Specific Performance – Agreement to Sell – Execution through Father – Subsequent Ratification – Plaintiff residing abroad – Agreement dated 11.03.1985 executed by father on his behalf – Power of attorney executed on 04.06.1985 prior to target date for execution of sale deed – Subsequent ratification vide power of attorney dated 08.06.1987 – Doctrine of relation back applies – Held: Ratification validates earlier act from date of original transaction and agreement not void for want of prior authority [Paras 8, 9, 12].

Stamp Act – Unstamped/Insufficiently Stamped Power of Attorney – Admissibility vs Validity – Objection regarding stamping and authentication raised – Supreme Court in Re: Interplay between Arbitration Agreements and Indian Stamp Act (2024) 6 SCC 1 relied upon – Non-stamping renders document inadmissible but not void – Defect curable on payment of duty and endorsement – Held: Subsequent duly embossed power of attorney cured defect in earlier instrument and document could be acted upon [Paras 11, 12].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Photocopy of Power of Attorney – Objection not raised before First Appellate Court regarding mode of proof – Held: In absence of specific objection at appellate stage, appellant barred from challenging admissibility in second appeal – Allowing additional evidence did not amount to filling lacuna but to clarify authority and ratification [Para 10].

Readiness and Willingness – Proof – Bank Draft Prepared – Notices Issued – Plaintiff issued notices dated 09.05.1985 and 21.05.1985 – Appeared before Sub-Registrar – Bank draft prepared for balance consideration as proved by Bank Officer (PW-4) – Defendant failed to turn up and did not initiate criminal proceedings alleging fraud – Held: Continuous readiness and willingness established [Paras 9, 13].

Agreement to Sell – Vagueness – Absence of Specific Khasra Numbers – Land described as approximately 28 kanals with stipulation of proportionate adjustment – Non-availability of jamabandi with defendant – Execution proved by scribe and attesting witnesses – Held: Agreement not vague or unenforceable [Para 14].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 41 Punjab Courts Act – Framing of Substantial Question of Law – Not mandatory for Punjab and Haryana High Court – No perversity or illegality in First Appellate Court judgment – Held: No interference warranted – Appeal dismissed [Paras 15, 16].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court granting specific performance upheld – Pending applications disposed of.

Partition – Joint Purchase by Husband and Wife – Half Share – Suit property purchased under registered sale deed in joint names of spouses – Defendant contended entire sale consideration paid by her and her mother and loan repaid by her – Held, Income Tax Returns of both parties (Exs.A8, A9, B2, B3) disclosed declaration of only half share each in property – No documentary proof to establish exclusive contribution – Plaintiff entitled to 50% share – Preliminary decree confirmed [Paras 14-15].

Burden of Proof – Contribution of Consideration – Mere assertion that defendant alone repaid housing loan insufficient – Bank statements relied upon by defendant did not establish exclusive payment – Plaintiff’s statements showed regular EMI payments – In absence of cogent documentary evidence proving entire contribution by defendant, plea rejected [Paras 14-15].

Benami Plea – Bar under Section 4, Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 – Defence that property though standing in joint names was in reality exclusively purchased by defendant amounts to plea of benami – Such defence barred under Section 4(2) – No plea of fiduciary capacity or trust taken in written statement – Benami defence not maintainable [Para 16].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Appellant sought to produce divorce decree and order under Domestic Violence Act – Held, documents not relevant for deciding issue of partition and title in suit property – Additional evidence declined – Petition dismissed [Paras 9-10].

Matrimonial Disputes – Irrelevance to Title – Allegations regarding cruelty, divorce and DV proceedings held not germane to adjudication of proprietary rights in jointly purchased property [Paras 4, 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Preliminary decree declaring plaintiff’s half share in suit property confirmed – C.M.P. No. 2800 of 2026 dismissed – No costs.

Matrimonial Law - Domestic Violence Act – Interim Maintenance – Allegation of Adultery – Revision Petition by husband challenging concurrent orders granting interim maintenance of ₹26,000/- per month to wife – Contention that wife living in adultery is not an “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) of PWDV Act – Held: At interim stage, unproven allegations of adultery cannot disentitle wife from interim maintenance – Genuineness of photographs alleging illicit relationship to be examined only after evidence – No express statutory bar under PWDV Act akin to Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. – Prima facie allegations of domestic violence sufficient to grant interim relief [Paras 10–24].

