Transfer of Property Act - Mortgage by Conditional Sale vs. Sale with Condition to Repurchase - Interpretation of Document - Intention of Parties - Section 58(c) of TP Act - A transaction is a "sale with a condition to repurchase" rather than a "mortgage by conditional sale" if the document clearly transfers absolute title, grants the purchaser the right to deal with the property, and lacks a debtor-creditor relationship or a clear intention to secure a loan- The intention of the parties must be gathered primarily from the unambiguous language of the document itself.

Property Law - Mortgage by Conditional Sale - Sale with Condition to Repurchase - The appellants challenged the first appellate court's decree for redemption of mortgage, arguing that the document dated 2nd July 1962 was a sale with a condition to repurchase, not a mortgage by conditional sale- The original vendor failed to exercise the repurchase option within the stipulated five-year period- The High Court, in second appeal, examined the terms of the document and the intention of the parties- Held: The document was a sale deed with a condition to repurchase, not a mortgage by conditional sale- The terms clearly indicated an absolute transfer of title to the purchaser, including the right to deal with the property, and there was no debtor-creditor relationship or intention to secure a loan- The consideration amount, though low, was not the sole factor for interpretation- Since the right to repurchase was extinguished after five years (1967) due to non-exercise, the plaintiff, as the vendor's son, was not entitled to seek redemption of a non-existent mortgage 27 years later- The first appellate court erred in misinterpreting the document- Paras [1-30]

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 58(c) - Determining Nature of Transaction - Held: To determine whether a transaction is a mortgage by conditional sale or a sale with a condition to repurchase, the intention of the parties is paramount and must be gathered from the recitals of the document itself- If the language is plain and unambiguous, it must be given its true legal effect- Surrounding circumstances, such as property valuation, are relevant only if the language is ambiguous- Key factors include the existence of a debt, debtor-creditor relationship, and the right to deal with the property- Paras [15, 16, 17, 20, 27, 28]

Limitation Act, 1963 - Redemption of Mortgage - Held: A suit for redemption of mortgage must be filed within the prescribed limitation period- If the transaction is determined to be a sale with a condition to repurchase, and the right to repurchase is extinguished due to non-exercise within the stipulated time, a subsequent suit for redemption of mortgage is not maintainable- Paras [13, 26, 30]

Decision: Second Appeal allowed- The judgment and decree of the first appellate court are quashed and set aside- The trial court's judgment dismissing the suit is confirmed- Paras [31].

Contract Law – Breach of Contract – Delay in Performance – Responsibility of Employer – Tender for construction of additional parking facility – Defendants invited tender without obtaining prior permission from Forest Department – Delay caused in handing over workable site – Held: Defendants responsible for delay in execution of work – However, contractor having elected to continue contract without repudiation under Section 55, not entitled to damages [Paras 6].

Contract Law – Supplemental Agreements – Economic Duress – Validity – Contractor compelled to execute multiple supplemental agreements for extension of time and extra works on threat of withholding payments – Trial Court finding that agreements were executed under coercion and not voluntarily – Held: Supplemental agreements vitiated by economic duress and unenforceable [Paras 7–8].

Civil Procedure – First Appeal – Duty of Appellate Court – Trial Court granted decree for multiple monetary claims without proper discussion of evidence – Held: Appellate Court entitled to reappreciate evidence and independently assess each head of claim on merits [Paras 9–10].

Works Contract – Extra Items of Work – Proof and Entitlement – Claim for jungle clearance for second time necessitated due to delay attributable to defendants – Measurement book supported execution – Held: Contractor entitled to payment for second jungle clearance [Paras 11–12].

Works Contract – Approach Road – Excluded Item – Tender conditions expressly excluded liability of department for providing access road – No direction proved for execution as extra item – Held: Contractor not entitled to reimbursement for formation of approach road [Para 13].

Works Contract – Felling and Conveyance of Trees – Rate Determination – Extra item of work – Survey of Forest Department rates showed higher applicable rate – Contractor paid at lower rate – Held: Contractor entitled to differential amount based on prevailing departmental rate [Para 14].

Works Contract – Cutting and Stacking of Timber – Lack of Evidence on Rate – Claim based on bald assertion without supporting material – Held: Claim rightly disallowed [Para 15].

Works Contract – Re-conveyance of Timber – Necessitated by Employer’s Directions – Evidence showed logs required to be shifted from river bed – Rate not specifically fixed – Court adopted reasonable rate – Held: Contractor entitled to proportionate payment [Para 16].

Works Contract – Excavation of Soil / Narikkal – Nature of Soil – Evidence insufficient to prove hard narikkal throughout claimed depth – However, probability of hard soil beyond 30 cm accepted – Held: Contractor entitled to differential rate applicable to hard soil, not hard narikkal [Paras 17–18].

