, 31].

Evidence – Documentary Evidence versus Oral Testimony – Registered documents and revenue records showing joint names prevailed over interested oral testimony of defence witnesses – DWs found to be interested and inconsistent – Admissions by defendants regarding joint execution of sale deeds and joint dealings – Held: Trial Court correctly appreciated evidence; First Appellate Court misdirected itself in law [Paras 25–30].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – Whether First Appellate Court justified in reversing Trial Court decree without material proof of earlier partition – High Court held that reversal was based on inadmissible and insufficient evidence – Interference justified to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 11, 16, 31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 07.02.2020 set aside – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 19.07.2019 restored.

Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 – Compounding of Offence – Section 41 FCRA – Effect of Compounding – The petitioner received foreign contribution without prior permission, which was a technical contravention of the FCRA – The offence was subsequently compounded by the Ministry of Home Affairs upon payment of a compounding fee – Once an offence is compounded under Section 41 of the FCRA, the slate is wiped clean, and the contravention cannot be cited as an adverse ground for rejecting a registration application – To disqualify an applicant on this ground after compounding would be disproportionate and a failure to consider relevant material – The authority failed to clarify that compounding would only shield from prosecution but lead to disqualification under Section 12(4)(a)(vii) – The impugned order is set aside on this ground [Paras 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19].

Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 – Religious Organization – Section 11(1) FCRA – Interpretation of "definite cultural, economic, educational, religious or social programme" – The respondent rejected the application stating the petitioner-organization "appears to be religious" based on its engagement in imparting Bhagavad Gita and Vedanta – Section 11(1) allows religious organizations to receive foreign contributions if registered – The authority must form a "definite" conclusion based on materials, not a tentative one – Bhagavad Gita and Vedanta are not confined to a specific religion but are part of Bharatiya civilization and moral science, as held in 2007 SCC OnLine All 1301 (Shyamal Renjan Mukherjee v. Nirmal Ranjan Mukherjee) and 2014 SCC OnLine All 15395 (Indian Academy of Naturopathy and Yoga v. State of UP) regarding Yoga – The petitioner is also registered as a charitable organization under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is a relevant material – The impugned order is set aside on this ground [Paras 5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19].

Writ Jurisdiction – Alternative Remedy – Article 226 Constitution of India – Section 31(2) FCRA – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Despite the availability of an appeal under Section 31(2) of the FCRA to the High Court, a writ petition is maintainable if there is a fundamental breach of natural justice or the impugned order suffers from disproportionality – The Supreme Court in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1129 (Rikhab Chand Jain v. UOI) held that while refusal to entertain a writ petition is the rule when the alternative forum is the High Court itself, it can be an exception in cases of fundamental breach of natural justice or disproportionality – The impugned order in this case suffers from both, making the writ petition maintainable [Paras 17, 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order set aside – Matter remitted to the second respondent for fresh consideration within three months, taking into account all relevant materials and observations made in this order, after issuing a fresh notice to the petitioner regarding the alleged transfer of FC funds [Paras 19, 20].

Education Law – Student Union Elections – Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations – Petitioners sought mandamus for annual conduct of Student Union elections within 6–8 weeks of commencement of academic session as per Lyngdoh Committee – Court examined scope, enforceability and present applicability of recommendations in light of academic exigencies and institutional autonomy [Paras 1–3, 14–21].

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Locus Standi – Writ petitions filed by a handful of students without representative authorization – Held: Petitioners lacked locus standi to espouse cause of lakhs of students across State – Petitions not framed as PIL – Individual writs seeking representative relief not maintainable [Paras 43–44.1].

Writ Jurisdiction – Prematurity – Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies – Petitioners failed to approach Dean, Student Welfare or University Election Authorities prior to invoking writ jurisdiction – No representation, grievance or adverse decision on record – Held: Courts do not issue writs in vacuum or at pre-decisional stage – Petitions premature [Paras 43–44.4].

Fundamental Rights – Articles 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(c) – Scope – Right to freedom of speech and association does not translate into an enforceable fundamental right to demand conduct of Student Union elections at a particular time – Participation in elections held to be statutory/administrative, not absolute fundamental right [Paras 23–25, 34–36].

