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.

Criminal Law – Section 528 BNSS – Quashing of Charge-sheet – Cognizable Offence Disclosed – Application Dismissed – FIR lodged by informant (aged 73 years) alleging that Applicant No. 1 (his former driver) along with others forcibly entered his house, misbehaved with him and outraged the modesty of his daughter-in-law by tearing her clothes – Charge-sheet filed under Sections 354-Kha, 452, 352, 323, 504, 506 and 448 IPC – Applicants contended that the dispute was civil in nature arising from a builder's agreement, that the FIR was a counterblast to their own FIR dated 04.08.2023 against the informant, and that there were material contradictions in witness statements – Held: Prima facie cognizable offence is made out from contents of FIR; question of counterblast and contradictions in witness statements are matters for the trial court; inherent power under Section 528 BNSS cannot be exercised to evaluate evidence; application dismissed [Paras 11-14].

Inherent Jurisdiction – Section 528 BNSS – Scope and Limitations – High Court's inherent power under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) may be exercised to prevent abuse of process of court, to give effect to an order under the Code, or to otherwise secure the ends of justice – Power must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases – Court cannot conduct a mini trial or evaluate evidence in such proceedings – Pendency of civil case has no bearing on continuation of criminal proceedings where cognizable offence is disclosed [Paras 8, 12-14].

Decision: Application under Section 528 BNSS dismissed – Charge-sheet and cognizance/summoning order not quashed – Matter to proceed before trial court.

Criminal Law – Section 412 IPC – Receiving property stolen in dacoity – Essential ingredients – Prosecution must prove recovery of looted property, knowledge or reason to believe it was stolen in dacoity, and nexus with dacoits – Failure to establish identity of recovered property and knowledge of accused – Held: Conviction unsustainable [Paras 22–23, 39, 43]

Evidence – Recovery – Non-production of Rawangi G.D. – Departure of police party not proved – Absence of General Diary entry creates serious doubt regarding presence of police at place of recovery – Held: Recovery proceedings doubtful [Paras 29–31]

Evidence – Documentary Proof – Fard Baramdagi – Carbon copy without signatures, date or proof of preparation – Not admissible as secondary evidence – Failure to examine scribe – Held: Recovery memo unreliable and inadmissible [Para 33]

Evidence – Identification of Property – Gun with erased serial number – No independent evidence to connect recovered gun with looted property – Informant’s identification based on number unreliable when number erased – Held: Identity of property not established [Paras 34–35, 40–42]

Confession – Police Custody – Sections 25, 26 & 27 Evidence Act – Confessional statement made to police inadmissible except to extent of discovery – Statement regarding source of gun and its history not leading to discovery cannot be relied upon – Held: No evidentiary value [Paras 35–38, 39]

Presumption – Section 114 Illustration (a) Evidence Act – Recovery must be soon after theft – Recovery after about three months and doubtful identity of property disentitles presumption – Held: Presumption not attracted [Para 41]

Investigation – Lapses – Failure to examine alleged seller (co-accused) and to link accused with dacoity – Creates serious doubt in prosecution case – Benefit of doubt to accused [Paras 39, 42–43]

Appellate Jurisdiction – Reappreciation of Evidence – Trial Court conviction based on conjectures and improper appreciation – Interference warranted – Held: Conviction set aside and appellant acquitted [Paras 44–45]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 412 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds cancelled with direction to furnish bond under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. / Section 481 BNSS.

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Interference with Findings of Fact – High Court reiterated that interference is permissible only when findings are perverse, contrary to law, or based on no evidence – First Appellate Court being final court of facts, its findings cannot be substituted merely on reappreciation – No substantial question of law arises – Appeal dismissed [Paras 14, 21] .

Adoption – Proof and Binding Effect of Prior Judgment – Adoption of A.G. Krishna Murthy upheld based on earlier decree in O.S. No.72 of 1950 which attained finality – Parties claiming through testatrix who never disputed adoption are estopped from challenging it – Even otherwise, both adopted son and widow held to have equal rights [Paras 16–18] .

Property Law – Transfer of Property – Extent of Vendor’s Title – Vendor having only undivided half share cannot convey absolute title – Sale deeds executed by A.G. Krishna Murthy confer only his half share – Plaintiff not entitled to declaration of full ownership – Relief rightly modified to partition of half share [Paras 19, 21] .

Will – Testamentary Disposition – Limitation of Bequeathable Interest – Testatrix Lakshmamma held to possess only half share in property – Will dated 30.09.1978 valid only to extent of her share – Legatees cannot claim entire property [Para 19] .

Limitation – Suit for Partition – Accrual of Cause of Action – Rights of legatees arise only upon death of testatrix in 1984 – No prior denial of plaintiff’s title established within limitation period – Suit filed in 1995 held within limitation [Para 20] .

Appellate Practice – Modification of Decree – First Appellate Court – Trial Court granted declaration of full title – First Appellate Court modified decree granting only half share – Modification held proper based on evidence and legal position – No perversity found [Paras 10, 11, 21] .

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court granting half share confirmed – Parties to bear their own costs.

Property Law – Sale Deed – Want of Consideration – Void ab initio – Sale Deeds Null and Dead Letters – Two registered sale deeds executed by plaintiffs in favour of defendant for total consideration of Rs. 1,02,30,000/-, stated to have been paid through eight cheques all dated the respective dates of execution – Cheques were returned to the defendant at his insistence on the ground that mutation was denied by the authorities – Defendant failed to prove subsequent payment of consideration through alternate mode to the plaintiffs/creditors/relatives – Held: Where a sale deed recites that the entire sale consideration has been paid through cheques on the date of execution and the cheques are admittedly returned without encashment, the consideration does not pass in terms of the sale deed; the sale deed is null and void, a nullity and dead letter in the eyes of law – No declaration or cancellation of such void deeds is required to be sought as the same is non-est – Appeal allowed [Paras 69, 70, 80, 86, 89].