Domestic Violence – Scope of PWDV Act – Comparison with Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. expressly bars maintenance if wife living in adultery – PWDV Act contains no such bar – Conduct of parties relevant but requires adjudication on evidence – Interim orders to be based on prima facie satisfaction – Allegations of adultery are matters of trial [Paras 19–22].

Evidence – Photographs Alleging Adultery – Deepfakes and fabrication – Photographs disputed by wife as morphed – Courts below justified in deferring examination of genuineness till trial – Allegations by both spouses against each other involving extra-marital conduct raise disputed questions of fact – Cannot be conclusively decided at interim stage [Paras 15–18, 23].

Interim Maintenance – Assessment of Income – Bank Statements and ITRs – Husband claimed income of ₹25,000/- per month – Credit entries of ₹28,45,120/- over three years reflected in bank account – Explanation that credits were proceeds of PPF/FDs of parents not substantiated at interim stage – Concurrent findings of Magistrate and Sessions Court upheld – No perversity or illegality warranting interference in revision [Paras 25–27].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – Concurrent findings on entitlement and quantum of interim maintenance – Revisional court not to reappreciate evidence or substitute its own assessment unless findings are perverse – Orders granting interim maintenance upheld [Paras 24–28].

Safeguard – Refund of Interim Maintenance – Direction that if wife is ultimately found living in adultery and disentitled to maintenance, she shall refund entire interim maintenance received with 6% interest – Undertaking to be filed by wife before Trial Court – Magistrate directed to decide main petition expeditiously within one year [Paras 29–31].

Decision: Revision Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 31.10.2023 upheld – Interim maintenance of ₹26,000/- per month sustained – Directions issued for expeditious disposal and conditional refund mechanism.

Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder – Conviction under Section 307 IPC – Appeal – Acquittal – Appellant convicted for stabbing the injured with a knife – Trial Court sentenced appellant to five years’ rigorous imprisonment – On appeal, High Court finds serious doubt regarding identity of assailant – Injured and eyewitnesses admitted no prior acquaintance with appellant and disclosed that appellant’s name and identity were revealed by police – Identification of accused at hospital by showing photographs impermissible – Arrest and site plan bearing signatures of complainant contradicted by his own testimony – Held: Prosecution failed to establish identity of appellant beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt granted [Paras 30–46].

Evidence – Identification of Accused – Reliability – Injured witness admitted that he came to know name of appellant from police officials and was shown photograph at hospital – No Test Identification Parade conducted – Appellant not previously known to injured or eyewitness – Manner of arrest after seven days creates serious doubt – Contradictions between testimonies of PW1, PW2 and Investigating Officer – Identity not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 32–41].

Investigation – Non-Recovery of Weapon – Effect – Alleged knife used in offence not recovered – No serious effort made to recover weapon even when offence initially registered under Section 324 IPC – Disclosure statement without recovery has no evidentiary value – Non-recovery of weapon weakens prosecution case [Paras 43–44].

Witness Testimony – Contradictions – Appreciation – PW5 hostile and did not support prosecution – PW1 and PW2 contradicted police version regarding arrest, site plan and identification – Trial Court erred in ignoring material contradictions and admissions – Burden of proof always on prosecution and not cured by absence of suggestions in cross-examination [Paras 18, 42, 45].

Section 307 IPC – Intention or Knowledge – Requirement – To sustain conviction under Section 307 IPC, prosecution must prove intention or knowledge to cause death along with overt act – In present case, doubtful identity of assailant and infirm investigation render prosecution version unreliable – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 20, 46].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Benefit of Doubt – Where two views possible and prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, accused entitled to benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted [Paras 41–46].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction dated 17.12.2024 and order on sentence dated 07.01.2025 set aside – Appellant acquitted of offence under Section 307 IPC – Pending applications disposed of.

