Property Law – Sale Deed – Cancellation – Subsequent Purchaser – Caveat Emptor – Appellants/defendants 1 and 2 purchased fractional right over the suit property and right to construct a flat by virtue of Ext.A2 sale deed dated 25.05.2004 – Defendants 3 and 4 thereafter sold the same property to the plaintiff/respondent 1 by virtue of Ext.A1 sale deed dated 19.03.2008 – Trial Court decreed the suit cancelling Ext.A2 sale deed – Held: Defendants 3 and 4 had no valid title to execute Ext.A1 in favour of the plaintiff since Ext.A2 was a valid prior subsisting deed – Plaintiff was under a duty to inquire about prior encumbrances before purchase – Principle of caveat emptor squarely applicable – Trial Court erred in decreeing the suit [Paras 19-22].

Lok Adalath Award – Reconveyance – Conditional Obligation – As per Ext.A3 award passed in Lok Adalath, defendants 1 and 2 agreed to reconvey the property to defendants 3 and 4 only upon receipt of the agreed money – No amount was paid by defendants 3 and 4 as per the award – Conditions of Ext.A3 not performed – Defendants 3 and 4 therefore could not claim any right over the property after execution of Ext.A2 sale deed – Plaintiff's reliance on Ext.A3 to contend that Ext.A2 is null and void is untenable [Paras 20-21].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27, CPC – Limitation – New Point in Appeal – Appellants sought to produce FIR as additional evidence (Annexure A) at appellate stage to raise the plea of limitation – No such plea raised in the written statement before the Trial Court – No ground made out that the document was not in possession of appellants during trial or that they were prevented from producing it – Issue of limitation being a mixed question of law and fact cannot be decided merely on the basis of a document produced without supporting pleadings – I.A. No. 5 of 2022 dismissed – Additional evidence not receivable [Paras 9-18].

Decision: Regular First Appeal allowed – Impugned decree and judgment dated 21.12.2018 of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvalla, in O.S. No. 45 of 2014 set aside – Suit dismissed – Appellants/defendants 1 and 2 entitled to costs throughout from the 1st respondent/plaintiff.

Registration Act, 1908 – Section 77 – Suit for Direction to Register Sale Deed – Maintainability – Plaintiff's Own Default – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Sale deed executed on 12.02.1988 for total consideration of Rs. 62,000/- could not be registered as plaintiff failed to produce the original deed and absconded from the Tehsil; again failed to register on 12.05.1988 as he did not have balance sale consideration of Rs. 49,225/- – Sub-Registrar and Registrar both refused registration recording plaintiff's default – Trial Court dismissed suit – First Appellate Court reversed on basis of Jogesh Prasad Singh (AIR 1950 Pat 370) holding payment was not a condition precedent – Held: First Appellate Court erred; plaintiff cannot seek protection of Section 77 when default in completing execution is his own – Second appeal allowed; suit dismissed [Paras 20–40].

Execution of Sale Deed – Meaning of "Execution" – Registration Act, 1908, Section 35 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 54 – Mere signing of a document does not amount to admission of execution – Execution requires the performance of all acts necessary to render the instrument complete and binding including compliance with the terms and conditions embodied therein – Where a specific recital in the sale deed required payment of balance consideration before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration, non-fulfilment of this condition precedent meant execution was incomplete – Held: Sale deed could not be said to have been admitted to execution when the agreed terms had not been complied with [Paras 16–18E].

Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 34 and 35 – Sub-Registrar's Power – Scope of Enquiry – Distinction between Execution and Validity – Sub-Registrar's enquiry is ordinarily confined to whether the document has been duly presented and execution admitted – However, the registering authority cannot register a document with closed eyes when the very terms and conditions embodied in the instrument have not been fulfilled by the presenting party and where plaintiff himself refused registration – Departure from strictest interpretation contemplated in appropriate facts – Held: Orders of Sub-Registrar and Registrar refusing registration were in conformity with Section 58 of the Act [Paras 25–34].

Condition Precedent – Payment of Balance Sale Consideration Before Sub-Registrar – Time as Essence of Contract – Sale deed expressly recited that balance amount of Rs. 49,225/- was to be paid in cash before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration – Vendor Waryam Singh required the funds urgently for his daughter's marriage fixed for 20.02.1988 – Plaintiff's failure to pay on 12.02.1988 and again on 12.05.1988 proved by concurrent findings – Held: Payment of balance consideration was a condition precedent and the finding of the First Appellate Court to the contrary was factually incorrect [Paras 15, 18E, 22].