Academic Autonomy vs Student Democracy – Doctrine of Balance – Student elections recognized as beneficial for democratic values and leadership – However, academic primacy, discipline and institutional harmony held paramount – Elections are ancillary to core academic mandate and must not disrupt educational ecosystem [Paras 41–42].

Lyngdoh Committee – Binding Nature – Court noted conflicting submissions on continued enforceability of Lyngdoh Committee recommendations post dismissal of University of Kerala appeal – Declined to issue mandamus enforcing elections for current academic year – Issue left to be addressed through institutional mechanisms [Paras 32–33, 52].

Prospective Directions – Judicial Guidelines – Despite dismissal of writs, Court issued extensive prospective directions in aid of good governance – Universities directed to evolve consultative and transparent mechanism for future conduct of Student Union elections – Directions issued under constitutional role of Court as sentinel on the qui vive [Paras 45–61].

Directions to Students – Grievance Redressal Mechanism – Students directed to first approach University authorities (DSW/Election Board) – Mandatory hearing to be afforded – Special meeting directed to be convened on 19.01.2026 for consultation with student representatives and affiliated colleges [Paras 47–49].

Directions to Universities and State – Accountability – Universities directed to maintain Election Boards, ensure transparency in use of election-related fees, and follow principles of natural justice – Decision on election framework to be taken within 15 days of consultative meeting [Paras 50–51].

Prospective Conduct of Elections – Court refrained from directing elections for academic year 2025–26 as session at fag end – Directed future election calendars to be issued ordinarily in March – Deviations to be supported by cogent reasons – Mode of elections to comply with RUSU Guidelines, 2017 [Paras 52–53].

Campus Discipline – Political Interference – Court cautioned against external political influence (ABVP, NSUI, SFI, etc.) – Student elections to remain student-centric – Age limits, expenditure caps and disclosure norms to be strictly enforced [Para 52(e)].

Use of University Infrastructure – General Elections – Court issued prospective directions to Election Commission of India and civil authorities to avoid requisitioning Universities as polling/counting centres where it disrupts academics – Academic calendars to be respected, especially under semester system [Paras 54–60].

Decision: Writ Petitions dismissed as not maintainable and premature – No mandamus issued for conduct of Student Union elections for academic year 2025–26 – Extensive prospective guidelines issued to students, Universities, State Government and Election Commission – Registrar (Judicial) directed to forward judgment to concerned authorities – No order as to costs [Paras 44–65].

SARFAESI Act – Parallel Proceedings – Constructive Res Judicata – Petitioners challenged SARFAESI actions under Sections 13(2), 13(4), and 14 after having unsuccessfully litigated in earlier writ petitions and appeals up to the Supreme Court – Held: Present writ petition barred by constructive res judicata – Petitioners impermissibly sought to relitigate issues already adjudicated finally in earlier proceedings [Paras 24-25].

Res Judicata – Fragmented Litigation – Abuse of Process – Petitioners’ attempt to question the validity of SARFAESI proceedings afresh without disclosing full litigation history amounted to strategic fragmentation – Held: Parties must place all claims and defences in one proceeding – Piecemeal litigation burdens the judicial system and is legally barred under the Henderson Principle and Explanation VII to Section 11 CPC [Paras 24-25].

Judicial Discipline – Finality of Adjudication – Prior Dismissal by Apex Court – Petitioners had already pursued writ petitions, writ appeals, review petitions, and SLP before the Supreme Court which were all dismissed – Held: Judicial discipline demands that concluded controversies not be reopened under the guise of new technical challenges [Para 4].

Writ Appeal – Non-Prosecution – Appeal Dismissed – Despite multiple opportunities and adjournments, appellants repeatedly failed to appear and prosecute the appeal – Final hearing saw no representation – Held: Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution – Application to implead legal heirs also dismissed [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution – I.A. No. 1 of 2025 (for impleading legal heirs of deceased appellant) also dismissed – Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 28.07.2025 upheld [Para 11].

