Service Law – Removal from Service – Departmental Proceedings – Acquittal in Criminal Case – Honourable Acquittal versus Benefit of Doubt – Petitioner working as Assistant Sub Inspector removed from service vide order dated 07.08.2012 after departmental enquiry finding charges proved based on evidence of witnesses – Appellate authority rejected appeal vide order dated 20.06.2013 – Criminal case registered for offences under Sections 324, 326, 302, 201, 34 IPC wherein petitioner acquitted vide judgment dated 31.10.2017 – Review petition rejected vide Government Order dated 05.07.2023 – Tribunal re-appreciated evidence and dismissed original application – Petitioner contended acquittal was honourable acquittal not merely benefit of doubt – Relied on Ramlal vs State of Rajasthan – Held: Departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings stand on different footing – Mere acquittal by Criminal Court does not confer right to claim reinstatement – Only if charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances identical or similar in both proceedings, matter requires different dimension – Acquittal merely on benefit of doubt as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt cannot be equated with departmental proceedings to give benefit of acquittal – Proof required in criminal trial more onerous than departmental proceedings which requires preponderance of probabilities – Sessions Court acquitted petitioner as circumstantial evidence not proved beyond reasonable doubt without break in chain of circumstances – Acquittal not honourable acquittal – Ramlal and GM Tank distinguished on facts – No interference warranted [Paras 1-18].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Scope and Ambit – High Court Powers – Petitioner invoked supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 challenging Tribunal order – Court examined scope of Article 227 – Held: Article 227 deals with power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals by High Court – Object is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of entire machinery of justice – Power of interference to be kept to minimum to ensure wheel of justice does not halt and fountain of justice remains pure – High Court cannot exercise power like bull in china shop to correct all errors of judgment of court or tribunal acting within limits of jurisdiction – Correctional jurisdiction exercisable in cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice – High Court cannot sit in appeal over findings recorded by lower court or tribunal – Supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors – No interference under Article 227 unless High Court finds manifest error, palpably perverse or patently unreasonable reasoning, decision in direct conflict with settled principles of law, gross and manifest failure of justice or basic principles of natural justice flouted [Paras 9-15].

Evidence – Departmental Enquiry – Standard of Proof – Preponderance of Probabilities versus Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Enquiry Officer conducted detailed enquiry and based on evidence of witnesses found charges against petitioner proved – Sessions Court noted investigation not foolproof contributing to acquittal – Prosecution failed to prove charges due to several failures including non-examination of witness Ajithan examined as PW6 in oral enquiry who proved petitioner was resident of Quarters No.6 – Finger print expert recovered only finger print of second accused from scene – No direct evidence – Scientific evidence not supporting blood, teeth, gum belonged to deceased – Held: Settled legal position that in disciplinary proceedings preponderance of probabilities adequate as against rigorous standard of beyond reasonable doubt required in criminal proceedings – Protection of Rule 10 under KPDIP&A Rules available to accused only when matter sub judice – Criminal case charged before Sessions Court much after disciplinary proceedings finalized – Petitioner cannot get benefit of Rule 10 – Dereliction of duty and misconduct proved in PR Minutes – Petitioner availed all opportunities to defend in disciplinary proceedings, appeal and review petitions [Paras 5-8, 10-12].