Works Contract – Excess Quantity Claims – Measurement Book Prevails – Claim for additional excavation beyond recorded measurements not substantiated – Held: Claim disallowed where contradicted by measurement records [Para 19].

Works Contract – Slipped Earth – Quantity Dispute – Contractor’s contemporaneous correspondence unrefuted – Held: Total quantity accepted at 10,000 m³, but payable only at admitted rate – Contractor entitled to payment for balance quantity at accepted rate [Paras 20–21].

Works Contract – Blasting of Rock – Extra Item – Commissioner’s report relied upon – Quantity and rate proved – Held: Contractor entitled to amount based on expert assessment [Para 22].

Tender Conditions – Tender Deduction – Applicability to Extra Items – Tender quoted 17.6% below estimated rate – Contract clauses provided application of tender deduction to extra and additional items where rates derivable from schedule – Held: Tender deduction applicable to all allowed claims – Net amount recalculated accordingly [Paras 24–25].

Interest – Rate of Interest – Commercial Transactions – Claim for 18.5% interest declined – Held: Interest @ 12% per annum from date of suit till decree and @ 6% per annum thereafter appropriate [Para 26].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Judgment and decree of trial court set aside – Plaintiff held entitled to recover Rs.2,84,110/- after applying tender deduction, with interest @ 12% per annum from date of suit till decree and @ 6% per annum thereafter till realisation, payable by first defendant [Paras 25–26].

Income Tax – Reassessment – Assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 147 – Reopening upheld – Original assessment under Section 143(3) was wholly silent on the assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 80HHC – There was no evidence of any query raised or discussion held by the Assessing Officer on this issue – Held: In the absence of any application of mind or conscious consideration, reopening could not be termed a mere change of opinion – Assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was valid [Paras 3–5, 17–22]

Income Tax – Change of Opinion – Applicability – Assessee’s argument rejected – The principle of “change of opinion” held inapplicable where no opinion was formed in the first place – Original assessment was non-speaking and devoid of any reference to Section 80HHC – Reassessment justified under Explanation 2(c)(iii) to Section 147 as it involved grant of excessive relief [Paras 17–22]

Reassessment – Excess Relief under Section 80HHC – Formula misapplied – Assessing Officer reopened the assessment on the ground that the assessee had wrongly computed deduction under Section 80HHC by omitting a negative factor from the prescribed formula – Excess deduction of ₹17,33,542 claimed – This amounted to income escaping assessment – Tribunal and First Appellate Authority upheld reassessment – High Court found no legal error in their reasoning [Paras 8, 22]

Distinction from Precedents – TechSpan and Hareshkumar Panchani cases not applicable – Unlike the present case, the cited judgments involved prior discussions and specific queries raised during original assessment – Here, complete absence of engagement on the deduction issue meant those decisions were distinguishable [Paras 23–26]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Substantial question of law answered in favour of the Revenue – Reassessment under Section 147 upheld – No costs.

Rent Control – Eviction for Non-Payment – Deposit of Arrears – Procedural Compliance Mandatory – Tenant’s application to deposit arrears after eviction order under third proviso to Section 14(2)(i) of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act was rejected – Court held “amount due” includes arrears of rent, interest, and costs – Deposit must be made within 30 days and comply with statutory requirements – Held: Failure to strictly comply disentitles tenant from benefit against eviction [Paras 2–5, 10].

Valid Tender – Requirement to Tender Rent to Landlord – Intimation of Deposit – Following Hans Raj Khimta’s case, Court held that rent must first be tendered to landlord – If refused, then deposited in Court with intimation to landlord within 30 days – In this case, no such valid tender or intimation made – Deposit in Court held invalid [Paras 7, 9].

Strict Compliance under Rent Laws – No Leniency on Procedural Requirements – Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Atma Ram v. Shakuntala Rani, Court held that benefits under rent laws can only be availed through strict compliance – Equitable considerations or minor shortfalls cannot override express statutory mandates [Paras 6, 10].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Rent Controller's rejection of tenant’s application upheld – No valid tender made – Tenant failed to meet statutory requirements – No interference warranted.