Conduct of Plaintiff – Contradictory and Inconsistent Pleas – Plaintiff offered varying and mutually contradictory explanations at different stages as to why the sale deed could not be registered, including: office hours being over; Waryam Singh refusing to appear; Income Tax Clearance Certificate not produced; and no opportunity being given to arrange funds – All authorities including Sub-Registrar, Registrar, Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently found plaintiff lacked balance sale consideration – Held: Plaintiff was blowing hot and cold and trying to benefit from his own lapse; suit was not maintainable [Paras 18E-ii, 27–29].

Reliance on Precedent – Distinguishability – Jogesh Prasad Singh, AIR 1950 Pat 370 – First Appellate Court's reliance on this authority was misplaced as in that case no balance sale consideration remained to be paid, whereas in the present case Rs. 49,225/- remained outstanding and was a contractual condition precedent – Facts being distinctly different, the dictum could not be applied – Held: Reliance was erroneous [Para 22].

Justice – Procedural Law as Handmaid of Justice – Registering a sale deed mechanically in disregard of unfulfilled fundamental contractual conditions would occasion manifest injustice to the vendor's legal representatives; forcing them into another round of litigation would be a travesty of justice – Plaintiff, if aggrieved, was required to file a suit for specific performance – Suit under Section 77 is of narrow scope [Paras 35–37].

Decision: Second appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and decree dated 21.10.1994 of the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra set aside – Judgment and decree dated 21.05.1993 of the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Pehowa restored – Suit of the plaintiff-respondent dismissed – Pending applications disposed of [Para 40].

Probate Law – Revocation of Probate – Caveatable Interest – Challenge to Title of Testator – Application Not Maintainable – Testator Rajeshwari executed Will dated 23.08.2005 bequeathing properties at Satara inter alia in favour of the Applicant (son-in-law) – Probate granted on 13.12.2011 – Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 (brother and nephew of testator) filed application under Section 383 of Indian Succession Act for revocation of probate contending that testator had no title in the bequeathed properties since the earlier Will of their mother Radhabai in favour of Rajeshwari was cancelled by a subsequent Will in favour of Chandrahas – Held: Respondents are questioning title of testator and not asserting any right of inheritance through the testator; such persons are strangers to probate proceedings and do not possess caveatable interest; revocation application is not maintainable [Paras 11-12, 24, 26, 29-30].

Caveatable Interest – Conflicting Supreme Court Judgments – Reconciliation – Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha lays down that a person questioning existence of title of testator or capacity to dispose of property on grounds outside law of succession is a stranger to probate proceedings and cannot maintain a caveat – G. Gopal v. C. Bhaskar, rendered subsequently without noticing Krishna Kumar Birla, held that a person having even a slight interest in estate of testator can file a caveat – Conflict noted and reference made in Jagjit Singh v. Pamela Manmohan Singh but reference remained unanswered as appeal was withdrawn – Saroj Agarwalla v. Yasheel Jain (2017) followed Krishna Kumar Birla – Held: Following A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. Tahsildar, High Court must reconcile conflicting judgments and follow the one whose facts are more in accord with the case at hand; on reconciliation, G. Gopal is distinguishable as it involved caveator likely to succeed through testator's own settlement deed; Krishna Kumar Birla applies where challenge is to title of testator [Paras 13-15, 18, 23-24].

Probate Court – Jurisdiction – Title Cannot Be Determined – Probate Court is only concerned with due execution, attestation and testamentary capacity of testator – It is not competent to determine whether testator had title or authority to bequeath the properties or whether properties were joint ancestral or self-acquired – Challenge to title falls outside the purview of probate proceedings and must be adjudicated in a substantive suit – Respondents had already instituted a civil suit for title adjudication [Paras 19, 26, 29].

Probate – Optional Where Will Executed Outside Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction – Section 57 of Indian Succession Act only specifies class of Wills for which probate is necessary (those made in or relating to immovable property within Presidency towns) – For Wills executed outside those limits or relating to properties outside such limits, probate is merely optional and not prohibited – Grant of probate in respect of Will executed at Pune relating to properties at Satara is not invalid [Paras 27-28].

Decision: Civil Revision Application allowed – Order dated 20.12.2022 rejecting Applicant's maintainability objection set aside – Miscellaneous Application No. 616 of 2013 for revocation of probate held not maintainable and dismissed – Pending Interim Application also disposed of – No order as to costs.