Criminal Law - Electricity Act, 2003 – Theft of Electric Lines – Conviction – Accused convicted for theft of copper wires from 66 K.V. electricity transmission line under Section 136 of Electricity Act read with Section 379 IPC – Prosecution proved interruption of supply, theft of 800 meters of copper wire and recovery of stolen material at the instance of accused – Conviction upheld [Paras 2, 18–21].

Criminal Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – Recovery at Instance of Accused – Evidence of complainant (Junior Engineer, KPTCL), Assistant Lineman and Investigating Officer found cogent and reliable – Recovery of stolen copper wires and tools from Tata Sumo vehicle and forest area proved through seizure and spot mahazars – Hostility of some recovery witnesses does not demolish prosecution case when official and corroborative evidence inspires confidence [Paras 10–15, 18–20].

Hostile Witnesses – Effect – Independent witnesses to recovery mahazar (PWs.6 to 8) turned hostile – Held: Prosecution case does not fail merely because panch witnesses turned hostile when recovery is otherwise proved through trustworthy evidence of Investigating Officer and other witnesses [Paras 15–20].

Section 136 Electricity Act – Ingredients – Proof – Prosecution established dishonest intention, unauthorised removal of electric property, identification of stolen wires belonging to KPTCL and lack of consent of owner/licensee – Essential ingredients of offence proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 8, 18–20].

Probation of Offenders Act – Applicability – Benefit of probation declined considering nature of offence involving organised theft of public utility property and gravity of economic loss caused to State electricity infrastructure [Para 5].

Criminal Procedure – Set-off – Section 428 Cr.P.C. – Accused arrested on 25.09.2010 and remained in custody till release on bail on 13.09.2012 – Having already undergone one year, eleven months and eighteen days of sentence out of two years imposed – Held: Entitled to set-off of period of detention under Section 428 Cr.P.C. [Paras 22–27].

Sentence – Modification – Conviction confirmed – Sentence modified by granting set-off for period already undergone – No useful purpose in remanding accused to custody for remaining few days [Paras 26–27].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Section 136 Electricity Act and Section 379 IPC confirmed – Sentence modified by granting benefit of set-off – Appellants directed to be set at liberty if not required in any other case – Bail bonds cancelled [Order].

Service Law – Regularization of Teachers – Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 – Section 57(A)(6) – Quashing of rejection order – The State Government rejected the University's proposal for confirmation of 67 teachers, including the petitioners, on the ground that Section 57(A)(6) of the Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2015, was not applicable to teachers of affiliated colleges receiving deficit grant-in-aid, but only to those receiving performance-based grants – The Court held that the Preamble to the 2017 amendment of Section 57(A)(6) abolished the "Vitta Rahit Shiksha Niti" and intended scrutiny of all teachers appointed without Bihar College Service Commission recommendation, without distinction based on the type of grant – The State's distinction was found to be misplaced and arbitrary – The impugned rejection order was quashed – The State was directed to release grants for salary and other allowances – The High Court's earlier judgments in Balram Pandey v. The State of Bihar and Ghanshyam Jha & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors., which quashed similar rejection orders and attained finality upon dismissal of LPAs and SLPs, were relied upon – The Court found no reason to take a divergent view – The State was directed to conduct similar exercise for the petitioners – Final Holding: The State's rejection of regularization and salary release based on the type of grant is arbitrary and contrary to the legislative intent of Section 57(A)(6) [Paras 51-58, 60-62].

Constitutional Law – Right to Livelihood – Article 21 – Forced Labour – Article 23 – Withholding of Salary – The State Government arbitrarily withheld salaries of teachers whose services were regularized by the University, without issuing any order for their removal – The Court held that no person can be asked to perform duties without being paid their due salary – Such action is in defiance of the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and amounts to "forced labour" under Article 23 – The actions of the respondents were highly deprecated – The Supreme Court's dictum in Man Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., holding that salary must be paid for duties discharged even if the appointment is irregular, was cited – Final Holding: Withholding of salary for duly discharged duties, especially after regularization, violates Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution [Paras 59, 97].