Precedent – Distinguishing Cases – Ramlal and GM Tank – Petitioner relied on Ramlal vs State of Rajasthan holding where charge stood disproved by prosecution evidence and charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances identical, disciplinary proceedings orders cannot stand – Also relied on GM Tank vs State of Gujarat holding where departmental and criminal proceedings based on identical similar set of facts and honourable acquittal, dismissal order liable to be set aside – Court examined applicability – Held: In Ramlal, delinquent altered date of birth in mark list to project majority at recruitment – Initially punished, acquittal in appeal – Charges disproved not merely not proved – In GM Tank, departmental and criminal proceedings based on identical set of facts relating to disproportionate income accumulation – Same witnesses examined in both – Honourable acquittal after regular trial on hot contest – Present case factually different – Acquittal on benefit of doubt as circumstantial evidence not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Not honourable acquittal – Charges in departmental proceedings related to dereliction of duty and misconduct, not criminal case per se – Witness examined in departmental enquiry not arrayed in criminal case – Facts and circumstances different – Precedents not applicable [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Original petition dismissed – Tribunal order dated 28.11.2025 in OA No.2162 of 2023 upheld – No ground to hold Tribunal order perverse or patently illegal warranting interference in supervisory jurisdiction – Acquittal in criminal case not honourable acquittal but benefit of doubt – Departmental and criminal proceedings on different footing – Charges, evidence and circumstances not identical – Standard of proof different – Preponderance of probabilities satisfied in departmental proceedings.

Constitutional Law – Article 371-A – Legislative Competence of State of Nagaland – Petroleum and Natural Gas – Article 131 Jurisdiction – PIL Maintainability – The State of Nagaland enacted the Nagaland Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulations, 2012 and Rules, 2012 pursuant to a resolution dated 26.07.2010 of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly, claiming power under Article 371-A(1)(a)(iv) which provides that no Act of Parliament in respect of ownership and transfer of land and its resources shall apply to the State of Nagaland unless the Legislative Assembly so decides – Union of India contested the legislative competence of the Nagaland Legislature, contending that regulation and development of oilfields and mineral oil is exclusively reserved for Parliament under Entry 53 of List-I – Core question whether Article 371-A confers affirmative legislative competence upon the State or is merely a disabling provision preventing application of Union laws – Held: The dispute between the Union of India and the State of Nagaland on the question of legislative competence falls squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 131(a) of the Constitution – High Court declines to adjudicate the issue [Paras 35-49].

PIL – Maintainability – Article 226 – Limits of PIL Jurisdiction – PIL under Article 226 is maintainable where the petitioner is a public-spirited person raising issues of fundamental rights violations of poor, disadvantaged, or marginalised sections, or environmental and human rights issues – The issue raised in the present PIL relates to legislative competence of the State and does not involve curtailment or deprivation of any fundamental right of a citizen – Union of India is not disabled from approaching an appropriate forum to challenge the validity of the 2012 Regulations and Rules – Ordinarily, High Courts should not entertain PILs questioning the constitutionality or validity of statutes or statutory rules – PIL closed in exercise of self-restraint [Paras 43-50].

Article 131 – Exclusive Jurisdiction of Supreme Court – The real issue of whether the Nagaland Legislature had legislative competence to enact the 2012 Regulations and Rules, as contested by the Union of India, is a dispute between the Union and the State of Nagaland which falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Clause (a) of Article 131 – The presence of respondent No. 7, a private company, as a party does not alter this conclusion since respondent No. 7 has no locus to contest the question of legislative competence between the Union and the State [Paras 35-42].

Decision: PIL closed – Liberty granted to the Union of India to assail the Nagaland Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulations, 2012, the Rules, 2012, and the tender/Expression of Interest process in an appropriate manner – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Sections 147, 148, 186/34, 353/34, 307/34 IPC – Unlawful Assembly – Obstruction of Public Servants – Acquittal – Appellants convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Fast Track Court, Malda for allegedly forming an unlawful assembly on 09.03.1993 at Piyasbari, armed with arrows, hasua, lathis and other weapons, and obstructing and assaulting police personnel – Sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/- each – On appeal, High Court finds prosecution case riddled with material contradictions, absence of medical evidence, non-production of seized weapons, and failure of independent witnesses to support the prosecution – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted [Paras 1–65].