Civil Law – Judgment on Admissions – Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Scope – Suit for possession decreed based on registered Sale Deed – Defendant relied on Rajinama, Declaration and unregistered Family Settlement – Held: Documents did not create any right, title or interest in immovable property and even if admitted, did not constitute a valid defence – Decree on admissions justified [Paras 26, 30, 39, 40]

Property Law – Title and Ownership – Registered Sale Deed vs Unregistered Documents – Plaintiff proved ownership through registered Sale Deed dated 30.09.2005 – Defendant’s reliance on prior unregistered documents and vague pleadings rejected – Held: Registered Sale Deed prevails and conclusively establishes ownership in absence of challenge [Paras 26, 27, 32]

Family Settlement – Requirement of Registration – Alleged family settlement creating rights in immovable property – Not registered – Held: Such document requires compulsory registration under Section 17 Registration Act and cannot be read in evidence to create or transfer rights – No enforceable title flows from unregistered family settlement [Paras 36, 37]

Transfer of Property – Creation of Rights – Section 54 TPA – Transfer of ownership in immovable property can only be effected through registered instrument – Informal arrangements or declarations insufficient to confer ownership rights [Paras 36]

Limitation and Specific Performance – Defendant’s plea based on Declaration – No action taken within limitation period for enforcement – Held: Even if document assumed valid, remedy for specific performance not pursued within prescribed time, weakening defence [Para 33]

Pleadings and Defence – Vague and Unsupported Claims – Defendant failed to specifically plead or substantiate documents relied upon – Documents filed without proper pleadings carry no evidentiary value – Defence held illusory and insufficient to resist decree [Paras 27, 38, 39]

Possession – Permissive User – Defendant’s possession held to be permissive in absence of valid title – No legal right to retain possession against true owner [Para 40]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned judgment dated 08.01.2025 upheld – Decree of possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC confirmed – Pending applications disposed of.

Partition Suit – Second Partition Suit – Omitted Property – Maintainability – Whether property not included in earlier partition suit can be subject matter of subsequent suit – Held, second partition suit not maintainable for property (CS Khatian No. 21) not included in earlier suit in absence of pleading and proof that omission was intentional or mistaken – Plaintiffs failed to establish circumstances permitting second suit [Paras 33–35, 40]

Res Judicata – Constructive Res Judicata – Omission by Predecessor – Effect on Descendants – Properties which ought to have been included in earlier suit deemed to have been in issue – Descendants bound by conduct of predecessor – Held, claim over CS Khatian No. 21 barred as same was not included in earlier partition proceedings [Paras 41–42]

Joint Family Property – Burden of Proof – No Presumption of Joint Property – Plaintiff must prove existence of joint family nucleus – In absence of proof of joint family fund, no presumption arises – Trial Court erred in shifting burden on defendants to prove self-acquisition [Paras 28–31]

Evidence – Failure to Prove Joint Character – Property recorded in name of individual – No evidence of joint family nucleus or linkage to acquisition – Held, CS Khatian No. 21 not proved to be joint family property [Paras 31–32]

Partition – Earlier Compromise Decree – Effect – Properties in CS Khatian No. 23 already subject matter of earlier suit – Second suit maintainable only to extent of unpartitioned portions and implementation of earlier decree – Held, limited maintainability for Bakshi Bandh Tarn and Telai Tarn and unpartitioned portions of CS Khatian No. 23 [Paras 39, 46–48]

Partition Law – Exceptions for Second Suit – Applicability of Sasi Mohan Saha principle – Three situations analysed – Present case does not fall within first or second exception; partially covered under third for execution/working out of earlier decree [Paras 34–39]

Civil Procedure – Pleadings – Absence of Necessary Averments – No explanation in plaint for omission of property in earlier suit – No evidence led to show intentional exclusion – Held, fatal to maintainability of claim [Paras 7, 40]

Appellate Interference – Erroneous Preliminary Decree – Inclusion of property without proof of joint ownership – Held, preliminary decree liable to be set aside to that extent [Para 45]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned preliminary decree set aside insofar as it includes CS Khatian No. 21 – Matter remanded to Trial Court for determination of shares limited to unpartitioned portions of CS Khatian No. 23 (Bakshi Bandh Tarn and Telai Tarn) – Parties permitted to adduce further evidence – No order as to costs – Connected applications disposed of.

Police Protection – Property Rights – Petitioner sought protection against trespass and obstruction by private respondents – Civil court decree granted injunction in petitioner’s favour – Respondents continued interference despite decree – Held: Police bound to ensure protection of lawful possession and prevent breach of peace [Paras 3, 16].