Service Law – Appointment of Teachers in Constituent Colleges – Prior Approval of State Government – Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 – Section 35 – The State contended that regularization of temporary teachers in constituent colleges was not possible as relevant statutes were declared ultra vires in Shiv Narain Yadav v. State of Bihar & Ors., and that prior approval of the State Government was required – The Court relied on the Division Bench judgment in Braj Kishore Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., which held that prior approval of the State Government is not required when the post is already sanctioned and the appointment is made after advertisement and interview – The Court noted that the issues were put to rest by coordinate bench judgments which quashed similar rejection orders based on Braj Kishore Singh (supra) – Final Holding: Post-facto approval of the State Government is not required for appointments against sanctioned posts in constituent colleges, and regularization based on due process is valid [Paras 89-90, 93-96].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned orders rejecting the proposals for confirmation of services and release of grants were quashed – The State Government was directed to release funds for payment of salaries and pensionary benefits in terms of UGC pay-scale to the petitioners of all writ petitions within a period of two months – Paras [62, 63, 97, 98].

Execution of Decree – Confirmation of Possession – Recovery of Possession Permissible – Decree holder obtained decree for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction – After finality of decree, judgment debtor forcibly entered into possession – Held: Such conduct amounts to obstruction – Executing Court rightly directed eviction to enforce decree – A decree of confirmation of possession, once violated, can be enforced by removal of obstruction [Paras 6, 8, 17–18]

Civil Procedure – Section 47 CPC – Repeated Applications – Judgment debtor filed multiple applications under Section 47 CPC on same grounds after rejection of earlier ones – Held: Such repeated objections barred by principle akin to res judicata – Supreme Court’s directions in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi followed – Frivolous objections to execution to be sternly dealt with [Paras 5, 14–15]

Limitation – Execution of Decree – Applicability of Article 136 – Petitioners contended execution was barred by limitation – Court held decree also involved permanent injunction, and thus not governed by 12-year limitation under Article 136 – Execution was within time as obstruction occurred post-second appeal – Held: Enforcement of perpetual injunction not time-barred [Paras 8–9, 19]

Interpretation of Decree – Executing Court’s Role – Judgment debtor contended that eviction not permissible as decree lacked specific direction for possession – Court held: Executing Court can interpret decree to determine its enforceability, especially when decree holder’s possession was confirmed and later obstructed – Relief sought does not go beyond decree but seeks its enforcement [Paras 21–22]

Abuse of Process – Judgment Debtor’s Tactics – Repeated filing of objections and technical pleas by judgment debtor seen as an attempt to delay and frustrate decree – Held: Courts cannot allow decree holder to be driven to file fresh suit when earlier decree has attained finality – Conduct of judgment debtor amounted to abuse of process [Paras 1, 17–18, 23]

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Petition dismissed – Executing Court’s and Revisional Court’s orders upheld – Decree holder entitled to recover possession in enforcement of decree confirming possession and restraining interference – Executing Court directed to conclude proceedings within two months.

Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion – Wife’s abusive conduct, repeated complaints, abandonment of child and refusal to cohabit proved – Custody of minor child with father upheld – Permanent alimony of Rs.20,000 per month justified – Appeals dismissed [Paras 17–24].

Cruelty – Section 13(1)(i-a), Hindu Marriage Act – Mental Cruelty – Evidence established that wife used abusive and derogatory language towards husband and his parents, filed multiple complaints before various forums, disrupted panchayaths and conciliation proceedings, and consistently expressed unwillingness to continue marital life – Conduct not ordinary wear and tear of marriage but grave and weighty – Finding of cruelty by Family Court affirmed [Paras 13–17, 19].

Desertion – Section 13(1)(i-b), Hindu Marriage Act – Animus Deserendi – Wife admitted living separately since 30.04.2014 – Continuous separation for more than two years preceding filing of petition established – No bona fide effort to resume cohabitation – Ingredients of desertion satisfied – Decree of divorce rightly granted [Paras 13.8, 18, 20].