"Independent Witnesses Turned Hostile – Prosecution Case Left Without Corroboration"

Witness Testimony – Independent Witnesses – Hostile – PW3 Mukul Mondal, PW5 Jiten Das, PW6 Ratan Das, PW8 Niren Ghosh and PW9 Sonatan Rajak cited as independent witnesses but did not support prosecution case – Declared hostile and cross-examined by prosecution, yet nothing useful elicited – PW4 Lalu Rajak denied putting his thumb impression on seizure list dated 09.03.1993 and stated he knew nothing about the incident – PW10 Sachindranath Mondal admitted signing the seizure list at the direction of police at a location one and a half kilometres from the place of occurrence without knowledge of articles seized – Neither PW4 nor PW10 was declared hostile by prosecution – Held: Witnesses cited to prove seizure have not supported prosecution case – Evidentiary value of seizure list becomes highly doubtful – Entire prosecution case rests primarily on interested testimony of police personnel [Paras 26–35].

"Absence of Medical Evidence – Injuries of Police Personnel Not Substantiated"

Medical Evidence – Injury Reports – Non-Production – PW14 (A.S.I. Ananda Kumar Mondal), PW15 (Constable Jagabandhu Adhikari) and PW18 (S.I. Bijoy Krishna Dey) claimed to have sustained injuries in the alleged attack and were treated at Malda Sadar Hospital – Prosecution only produced hospital admission tickets (Exhibit-7) without any injury report or medical certificate showing nature, extent or seriousness of injuries – PW17 (Dr. Ruchira Banerjee) found only one abrasion on PW18's right hand and admitted history of assault was not recorded and the injury could have been caused by a fall on a blunt surface – PW16 (first Investigating Officer) admitted he did not collect injury reports and that PW15 did not suffer any injury from stone throwing, directly contradicting PW18's testimony – Held: Prosecution failed to substantiate claim of injuries with proper medical evidence [Paras 36–49].

"Non-Seizure and Non-Production of Alleged Weapons – Fatal Gap in Prosecution Case"

Seizure – Non-Production of Weapons – PW18 alleged assailants were armed with hasua, lathis, stones, arrows and bows but Investigating Agency did not seize any such weapons during investigation – PW15 stated Investigating Officer seized a rifle and cartridges but these were neither produced before Court nor shown to the witness – PW16 admitted items seized were never produced in Court as material exhibits – Held: Non-seizure and non-production of alleged offending weapons amounts to a material irregularity and demonstrates failure of prosecution to establish essential aspects of its case – Creates significant gap in chain of evidence [Paras 36, 40, 53, 62].

"Contradictions Between Police Witnesses – Prosecution Narrative Unreliable"

Credibility of Police Witnesses – Internal Contradictions – PW18 claimed PW15 sustained injuries in the attack but PW16 in cross-examination categorically stated PW15 did not suffer any injury from stone throwing – PW1 (H.G. 339 Faruq Sk.) admitted he could not say whether any police officer sustained injuries and stated he "later came to learn" of injuries from the mob, based solely on hearsay – PW1 further admitted his statement was recorded for the first time in Court and he was never examined by the Investigating Officer during investigation – PW2 failed to identify any of the alleged miscreants before Court – Discrepancies exist regarding number of persons present, nature of injuries, and sequence of events – Held: Testimonies of police witnesses are fraught with contradictions and omissions and do not form a coherent or consistent narrative – Conviction based solely on interested witness testimony without independent corroboration cannot be sustained [Paras 50–58, 61].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of conviction dated 21.05.2005 in Sessions Case No. 95/03 (Sessions Trial No. 19(4)/04, English Bazar P.S. Case No. 68/93, G.R. Case No. 303/93) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Fast Track Court, Malda set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Appellants discharged from bail bonds and set at liberty if not wanted in any other case – Direction to execute bail bonds under Section 437A CrPC/Section 483 BNSS for six months.