Title and Possession – Purchase Certificate under KLR Act – Petitioner obtained certificate of title through Land Tribunal proceedings – Respondents challenged validity alleging temple ownership – No material to substantiate claim – Devaswom not aggrieved and no valid appeal – Held: Petitioner has valid prima facie title and possession [Paras 8–12].

Civil Court Findings – Binding Nature – Trial court conclusively found that petitioner’s property (Re-survey No.20/1) distinct from temple property (Re-survey No.20/2) – Evidence including admission of respondent supports petitioner’s case – Held: Findings reinforce petitioner’s exclusive possession [Paras 10–11].

Locus Standi – Challenge to Tribunal Order – Appeal filed by Temple Protection Samithi without locus – Devaswom itself did not challenge the order – Held: Challenge to purchase certificate lacks legal basis [Paras 9].

Revenue Records – Evidentiary Value – Entries in settlement register or revenue records do not confer title – Cannot override title obtained through lawful proceedings – Held: Respondents failed to establish any right over property [Para 13].

Devaswom / Government Land – Long Possession with Title – Occupation based on sale deed and purchase certificate cannot be termed unauthorised – Courts should not interfere with such settled possession – Held: Petitioner’s possession lawful unless set aside by competent court [Paras 14–15].

Law and Order – Duty of Police – Interference with established proprietary rights likely to create law and order issues – Police obligated to act when civil rights supported by decree are threatened – Held: Direction for effective police protection justified [Para 16].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Police directed to provide adequate and effective protection to petitioner’s life and property against interference by respondents.

Murder – Criminal Conspiracy – Common Intention – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant (original Accused No.3), a SRPF personnel, convicted by the Sessions Court for murder of deceased Kishor Khatri committed on 03.11.2015 at Somthana Shivar, Akola – Deceased was taken by Accused No.2 from Balaji Mall in a Tata Safari vehicle and found dead on a kachcha road – Ocular testimony of PW 5 and PW 10 established that appellant inflicted a knife blow on the neck of the deceased and Accused No.2 thereafter fired a gunshot – Conviction under Sections 302 read with 34 and 120-B IPC confirmed – Sentenced to imprisonment for life – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 53-55].

Homicidal Death – Medical Evidence – Post-Mortem – Death of deceased held established as homicidal on the basis of post-mortem report of PW 6-Dr. Nikhil Ingle disclosing a deep chopped wound on the neck and a gunshot entry and exit wound on the chest – Both injuries independently held sufficient to cause death – Ballistic expert PW 13 opined that empty cartridge recovered from the scene was fired from the country-made pistol seized from the vehicle of Accused No.2 – Nature of injuries incompatible with self-infliction or accident [Paras 11-18].

Chance Witnesses – Admissibility – Credibility – PW 5 and PW 10 described as chance witnesses by defence – Held: Evidence of chance witnesses cannot be discarded merely on that ground if presence is natural and testimony reliable – Presence of PW 10 at Somthana established by documents showing uncle's residence there – Delay in approaching police explained by fear of influential accused – Testimony consistent on material particulars and corroborated by medical evidence – Followed: Rana Pratap v. State of Haryana, (1983) 3 SCC 327; Thangaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 9 SCC 650; Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353 [Paras 20-30].

Recovery – Section 27 Evidence Act – Admissibility – Detailed Description Not Mandatory – Appellant contended that recovery of Kukari was inadmissible as the memorandum lacked detailed description of the place of concealment – Held: What is essential under Section 27 is the free will and volition of the accused to make a statement leading to discovery – Accused led police to spot and produced weapon from beneath a mango tree – Recovery duly proved through panch witnesses and Investigating Officer and consistent with medical evidence – To require detailed description of place of concealment would run contrary to the very essence of voluntary disclosure – Followed: Boby v. State of Kerala, (2023) 15 SCC 760; Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor, 1946 SCC OnLine PC 47; Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 11 SCC 255 [Paras 34-38].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120-B IPC – Inference from Circumstances – Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – No direct evidence of prior agreement between accused persons – Held: Agreement constituting conspiracy may be inferred from proved circumstances and conduct before, during and after occurrence – Deceased taken by Accused No.2 to secluded location – Appellant present at spot armed with Kukari – Successive assault with two lethal weapons on vital parts indicates preparation and concert – Both accused absconded after incident – Chain of circumstances reasonably establishes prior meeting of minds – Absence of proof of motive not fatal where reliable ocular evidence of participation exists – Distinguished: K.R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala, (2005) 12 SCC 631 [Paras 43-52].