Specific Performance – Agreement of Sale – Allegation of Loan Transaction – Dismissal of Second Appeal – Defendant contended that agreement of sale dated 13.08.2004 was fabricated and intended only as security for loan – No contemporaneous complaint or reply to legal notice disputing execution – Silence of defendant for years held fatal – Held: Findings of trial court and first appellate court based on proper appreciation of evidence – No perversity warranting interference [Paras 4–14].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Substantial Question of Law – Scope – Questions raised relating to alleged loan transaction, family property and sister’s share – Concurrent findings of fact against defendant – No substantial question of law arising – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 9–14].

Specific Performance – Family Property – Agreement Executed by One Co-sharer – Defendant failed to establish that suit property could not be subject matter of agreement of sale – Mere plea of sister’s share without supporting evidence insufficient – Agreement extent consistent with pleadings and evidence [Paras 5–7, 10].

Evidence – Conduct of Party – Silence After Legal Notice – Defendant failed to reply to notice seeking execution of sale deed and did not initiate criminal proceedings alleging fabrication – Conduct weighed against defendant – Adverse inference drawn [Paras 10–13].

Execution Proceedings – Challenge under Article 227 – Consequence of Dismissal of Second Appeal – Sale deed executed and possession delivered pursuant to decree – Civil Revision Petitions challenging execution and delivery warrant rendered infructuous – No ground for interference once decree upheld [Paras 15–16].

Civil Revision – Article 227 – Limited Supervisory Jurisdiction – Executing court acted in accordance with decree – No jurisdictional error or material irregularity shown – Revisions dismissed [Paras 15–16].

Decision – Second Appeal and Civil Revision Petitions Dismissed – Decree for specific performance confirmed – No costs – All pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Criminal Law – Dacoity with Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Confirmation of Conviction – Appellants convicted under Sections 448/396/302/412/34 IPC for committing dacoity and murdering landlady Rekha Rani Roy and tenant Gouri Majhi – No eyewitness to occurrence – Case resting on chain of circumstantial evidence – Held: Prosecution established complete chain of circumstances pointing unerringly to guilt of appellants – Conviction and sentence upheld [Paras 45–58].

Homicidal Death – Proof – Medical Evidence – Post-mortem reports showing cut-throat injuries with damage to vital organs – Autopsy surgeon opined injuries sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death – Deaths proved to be homicidal beyond doubt [Paras 47–48].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen and Conduct – Evidence of PW4 (live-in partner of deceased Gouri Majhi) showing presence of appellants at premises on evening prior to incident – Discovery of dead bodies immediately thereafter – Conduct consistent with prosecution case [Paras 20–21, 45, 54].

Recovery of Stolen Property and Weapons – Section 27 Evidence Act – Appellants’ disclosure statements leading to recovery of looted ornaments and weapons from their houses – Recoveries proved by independent witnesses and Investigating Officer – No evidence that recoveries were planted – Held: Recoveries form vital incriminating link [Paras 23–24, 30–31, 53–54].

Identification of Stolen Articles – Test Identification Parade – Gold ornaments, mobile phone and wristwatch identified by daughters of deceased landlady in duly conducted property TIP – No prior marking necessary when identification credible – Identification in court corroborated – Defence failed to discredit TIP [Paras 16, 19, 32, 52–54].

Presumption from Possession of Stolen Property – Failure to Explain – Appellants failed to offer any explanation under Section 313 CrPC regarding possession of stolen articles soon after incident – Adverse inference drawn – Strengthens prosecution case of dacoity with murder [Paras 54].

Reliance on Precedent – Distinguishing Madhu v. State of Kerala – Defence reliance on (2012) 2 SCC 399 rejected – Supreme Court decision distinguished on facts – No irregularity in recoveries or investigation in present case – Each case to be decided on its own evidence [Paras 55–57].

Criminal Trial – Examination under Section 313 CrPC – Alleged defect – Material circumstances put to accused – Mere denial without explanation insufficient – No prejudice caused [Paras 44, 54].

Sentence – Dacoity with Murder – Life Imprisonment – No separate sentence under Section 302 IPC when convicted under Section 396 IPC – Sentences to run concurrently – Set-off under Section 428 CrPC directed [Paras 2, 60].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – All connected applications disposed of [Paras 58–59].

Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Election Dispute – Recounting of Votes – Issuance of Election Certificate – Legal Status – Election of President of registered Society initially declared in favour of appellant – On reference under Section 25(1), Prescribed Authority directed recounting of votes – After recount, Assistant Registrar issued certificate declaring respondent elected and cancelled earlier certificate – Held: Election certificate issued by Assistant Registrar has no independent statutory or legal status under the Act – Authority to function as office bearer flows from registration of list under Section 4(1), not from issuance of certificate [Paras 14–16, 25].

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Challenge to Consequential Order – Statutory Appeal Pending – Appellant challenged only election certificate dated 28.03.2025 without assailing foundational order of Prescribed Authority dated 22.03.2025 – Statutory appeal against Prescribed Authority’s order pending before Commissioner under Section 25(1)(d) – Held: Indirect challenge to main order through writ petition not maintainable – High Court cannot record findings which may affect pending statutory appeal [Paras 21–24, 32].

Section 25, Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Powers of Prescribed Authority and Assistant Registrar – Prescribed Authority directed recount and declaration of result – Assistant Registrar bound to comply with directions – Challenge to legality or consequences of such direction lies only in appeal against Prescribed Authority’s order – Writ petition confined to certificate alone held misconceived [Paras 20–21].

Section 25(2), Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Fresh Election – When Attracted – Contention that Assistant Registrar ought to have convened fresh general body meeting after alleged setting aside of election rejected – Held: Occasion to invoke Section 25(2) does not arise when Prescribed Authority’s order directing recount is under challenge in appeal and list of office bearers already registered under Section 4(1) [Paras 30].

Section 4(1), Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Registration of List of Office Bearers – Effect – List of office bearers after recount registered on 02.04.2025 and signatures of respondent attested – No challenge laid to registration or attestation under Section 4(1) or appeal under Section 4(1-A) – Held: Relief restraining respondent from functioning as President cannot be granted [Paras 24–25].

Election Law Analogy – Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Inapplicability – Comparison drawn with powers of High Court under R.P. Act to declare candidate elected rejected – Held: Scheme of Societies Registration Act distinct – Once challenge confined to certificate lacking legal sanctity, analogy with R.P. Act provisions misplaced [Paras 31].

Decision: Special Appeal dismissed – Order of learned Single Judge upholding dismissal of writ petition affirmed – No interference warranted – No opinion expressed on merits of Prescribed Authority’s order dated 22.03.2025 pending before Commissioner [Paras 34–35].

Mandatory Injunction – Licensor–Licensee Relationship – Maintainability – Suit for mandatory injunction filed by husband and subsequent purchaser against wife occupying flat – Wife claimed to be trespasser post revocation of licence – Held: Where defendant occupies premises as a licensee and licence is terminated, suit for mandatory injunction for recovery of possession is maintainable – Not barred under Section 41(h) Specific Relief Act – Reliance placed on Sant Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh and Bharat Bhushan Gupta v. Pratap Narain Verma [Paras 14–18].

Ownership of Property – Exclusive Title – Stridhan Plea – Wife claimed joint ownership alleging contribution of stridhan and personal assets – Lease deed and allotment documents stood solely in husband’s name – No documentary proof of contribution produced – Affidavit filed by wife not subjected to cross-examination – Held: Burden of proving joint ownership lay on wife and remained undischarged – Trial court rightly held husband to be sole owner [Paras 19–26].

Evidence – Affidavit Without Cross-Examination – Evidentiary Value – Wife failed to appear for cross-examination despite repeated opportunities – Held: Affidavit in evidence without cross-examination cannot be relied upon – Trial court justified in discarding such evidence [Paras 21–24].

Transfer of Property – Sale During Pendency of Suit – Section 52 TPA – Lis Pendens – Sale deed executed in favour of subsequent purchaser during pendency of litigation – Necessary permissions obtained from NOIDA and builder – Indemnity bond executed – Mere pendency of matrimonial or domestic violence proceedings does not invalidate transfer – Purchaser acted in good faith after due diligence – Sale deed held valid [Paras 27–32].