Tenancy Law – Will by Tenant – Bequeathal of Tenancy Rights – Section 45, H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act – Panchi was recorded as a non-occupancy tenant under Ishru, a widow, as per Jamabandi for 1977-78 – Panchi executed a Will dated 27.11.1984 in favour of the defendant – Defendant contended that Panchi had become the owner upon commencement of the Act – Held: Section 104(8) of the Act expressly excludes operation of Sections 104(1) to (6) in the case of a tenancy under a widow during her lifetime – Panchi could not have acquired proprietary rights during the lifetime of Ishru – Tenancy rights cannot be bequeathed by way of a Will – Section 45 of the Act provides the exclusive rule of succession to tenancy rights – Will held void ab initio [Paras 28-36].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Tenancy Dispute Between Successors of Tenant – Section 58 Bar – Sections 112 and 115, H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act – Bar under Section 58 applies only where the status of landlord and tenant is not disputed and not to cases where parties are claiming to be successors of the tenant – Dispute between two persons each claiming to be successor of a tenant does not fall within the cognizance of Revenue Courts – Bar of Civil Court jurisdiction under Sections 112 and 115 applies only when validity of orders passed under Chapter X is called in question, and not where no such order is involved – Civil Court jurisdiction held not barred [Paras 21-27, 37-40].

Additional Evidence – Application Dismissed – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Defendant sought to lead additional evidence by producing copy of Pariwar register to prove date of death of Ishru – No pleading in the written statement that Ishru had died and Panchi had consequently become owner – Additional evidence cannot be allowed to prove a plea never taken in pleadings – Further, copy of Pariwar register is not admissible to prove date of birth or death; only entries in the Register of Births and Deaths can be proved – Application dismissed [Paras 15-20].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – All three substantial questions of law answered against the appellants – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court upheld.

Insurance Law – Shopkeepers Policy – Repudiation of Claim – Theft/Burglary – Plaintiff running cloth shop under name "Monalisa Emporium" insured stocks with defendant No.1 for Rs.2,25,000/- under cover note dated 27.11.1990 – Plaintiff alleged that on 26.10.1991 two known persons forcibly lifted stock worth Rs.1,25,000/- from shop in his absence – Trial court decreed suit for Rs.1,72,650/- with interest and costs against insurer – High Court on appeal holds the incident does not constitute theft or burglary within scope of policy coverage – Plaintiff failed to prove loss by adequate evidence and violated policy conditions – Appeal allowed – Trial court decree set aside – Suit dismissed [Paras 1–30].

"Incident at Broad Daylight by Known Persons Without Resistance – Does Not Constitute Theft or Burglary Under Insurance Policy"

Insurance Claim – Theft – Burden of Proof – Alleged incident occurred at 12.30 noon in a prime locality at broad daylight – Wife of plaintiff (P.W.2) and worker present in shop made no minimum resistance, raised no cries and did not call neighbouring shopkeepers – Persons who took away stock (M.S.R. Anjaneyulu and Subramanyam) were known cloth merchants to whom plaintiff owed debt – Complaint lodged before police was referred as false after investigation – Held: The conduct of P.W.2 and the worker indicates consent rather than theft – Acts of said two persons do not form part of an act of burglary or theft and do not come within scope of coverage of insurance policy – Insurer rightly repudiated the claim [Paras 18–28].

"Failure to Examine Material Witnesses – Adverse Inference Against Plaintiff"

Evidence – Material Witnesses Not Examined – Plaintiff failed to examine worker Siva Narayana who was present in the shop at the time of the alleged incident – Neighbouring shopkeepers also not examined despite incident occurring at a busy main road locality during business hours – No stock inventory or list of cloth lost with price list filed before trial court – Held: Plaintiff failed to prove the alleged theft by reliable evidence – Oral testimony of wife alone insufficient to establish claim [Paras 20–22].

"Violation of Policy Condition No. 5 – Delay in Lodging Complaint and Notice to Insurer"

Insurance Policy – Condition No. 5 – Compliance – Policy required insured to forthwith lodge police complaint and intimate insurer within 14 days of theft – FIR (Ex.A-4) shows police received complaint only on 21.08.1992, nearly ten months after alleged incident of 26.10.1991 – No evidence produced by plaintiff of complaint lodged on 27.10.1991 as claimed – Police referred case as false and plaintiff filed no protest petition – Held: Plaintiff failed to comply with Condition No. 5(1)(a) of the insurance policy by not taking all practicable steps to apprehend the guilty persons or recover the lost property [Paras 25–27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 23.11.2005 in O.S. No. 482 of 1996 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur set aside – Suit dismissed – Each party to bear own costs.