Sale – Passing of Title – Condition Precedent – Intention of Parties – Ta Khubzul Badlain – The true test for passing of title is the intention of the parties, to be gathered primarily from the recitals of the sale deed; mere registration is prima facie but not conclusive proof of intention to transfer if payment of consideration is a condition precedent – Where sale deed recites entire consideration paid on the date of execution through cheques but the cheques are returned and defendant fails to prove subsequent payment, neither title nor possession passes to the purchaser, notwithstanding recitals to the contrary – The practice of "Ta Khubzul Badlain" (title passing only on exchange of equivalents) applicable in undivided State of Bihar continues to apply to the State of Jharkhand created out of Bihar by the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 [Paras 72–77, 81, 84].

Maintainability – Suit for Return of Void Sale Deeds – Section 34 Specific Relief Act – A suit for return of original sale deeds, asserting the deeds to be void for want of consideration, does not amount to a suit for declaration of title and is not barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act merely because no prayer for recovery of possession is made – When a document is void ab initio, no decree setting aside the same is required as it is a nullity; accordingly, the plaintiff need not seek cancellation or declaration and the suit for return of the void documents is maintainable [Paras 57, 60, 63, 64, 65].

Court Fees – Suit for Return of Void Documents – Where neither a declaration that the sale deeds are void nor recovery of possession is prayed for and the only relief is return of original sale deeds, ad valorem court fees is not payable and a fixed court fee of Rs. 250/- is sufficient [Para 63].

Decision: First Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and decree dated 31.05.2023 of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) III, Jamshedpur in O.S. No. 212 of 2016 set aside – Sale deeds bearing No. 705/508 dated 07.02.2014 and No. 2736/2125 dated 17.05.2014 held to be void, null and dead letters for want of consideration – Defendant directed to hand over the original sale deeds to the plaintiffs within three months, failing which plaintiffs are at liberty to recover the same through court process [Paras 88–91].

Trademark Law – Interim Injunction – Suppression of Material Facts – Plaintiff failed to disclose joint business activities with defendant and proceedings before Trade Marks Registry – Misleading plea of prior use despite declaring mark as “proposed to be used” – Held: Suppression disentitles plaintiff from equitable relief and injunction can be refused on this ground alone [Paras 16, 17(1), 19]

Trademark Law – Composite Mark – Anti-Dissection Rule – Section 17 – Plaintiff held registration of device mark – Attempt to claim exclusivity over word “Kshetrapal” rejected – Held: Rights exist only in mark as a whole and not in individual non-distinctive components unless separately registered or shown to have acquired distinctiveness [Paras 15, 17(3)]

Trademark Law – Distinctiveness – Religious/Generic Expression – Word “Kshetrapal” held to be name of deity and publici juris – Lacks inherent distinctiveness – No secondary meaning established – No monopoly permissible over such expression [Paras 16(iv), 17(2), 17(3)]

Trademark Law – Prior User vs Registered Proprietor – Sections 28 and 34 – Plaintiff’s mark registered as “proposed to be used” – Defendant prima facie established prior use since 2014 – Held: Prior user rights prevail over subsequent registration – Plaintiff failed to prove prior use in relevant trade [Paras 16(i), 17(2)]

Trademark Law – Presumption of Validity – Section 31 – Registration is only prima facie evidence – Cannot be used to claim exclusivity over part of composite mark – Presumption applies to mark as a whole, not its components [Para 17(4)]

Trademark Law – Likelihood of Confusion – Real Estate Transactions – Application of average consumer test – Purchase of immovable property involves due diligence – Held: Possibility of confusion remote and not sufficient to grant injunction [Para 17(5)]

Equitable Relief – Clean Hands Doctrine – Plaintiff approached Court with suppression and inconsistent stands before Registrar and Court – Held: Litigant suppressing material facts not entitled to interim or final relief [Paras 17(1), 19]

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Discretion – Appeal against refusal of injunction – Held: Trial Court exercised discretion judiciously – No interference warranted under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC [Paras 18, 19]

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000 – Order refusing interim injunction upheld – Civil Application 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.

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.

LIC Agent – Termination of Agency – Misstatement in Confidential Report – Duty of Agent under Regulation 8(2)(b) – Petitioner certified good health of insured who was suffering from cancer and under treatment for years – Failure to conduct reasonable enquiry before recommending proposal – Termination justified – No interference warranted [Paras 6, 9]

LIC Agent – Renewal Commission – Regulation 19 – Absence of Fraud or Connivance – Though negligence established, respondents failed to prove fraud or collusion with insured – Termination not on ground of fraud – Agent entitled to renewal commission on policies procured – Withholding of commission illegal [Para 7]

Contract of Agency – Restoration of Agency – Loss of Confidence – Long lapse of time – Agency terminated in 2008 and over 17 years elapsed – Relationship contractual in nature – No vested right to seek restoration where employer has lost confidence – Relief of reinstatement rightly declined [Para 8]

Administrative Action – Stigma – Removal – Though termination upheld, stigma attached to orders directed to be removed to protect future prospects of petitioner – Balanced relief granted [Para 9]

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Termination of agency upheld – Petitioner held entitled to renewal commission along with arrears to be paid within two months – Stigma attached to impugned orders directed to be removed – Prayer for restoration of agency declined.