Child Custody – Guardians and Wards Act – Welfare of Child – Minor daughter abandoned by mother in 2014 and remained continuously in custody of father and paternal grandparents – Child cared for by father since infancy – Mother sought custody only after matrimonial dispute escalated – No evidence of incapacity of father or grandparents – Custody with father held to be legal and in the best interest of the child – Only visitation rights to mother upheld [Paras 17–18.1].

Conduct of Mother – Abandonment of Child – Evidence including Ex.P6 showed wife voluntarily relinquished custody of minor child during conciliation proceedings – Lack of emotional attachment and unwillingness to care for child established – Subsequent custody proceedings held not bona fide [Paras 13.2–13.6, 17].

Maintenance – Interim and Permanent Alimony – Sections 24 and 25, Hindu Marriage Act – Husband earning Rs.2,14,398/- per month and wife earning Rs.38,200/- per month – Husband bearing responsibility of minor child and aged parents – Permanent alimony of Rs.20,000/- per month reasonable and proportionate – No material change in circumstances shown – Maintenance order upheld [Paras 21–22].

Appellate Interference – Family Court Findings – Concurrent findings based on oral and documentary evidence – No perversity or misreading of evidence demonstrated – Appellate court declined to reappreciate evidence merely because an alternative view is possible [Paras 14–16, 24].

Decision: MFA No. 645 of 2024, MFA No. 546 of 2024 and MFA No. 1681 of 2024 dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 04/12/2023 passed by the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru affirmed – Decree of divorce upheld – Custody of minor child with father confirmed – Permanent alimony of Rs.20,000/- per month sustained – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of – No order as to costs [Paras 24].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Cognizance Order – Appellant not named in FIR alleging fraudulent transfer of agricultural land allotted in 1997 – Cognizance/summoning order passed mechanically without specific role or prima facie material – Held: Cognizance order dated 20.03.2023 suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be quashed [Paras 20, 22, 23, 24]

Criminal Law – IPC Offences – Cheating, Forgery, Criminal Conspiracy – Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B IPC – No evidence of dishonest intention at inception or use of forged documents by appellant – Allegations vague and omnibus – No mens rea or overt act established – Held: Basic ingredients of offences not satisfied – Criminal prosecution cannot rest on assumptions or conjecture [Paras 12, 18, 24]

SC/ST Act – Section 3(1)(f) – Applicability – FIR silent on caste-based motive – No specific allegation that act was committed because of the victim’s SC status – Land dispute not sufficient to invoke the Act – Held: Invocation of SC/ST Act provisions mechanical and legally unsustainable [Paras 13, 19, 30]

Investigation – Fabricated Evidence – Witnesses shown in charge sheet had died before investigation – IO shown to have recorded statements of deceased persons – Held: Investigation tainted, unfair and unreliable – Material irregularity vitiating entire proceedings [Paras 8, 24]

Delay – FIR lodged in 2022 for land transactions of 1997 – Unexplained delay of over two decades – No civil or revenue proceedings initiated for cancellation of allegedly fraudulent pattas – Held: Inordinate and unexplained delay fatal to prosecution case – Criminal proceedings afterthought and abuse of process [Paras 11, 26, 27, 32]

Civil vs. Criminal Dispute – Predominantly revenue and civil dispute regarding pattas and land transfers – No foundational adjudication or evidence of criminality – Held: Dispute of civil nature cannot be converted into criminal prosecution – Proceedings quashed [Paras 5, 17, 25, 31]

Parity – Co-accused granted similar relief in earlier proceedings – Role of appellant not distinguishable – Held: Appellant entitled to same benefit – Prosecution against appellant discriminatory and arbitrary [Paras 25]

Abuse of Process – Continuing proceedings would result in miscarriage of justice – Held: Criminal proceedings amount to abuse of process and are liable to be quashed [Paras 33–34]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Cognizance/summoning order dated 20.03.2023, charge sheet dated 06.02.2023, and entire proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 364 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 280 of 2022 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B IPC and Section 3(1)(f) of the SC/ST Act quashed – Criminal proceedings held to be abuse of law.