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Mental Cruelty – Unsubstantiated Allegations in Written Statement – Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act – Appellant-husband sought divorce on ground of mental cruelty – Trial Court dismissed the suit – On appeal, held: allegations levelled by the respondent-wife in her written statement, including attempt to kill their second daughter, illicit affair of the husband with another lady, and incitement of third parties to make immoral proposals to the wife, were wholly unsubstantiated – Allegation of attempt to kill daughter on February 15, 2019 demolished by wife's own admission in cross-examination that she had not returned to her matrimonial home after December 15, 2018, three months prior to such alleged incident – No corroborative evidence, oral or documentary, adduced for the alleged illicit affair – Testimony of wife (DW-1) and her mother (DW-2) stood in stark contradiction to each other – Reckless, defamatory and unsubstantiated allegations in pleadings against the spouse and his family, including jeopardising the husband's service in the CISF (a disciplined force), constitute mental cruelty – Trial Court erred in not taking this component of cruelty into account – Appellant entitled to decree of divorce on this ground alone [Paras 27–36].

Mental Cruelty – Plaint Allegations by Husband – Not Substantiated – Adverse Inference – Allegations by the appellant-husband of the wife refusing to do household work, ill-behaving with in-laws and perpetrating cruelty during her stay at the matrimonial home were vague and unaccompanied by specific dates or instances – PW-2, an acquaintance of the husband, admitted he learnt of the facts the day before deposing, relegating his testimony to hearsay – None of the family members of the husband, who would have been the best witnesses, were produced, warranting adverse inference against the appellant on the plaint case of cruelty during cohabitation – Trial Court justified in rejecting plaint allegations for want of independent corroboration [Paras 24–26].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Not a Prerequisite for Divorce – The learned Trial Judge erred in holding that non-filing of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was indicative of lack of bona fides on the part of the husband – Held: there is no requirement in law that a party must initiate restitution proceedings as a precondition for seeking divorce – No evidence of animus revertendi on the part of the respondent-wife during the entire period of separation since December 15, 2018 [Para 38].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Independent Ground for Divorce – Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act – Parties had been separated for over eight years since December 2018 – Both parties stated during arguments that they did not wish to resume conjugal life – No attempt made by either party to unite during this period – Held: a marital relationship that has only become bitter and acrimonious over the years inflicts cruelty on both sides; keeping the facade of such a broken marriage alive does injustice to both parties – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage itself spells cruelty to both parties and is a ground for dissolution under Section 13(1)(ia) – Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, (2023) 17 SCC 433, followed [Paras 39–41].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated December 6, 2023 of the Additional District Judge, Khatra, in Matrimonial Suit No. 07 of 2020 set aside – Suit decreed – Marriage between the parties dissolved by divorce – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Human Trafficking – Immoral Traffic – Quashing of Charge – Sections 370, 370-A(2) IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 – Petitioner, owner-cum-manager of a Spa at Mapusa, sought quashing of order framing charges arising from a police trap operation in which a decoy customer paid marked currency notes for massage services, a victim girl accepted additional payment for extra/special massage, and marked notes were recovered both from the victim and the cash counter held by the Petitioner – Co-accused (customers and other named accused) had earlier been discharged by the Court – Held: Sufficient prima facie material exists on record to frame charge against the Petitioner and the challenge to the order framing charge fails – Petition dismissed [Paras 1, 20, 21].

"Owner-Cum-Manager Personally Implicated — Decoy Statement Establishes Direct Role"

Framing of Charge – Prima Facie Material – Role of Petitioner – The statement of the decoy customer disclosed that the Petitioner, seated at the counter, personally informed him of the massage charges, assured provision of female masseurs in closed-door rooms, received payment of Rs.1,500/- in marked currency, and arranged a victim girl for massage – Marked notes of Rs.1,500/- were recovered from the cash counter in the Petitioner's possession during the raid – Prima facie material clearly implicates the Petitioner in active management and facilitation of the alleged activities [Paras 10, 15].