Investigation Lapses – Non-Recovery of Bullet – Held: Minor lapses in investigation do not enure to the benefit of accused when substantive evidence otherwise inspires confidence – Non-recovery of bullet, absence of fingerprint examination and non-examination of tyre marks do not affect the core of the prosecution case established by reliable ocular, medical and ballistic evidence [Para 40].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120-B IPC confirmed.

Service Law – Recruitment – Non-Joining Vacancies – Claim for Appointment from Merit List – Petitioner secured marks below cut-off and not selected – Claimed appointment against vacancies caused due to non-joining of selected candidates – State policy mandates carry forward of such vacancies to next recruitment – Held: No right accrues to non-selected candidate to claim appointment from exhausted select list [Paras 29–31, 35].

Waiting List / Select List – Nature and Operation – Select list cannot be treated as perpetual reservoir for appointment – Once recommended candidates equal to advertised vacancies are appointed, selection process ends – Vacancies arising thereafter treated as fresh vacancies – Held: No mandamus to fill such vacancies from same merit list [Paras 17, 18, 35].

Policy Decision – Carry Forward of Vacancies – Clause 16 of Government Resolution dated 16.07.2007 provides that vacancies arising due to non-joining shall be carried forward to next recruitment – Consistent policy since 1977 upheld – Held: Policy valid and binding, cannot be interfered with [Paras 17, 26, 35].

Participation in Selection – Estoppel – Petitioner participated in selection process knowing rules and policy – After being unsuccessful, cannot challenge recruitment process or policy – Held: Challenge barred by principle of acquiescence and estoppel [Paras 31–34].

Right to Appointment – No Indefeasible Right – Mere participation or inclusion in merit list below cut-off does not confer right to appointment – State not bound to fill all vacancies unless decision is arbitrary – Held: No arbitrariness shown [Paras 29, 35].

Subsequent Recruitment – Effect – Subsequent advertisements issued and recruitment process completed/underway – Earlier select list loses significance – Held: Relief cannot be granted at belated stage [Paras 30, 35].

Distinction – Cases where waiting list operated – Supreme Court precedents allowing filling of vacancies from waiting list distinguishable – In present case, no waiting list prepared and policy mandates carry forward – Held: Petitioner not entitled to benefit [Paras 20–24, 35].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No direction for appointment – Pending applications dismissed.

Civil Law – Declaration of Title and Possession – Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – Substantial Question of Law – Appellants (defendant Nos.1 and 2) challenged concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs for declaration of title and possession over a vacant site of 435 Sq.yds – Plaintiffs relied on registered sale deed dated 06.05.1968 (Ex.A-1) as proof of title – Defendants claimed the property as ancestral, supported only by self-serving statements and no documentary title – Held: No substantial question of law arises; second appeal dismissed at the stage of admission [Paras 13–15, 29–30].

Presumption as to Ancient Documents – Section 90, Indian Evidence Act – Ex.A-1 registered sale deed dated 06.05.1968 is more than 35 years old – When a document over 30 years old is produced from proper custody, the court may presume due execution and attestation without examining the attesting witnesses – Contention of the appellants that Ex.A-1 was not proved for want of examination of attestors held unsustainable [Paras 20–21].

Ancestral Property Claim – Absence of Documentary Evidence – Defendant No.1 did not enter the witness box – Defendant No.2 admitted in cross-examination that no registered document exists in their favour for the suit site and he did not even remember its survey number – The gift deed dated 16.10.2006 relied upon by defendants was executed only five months prior to the suit and its original was not filed – Sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 executed just eight days before the suit – Held: Defendants failed to establish any title or ancestral character of the suit property [Paras 22–24].

Adverse Inference – Non-Entry into Witness Box – Defendant Nos.1 and 3 did not enter the witness box to prove their defence – Held: A presumption arises that the case set up by a party who does not offer himself for cross-examination is not correct [Para 25].

Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet – Registration Does Not Confer Title – Mere execution and registration of a document does not create new title – Transfer of immovable property governed by the principle that no person can transfer a better title than what he himself possesses – Gift deed and sale deed created by defendants over a property in which they had no title cannot bind the plaintiffs [Para 23].

Non-Joinder of Parties – Daughters of Plaintiff No.1 Not Made Parties – Held: Suit was filed by plaintiff No.1 against third-party trespassers for declaration of title and possession; defendants are not co-sharers – Objection regarding non-joinder of daughters is unsustainable in the circumstances [Para 28].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed at the stage of admission – Concurrent findings of both courts below confirmed – Defendants granted three months' time to deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property – No costs.