Rent Control – Arrears of Rent – Valid Tender – Section 14(2)(i), Third Proviso – Compliance Mandatory – Petitioner-tenant sought to avoid eviction by depositing arrears of rent post-eviction order dated 14.10.2024 – Application for deposit made on 08.11.2024 by bank draft payable to court – Held: No valid tender shown – No evidence of prior tender to landlord or intimation of court deposit within 30 days – Rent not deposited in landlord’s name nor proper notice given – Rejected as non-compliance with statutory mandate [Paras 8–9]

Statutory Compliance – Strict Interpretation – No Equitable Relief – Delay or Partial Deposit Not Curable – Reiterated: Statutory benefits conferred on tenant under Rent Acts can be availed only through strict compliance – Even shortfall of Re.1 or procedural lapse like absence of notice to landlord vitiates the protection – No leniency permissible – Reliance placed on Atma Ram v. Shakuntala Rani, (2005) 7 SCC 211; Hans Raj Khimta v. Smt. Kanwaljeet Kaur, Latest HLJ 2016 (HP) 3030 – Procedural compliance is sine qua non for maintainability of appeal and to avoid eviction [Paras 5–7]

Appeal Against Eviction – Condition Precedent – Deposit of Full ‘Amount Due’ Including Rent, Interest & Costs – Court upheld view in Wazir Chand v. Ambaka Rani, 2005 (2) Shim. L.C. 498 and Bilasi Ram v. Bhanumagi, 2007 (1) SLC 88 – 'Amount due' under third proviso includes arrears of rent + 9% interest + litigation costs – Without full deposit within 30 days, tenant forfeits statutory protection and eviction becomes enforceable [Paras 3–4, 5]

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – No valid tender or compliance with statutory requirements – Eviction order dated 14.10.2024 stands – No interference with Rent Controller’s rejection order dated 17.12.2024 – Pending applications also disposed of.

Railways Act – Offence under Section 143(1)(b) – Illegal Sale of Railway Tickets – Conviction Upheld – Petitioner apprehended by RPF while in possession of two Tatkal tickets not in his name – Unable to offer explanation for possession – Witness testimony of RPF officials and PRS clerk corroborated seizure and conduct – Trial and appellate court upheld conviction – Held: No illegality in conviction – Proper seizure and procedure followed – Conviction sustained [Paras 5–8, 12].

Criminal Revision – Sentence Modification – Leniency – Petitioner a daily wage earner with family responsibility – Conviction dates back to 2012 – No material infirmity found in trial or appellate judgments – Considering passage of time and mitigating factors, sentence modified – Held: Imprisonment of two months set aside – Sentence reduced to fine of ₹10,000/- with default RI for 3 months [Paras 11–12].

Criminal Procedure – Seizure Without Independent Witness – Legal Validity – Petitioner argued seizure illegal due to absence of independent witnesses – RPF explained public unwillingness to participate – PRS official corroborated seizure and signed seizure list – Held: Absence of independent public witnesses not fatal when procedural integrity maintained and official testimony corroborates seizure [Paras 5–6].

Evidence – Extra-Judicial Confession – Admissibility – Petitioner claimed extra-judicial confession inadmissible as made in presence of police – However, independent corroboration through seizure materials and ticket records – No contradiction elicited during cross-examination of prosecution witnesses – Held: Evidence sufficient to sustain conviction [Paras 6–8].

Decision: Criminal revision partly allowed – Conviction under Section 143(1)(b) of the Railways Act, 1989 upheld – Sentence of simple imprisonment for two months set aside – Petitioner directed to pay fine of ₹10,000/- within two months – In default, to undergo three months of rigorous imprisonment – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Murder and Attempt to Murder – Conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC – Acquittal on Appeal – Appellant convicted by Trial Court for shooting deceased and injuring two others – High Court finds that prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to serious contradictions in ocular, medical and scientific evidence – Held: Conviction unsustainable – Benefit of doubt extended – Appellant acquitted [Paras 24–45].

Evidence – Injured Eyewitnesses – Reliability – PW16 and PW19 projected as injured eyewitnesses – Their versions regarding manner of assault, weapon used and nature of injuries materially inconsistent with medical evidence – PW16 claimed gunshot injury with broken teeth but no bullet residue or corroboration found – PW19 alleged assault by pistol butt, whereas medical evidence showed sharp-cut injuries – Held: Injured eyewitnesses not of “sterling quality” and not reliable for sustaining conviction [Paras 19–22, 31–34].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – Contradiction with Ocular Testimony – Decisive Role – Medical evidence did not support prosecution version of firearm injuries – Ballistic report conclusively established that bullet recovered from deceased’s skull did not match recovered revolver – Held: Scientific evidence completely demolishes prosecution theory regarding use of firearm by appellant [Paras 24(ii), 29–30, 39–40].

Evidence – Recovery under Section 27, Evidence Act – Evidentiary Value – Revolver allegedly recovered pursuant to disclosure by appellant – However, ballistic evidence ruled out use of recovered firearm in commission of offence – Held: Recovery loses probative value when seized weapon is forensically unconnected with crime [Paras 24(ii), 27, 29–30].

Criminal Trial – Place of Occurrence – Failure to Establish – Prosecution unable to prove precise locus of crime – Site plan did not indicate shops or hotels of parties – No bloodstains, cartridges, bullet marks or forensic traces recovered – Held: Failure to establish place of occurrence creates serious doubt and strikes at root of prosecution case [Paras 24(vi), 36–37].

Criminal Law – Chain of Circumstances – Breaks and Missing Links – No recovery of knife though injuries suggested sharp weapon – No seizure of motorcycles allegedly present – No independent or natural witnesses examined – Several prosecution witnesses turned hostile – Held: Chain of evidence fractured at multiple points, rendering prosecution version unreliable [Paras 23–24, 38, 41].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Benefit of Doubt – Court reiterates that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof – Where two views possible, one favouring accused must prevail – Held: Prosecution failed to bridge gap between “may be true” and “must be true” – Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 25–28, 42–45].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of conviction dated 06/09/2017 and 07/09/2017 set aside – Appellant acquitted of offences under Sections 302, 307, 324 and 326 IPC – Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case, subject to compliance with Section 437A CrPC.

Public Interest Litigation – Abuse of Process – Forged Petition – Writ petition filed in the name of Adity Shivcharan Rathod found to be unauthorized and based on forged documents – Police investigation revealed petitioner had no knowledge of the case and disowned the documents – Court held filing of such petition amounts to fraud on the court [Paras 2, 10–13, 17].

Legal Ethics – Misconduct by Advocates – Investigation Ordered – Counsel named in the petition traced and found to have accepted cases through a third-party advocate – Court directed Bar Council of India to investigate professional misconduct of involved advocates – Emphasized lawyers’ duty as officers of the court and custodians of justice [Paras 18–22].

Judicial Process – Fraud on Court – Filing of multiple petitions in different names using identical documents and fabricated claims regarding property ownership – Court relied on Supreme Court judgment in Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. (2025) 6 SCC 416 – Held: No court can allow itself to be used as an instrument of fraud – Court must protect its process from abuse [Paras 6–8, 18].

Police Investigation – Aadhaar Misuse and Forged Documents – DCP (South-East) filed status report confirming unauthorized use of petitioner’s identity – FIR directed to be lodged – Investigation to continue against all persons involved, including tracing of advocate named as intermediary [Paras 12–16].

Direction to Statutory Authorities – Bar Council of India directed to trace advocate Mr. Suraj Singh and examine involvement of Ms. Awanitika – Liberty granted to coordinate with police – MCD directed to act as per order of Appellate Tribunal (ATMCD) dated 27/10/2025, staying action on impugned construction [Paras 19–24].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Petition found to be filed fraudulently without authorization – Matter referred to police and Bar Council of India for investigation and appropriate legal action – Directions issued for continued investigation, filing of FIR, and professional misconduct inquiry [Paras 16, 19–22, 25].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Rash and Negligent Driving – Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC – State challenged acquittal of respondent in a road accident case resulting in death of one person and simple injuries to another – Trial Court acquitted respondent by granting benefit of doubt – Held: Appellate Court must be slow to interfere unless findings are perverse – Double presumption of innocence operates in favour of the accused – No ground made out for interference [Paras 1, 9, 14–15].

Rash or Negligent Act – Ingredients of Section 304-A IPC – Mere accident or hitting from behind not sufficient – Prosecution must prove that act was rash or negligent and was proximate cause of death – Presumption of negligence cannot automatically be drawn against the driver [Paras 5–6].

Evidence – Sole Eyewitness – Injured Witness – PW-1 failed to depose that vehicle was driven rashly or negligently – No statement regarding high speed, exact speed, lane of driving, or manner of driving – Identification of accused alone insufficient to establish culpable rashness or negligence [Paras 10–11].

Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur – Limited Application – Presumption of negligence arises only where nature of accident and surrounding circumstances unequivocally indicate negligence – Not applicable merely because a vehicle hit another from behind [Paras 6–7].

Contradictions in Prosecution Case – Place of Recording Statement – PW-1 stated his statement was recorded at police station, whereas IO claimed it was recorded at the spot – Serious doubt created regarding reliability of prosecution version [Para 12].

Investigation – Deficiencies – No photographs of spot – No evidence of skid marks or dragging marks – Site plan did not show dragging of motorcycle nor bore signature of eyewitness – Exact point of impact not established – Lapses weaken prosecution case [Paras 11–13].

Appellate Scrutiny – Plausible View – Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence found to be reasonable and well-reasoned – Where two views are possible, appellate court should not substitute its own view merely because it prefers another – Acquittal rightly sustained [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC upheld – Personal bond cancelled and surety discharged.