"Victim Statements Alone Not Determinative — Context of Trap Raid Governs at Charge Stage"

Victim Statements – Stereotypical Nature – Insufficient to Negate Charge – The statements of the rescued victim girls were stereotypical, denying forced exploitation, but when read conjunctively with the complaint, decoy statement and scene of offence panchanama, prima facie material emerged showing one victim accepted Rs.500/- for extra/special/hand massage, which sum was recovered from her personal search – A packet of condoms was also recovered from the same room – The nature of the extra massage is a matter to be determined upon trial, not at the charge stage [Paras 12, 14, 15].

"Definition of 'Exploitation' Under Section 370 IPC is Inclusive, Not Exhaustive"

Trafficking Offence – Exploitation – Consent Immaterial – Section 370 IPC defines exploitation inclusively to cover any form of sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery – Second Explanation to Section 370 renders the consent of the victim immaterial in determining the offence of trafficking – Whether a particular act constitutes exploitation depends upon the facts of each case and is a matter for trial [Paras 12, 13, 14].

"Principle of Parity Not Applicable — Role of Petitioner Distinct from Discharged Co-Accused"

Parity – Discharge of Co-Accused – Inapplicability – Accused Nos. 7, 8 and 9 were discharged as no role was attributed to them in the complaint or charge-sheet – Accused Nos. 2 to 6 were discharged as they were merely customers of the Spa – The Petitioner, being the licensee and owner-cum-manager who personally received payment and facilitated the alleged prostitution, stands on an entirely different footing – Principle of parity cannot be invoked in favour of the Petitioner [Paras 4, 17].

"Standard at Charge Stage — Court Not to Weigh Pros and Cons but Only Assess Prima Facie Grounds"

Framing of Charge – Standard of Scrutiny – At the stage of framing charge, the Court is only required to sift the evidence to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the accused – The Court must assume the prosecution material to be true and assess whether the ingredients of the offence are prima facie disclosed – It is not the function of the Court at this stage to weigh the pros and cons of the evidence, which is the function reserved for the trial [Para 18].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Order dated 17.01.2024 of the Sessions Judge, North Goa, directing framing of charges against the Petitioner under Sections 370 and 370-A(2) IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 upheld – Rule discharged [Para 21].

Civil Law – Permanent Injunction – Proof of Possession – Second Appeal – Plaintiffs' suit for permanent injunction dismissed by trial Court for failure to prove lawful possession – First appellate Court reversed, erroneously relying on recitals in an earlier suit (O.S.No.678/1988) and drawing perverse inferences from revenue records – High Court held that the first appellate Court's findings were contrary to evidence and pleadings – Oral and documentary evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 wholly insufficient to establish possession as on the date of filing of the suit – Second appeal allowed – Judgment of first appellate Court set aside – Trial Court's dismissal of suit restored [Paras 19, 25, 29, 30, 31].

"Suit for Bare Injunction — Plaintiff Must Prove Physical Exclusive Possession as on Date of Suit"

Permanent Injunction – Proof of Possession – Bare Injunction Suit – In a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter, the plaintiff must establish that as on the date of filing the suit, he was in lawful and physical exclusive possession of the suit property and that the defendant attempted to disturb such possession – The plaintiffs failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove possession over the plaint schedule property – P.W.1 (plaintiff No.2) had no personal knowledge about the alleged Nazarana payment or the alleged partition between Mukkaiah and Bheemaiah, being only 10 years old at the time of Mukkaiah's death – P.W.2 and P.W.3 also failed to speak to possession – No patta, no revenue records bearing the suit survey number, and no credible witness examined to prove the alleged oral partition [Paras 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 28].