Domestic Violence Act – Right of Residence – Shared Household – Scope – Wife claimed right of residence under PWDV Act – Evidence showed existence of more than one household – Held: Act contemplates right in one shared household only – Disputed flat could not be treated as shared household once licence stood terminated and alternate residence existed [Paras 31–32].

Mesne Profits – Assessment – Quantum – Trial court awarded damages @ ₹60,000 per month based on admitted prior rental value – Claim of low maintenance by wife irrelevant for determining mesne profits payable to lawful owner – Award held reasonable and supported by evidence [Paras 33–34].

Appellate Interference – Findings of Fact – Ownership and Possession – High Court reiterated that findings of fact by trial court should not be interfered with unless perverse – No perversity or illegality shown – Decree affirmed [Paras 36–37].

Decision: Both First Appeals dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 11.12.2018 affirmed – Mandatory injunction, declaration of ownership in favour of purchaser, and award of mesne profits upheld.

Criminal Law – Pardon to Accomplice – Revocation under Section 308 CrPC – Whether automatic on Public Prosecutor’s certificate – Expression “may be tried” confers judicial discretion – Pardon granted by judicial order cannot be revoked solely on certificate without Court forming prima facie opinion – Court must hear approver and examine whether certificate discloses prima facie violation – Revocation not automatic – Trial Court empowered to judicially review certificate and reject prayer if no prima facie case made out [Paras 18-20, 25].

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Inquiry under Section 308 CrPC – Limited scrutiny – Court to examine whether evidence under Section 164(1), Section 306(4) or during trial prima facie lacks full and true disclosure – Detailed trial not contemplated at this stage – Separate miscellaneous proceedings not required though approver, if tried, must be tried separately – Elaborate procedure adopted by Trial Court unnecessary though omission curable [Paras 23-25].

Criminal Law – Tender of Pardon by Special Judge under PC Act – Applicability of Sections 306 and 307 CrPC – Whether examination under Section 306(4) mandatory – Where Special Judge competent to take cognizance and try offence tenders pardon under Section 307 – Examination under Section 306(4) not mandatory though permissible as prudent practice – Expression “same conditions” in Section 307 refers to conditions in Section 306(1) and not procedural mandate of sub-sections – No illegality in not recording statement under Section 306(4) [Paras 26-28].

Evidence – Cross-Examination of Approver – Allegation of pressure by CBI while recording Section 164 statement – Mere assertion in cross-examination that earlier statement was under inducement does not ipso facto amount to violation of pardon conditions – If allegation true, approver narrating truth cannot be penalised – If false, prosecution must seek sanction/leave of High Court to prosecute for false evidence under proviso to Section 308(1) – Absence of such leave fatal to present application [Paras 47-48, 58].

Criminal Law – Approver’s Evidence – Consistency regarding material facts – PW-1 consistently maintained collection of ₹5,000 and payment to Customs officials in Section 164 statement, examination-in-chief and cross-examination – PW-2 consistently maintained he did not collect money but maintained bill records – No material suppression or deviation regarding core transaction – No wilful concealment of essential facts concerning offence or principal offenders established – Conditions of pardon not violated [Paras 35, 40-41, 49-51].

Evidence Act – Scope of Cross-Examination and Re-Examination – Section 138 Evidence Act – Cross-examination not confined to matters in examination-in-chief – New facts in cross-examination do not automatically amount to breach of pardon – Prosecution had liberty to re-examine to clarify alleged inconsistencies but failed to do so – Cannot invoke Section 308 merely because evidence not favourable [Paras 52-55].

Criminal Procedure – Statement under Section 164 CrPC recorded prior to tender of pardon – Conditions of pardon imposed subsequently – Alleged non-disclosure of inducement at time of Section 164 statement does not constitute breach of later-imposed conditions – Pardon granted by Special Judge, not Magistrate who recorded confession – Suppression, if any, anterior to tender of pardon not per se violation of its terms [Paras 43-45, 57].

Decision: Revision Petition dismissed – Order rejecting application under Section 308 CrPC upheld – Liberty reserved to prosecution to seek leave of High Court to prosecute approvers for false evidence, if so advised – No opinion expressed on veracity of statements regarding alleged inducement.