"Tax Receipts Not Conclusive Proof of Possession — Revenue Records Must Specifically Reference Suit Survey Number"

Evidence – Tax Receipts – Revenue Records – Proof of Possession – The plaintiffs relied on tax receipts (Ex.A-4, Ex.A-10) to prove possession, but the suit schedule survey number and extent were not mentioned in those receipts – Held: Payment of tax receipts is not a conclusive proof of possession of property — Tax receipts show only that a person paid land revenue and not that he was in actual physical possession of the specific suit property — In the absence of any document linking the plaintiffs to R.S.No.394 specifically, the receipts are of no evidentiary value for the purpose of the suit [Para 24].

"Recitals in Earlier Suit Not an Admission of Plaintiffs' Possession — First Appellate Court Drew Perverse Inferences"

Evidence – Admissions – Prior Suit Proceedings – Perverse Findings – The first appellate Court drew the erroneous conclusion that since the defendants in an earlier suit (O.S.No.678/1988) claimed possession of only Ac.16.00 cents against third parties, they were impliedly admitting the plaintiffs' possession over the remaining Ac.16.00 cents – Held: The recital in that earlier plaint that the Revenue Authorities had by mistake recorded only Ac.16.00 cents against the defendants and the remaining Ac.16.00 cents as in the name of Bheemaiah cannot be construed as an admission of Bheemaiah's possession — Findings of the first appellate Court on this point were perverse — Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-3 are of no use to prove plaintiffs' possession [Paras 22, 23, 26].

"When Title is Disputed, Suit for Bare Injunction Without Seeking Declaration is Not Maintainable"

Suit for Injunction – Title in Dispute – Declaration Required – The defendants disputed the title of the plaintiffs in the written statement, denying that the alleged partition between Mukkaiah and Bheemaiah ever took place — Held: Where the title of the plaintiff is in dispute or under a cloud and the defendant asserts title, the plaintiff is required to file a suit for declaration of title along with the consequential relief of injunction — A suit for bare injunction simpliciter will not lie in such circumstances — The plaintiffs neither sought declaration of title nor amended the relief clause during pendency of the suit — Ananthula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. applied [Para 27].

Decision: Second appeal allowed — Judgment and decree dated 27.02.2006 in A.S.No.25 of 1999 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, set aside — Judgment and decree of the trial Court (I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur) dismissing the suit restored — Each party to bear their own costs [Para 31].

Right to Information Act, 2005 — Section 20(1) — Penalty Proceedings — Right of Appellant to be Heard — Petitioner filed RTI application seeking information regarding exclusion of her Form-6 application under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 from Revenue Adalat — SPIO failed to reply within 30 days — State Information Commission issued show cause notice to SPIO — SPIO's explanation accepted and penalty proceedings dropped — Petitioner challenged the order contending she was not furnished copy of SPIO's explanation and was not afforded opportunity to rebut — Held: The first proviso to Section 20(1) mandates only that the SPIO be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before penalty is imposed — RTI Act does not provide for hearing the appellant in proceedings under Section 20 — Penalty proceedings under Section 20 are purely a matter between the Commission and the SPIO — Penalty goes to the State exchequer and not to the complainant — Appellant has no right to be heard in penalty proceedings under Section 20(1) unless permitted by the Commission — Commission's finding that SPIO's explanation was satisfactory cannot be termed erroneous or perverse — Writ petition dismissed [Paras 7, 8].

RTI Act — Section 20(1) — Nature of Penalty Proceedings — Distinguished from Compensation under Section 19(8)(b) — Unlike proceedings for compensation under Section 19(8)(b) which require adjudication of the complainant's loss and thereby necessitate presence of appellant, penalty proceedings under Section 20 do not require the appellant's participation — The show cause notice issued by the Commission is only prima facie in nature — If the Commission finds the SPIO's explanation satisfactory, penalty proceedings can be dropped — Appearance of appellant before State Information Commission is optional as per Rule 7 of the Kerala State Information Commission (Procedure for Appeal) Rules, 2006 [Paras 7, 8].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed.