Motor Accident Claim – Delay in FIR – Not Fatal – FIR in the present case was lodged ten days after the accident – Held: Delay in FIR cannot by itself be a ground to reject claim – Human priorities in medical emergencies or last rites are valid reasons for delay – Reliance placed on Ravi v. Badrinarayan (2011) 4 SCC 693 [Paras 7, 10, 15]

Negligence – Eye-witness and Charge Sheet – Evidence of eye-witness (PW-3) established that offending vehicle was driven rashly and negligently and hit the deceased's motorcycle – Charge sheet filed against driver of the Truck – Driver and owner did not enter witness box to rebut claim – Site plan showing head-on collision cannot override direct oral evidence – Tribunal rightly held driver negligent – Reliance placed on ICICI Lombard v. Rajani Sahoo (2025) 2 SCC 599 and Ranjeet v. Abdul Kayam Neb 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497 [Paras 3, 5, 6, 12–14]

Assessment of Compensation – Future Prospects – Tribunal awarded 50% future prospects applying Rule 220-A of U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules since deceased was aged 38 – Held: Tribunal justified in doing so as the Rule mandates 50% addition for persons below 40 – Rule prevails over Pranay Sethi guideline in the context of U.P. – Reliance placed on New India Assurance Co. v. Urmila Shukla (2021) 20 SCC 800 [Paras 3, 16]

Interest on Future Prospects – Permissible – Tribunal awarded interest on future prospects as well – Contention raised by insurer that such interest is impermissible was rejected – Held: Rule 220-A(6) allows interest on entire compensation amount – Supported by several precedents including Oriental Insurance v. Niru, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1431 – SLP against similar award dismissed by Supreme Court [Paras 17–22]

Evidence Standard – Preponderance of Probabilities – Court reiterated that in motor accident claims, standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt – Reliance placed on Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi (2023) 13 SCC 510 and Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz (2013) 10 SCC 646 [Paras 5, 6]

Decision: Appeal dismissed at admission stage – Tribunal’s award of ₹18,34,000/- with 7% interest upheld – Direction to refund statutory deposit of ₹25,000/- to Tribunal.

Banking Law – Priority of Secured Creditors – Sections 26E SARFAESI Act and 31B RDB Act – Mortgage created in 2011 by borrower in favour of petitioner bank – Subsequent attachment of same property by SDM, Jaunpur in 2015 for recovery of dues of Food and Civil Supply Department – Held: Illegal – Statutory charge of secured creditor has overriding effect – Secured debts have priority over all government dues, taxes, or cesses – Non obstante clause in both provisions overrides any inconsistent law – Attachment order quashed [Paras 9–20].

Secured vs. Unsecured Creditors – Principle – Rights of secured creditors under SARFAESI Act are statutory and prevail over unsecured government dues – Common law principle of Crown debt confined to unsecured creditors – Parliament having enacted specific statutory provisions conferring priority, government dues cannot supersede secured debt – Reliance placed on Union of India v. SICOM Ltd., (2009) 2 SCC 121 and Central Bank of India v. Siriguppa Sugars & Chemicals Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 353 [Paras 13, 19].

Statutory Interpretation – Competing Non Obstante Clauses – Later Enactment Prevails – Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators (P) Ltd., (2023) 3 SCC 210 applied – When two statutes contain non obstante clauses, later enactment with overriding provision prevails – Priority of secured creditors under Section 26E SARFAESI Act (inserted in 2016) prevails over earlier statutes creating unsecured government dues [Paras 15, 17].

Crown Debt – Doctrine – Extent – Government dues do not automatically create first charge unless statute expressly provides – Secured creditors’ rights not overridden by administrative recoveries under revenue laws – Punjab National Bank v. Union of India, (2022) 7 SCC 260 followed [Paras 14, 19].

Recovery Proceedings – Jurisdiction – Authorities under revenue laws have no jurisdiction to attach mortgaged assets after creation of registered security interest – Possession to be delivered to bank under Section 14 SARFAESI Act – Actions contrary to statutory priority are ultra vires and void [Paras 10–12, 18].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Attachment order dated 09.02.2015 passed by SDM, Jaunpur set aside – Held that secured creditor (Bank of Baroda) has first charge and priority over mortgaged property – State dues being unsecured cannot override statutory priority under Sections 26E and 31B – Respondents restrained from interfering with bank’s recovery proceedings – No order as to costs [Paras 20].

Hindu Law – Inheritance – Applicability of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Married Daughter’s Right – Plaintiff sought declaration of title and partition of ancestral property inherited by her brother after their father's death – Both Courts below found that father died in 1950-51, prior to enactment of 1956 Act – Held: Succession opened under pre-1956 Mitakshara law which excluded daughters when a male heir existed – Plaintiff had no enforceable right under prevailing law at the time – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12, 19-21, 26, 30-31]

Hindu Law – Mitakshara Succession – Male Lineal Descent – Property inherited from paternal ancestors treated as coparcenary property under Mitakshara law – Sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons acquire rights by birth – Female heirs could inherit only in absence of male issue – Defendant’s succession to entire estate held valid – Plaintiff’s claim without merit [Paras 19, 26-30]

Statutory Interpretation – Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 – Limited Scope – Act merely ranked certain female heirs in succession after paternal grandfather and before paternal uncle – Did not override Mitakshara principles or grant equal rights to daughters where male heirs existed – Plaintiff not entitled under 1929 Act either [Paras 23-25, 27-28]

Widow’s Possession – Section 14, Hindu Succession Act – No evidence led to show possession of property by widow after husband’s death – In absence of possession, limited estate could not convert into absolute right – Plaintiff failed to establish succession through mother – Mutation in favour of defendants upheld [Para 14, 30]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No right of inheritance accrued to plaintiff under Mitakshara law – Hindu Succession Act, 1956 not applicable due to ancestor’s death prior to its commencement – Property validly devolved upon male heir – No error in concurrent findings of lower courts – No costs awarded.

Criminal Law - Motor Vehicle Accident – Negligence – No Direct Evidence – Conviction Set Aside – Accused was convicted by Trial and Appellate Courts for rash and negligent driving causing injuries – Revisional Court held that prosecution failed to prove rashness or negligence – Injury location inconsistent with prosecution's version of accident – Conviction under Sections 279 and 338 IPC set aside [Paras 18–24, 29–37, 40].

Evidence – Contradictions – Prosecution version that victim was hit from behind contradicted by injury on her left leg – Witnesses’ testimony regarding “high speed” insufficient without specific elaboration – Statements of negligence by witnesses held inadmissible as opinion, not fact – Witnesses’ conclusions disregarded [Paras 19–26, 34–36].

High Speed – Not Per Se Negligent – Speed alone not determinative of rashness – No evidence of reckless driving or breach of duty – Court cited State of Karnataka v. Satish and Mohanta Lal v. State of W.B. to reaffirm that “high speed” must be contextualised – Mere speed cannot establish guilt [Paras 24–26].

Licensing – Driving Without License – Conviction Upheld – Accused admitted to not holding a valid driving license – Held: Though not evidence of negligence, driving without license validly attracts Section 181 of M.V. Act – Sentence of ₹500 fine upheld as reasonable [Paras 31–33, 38].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Concurrent Findings – Revisional Court reiterated that it cannot act as a second appellate court – Interference only when findings are perverse or based on no evidence – Court relied on Malkeet Singh Gill, Dilipsinh Rao, Kishan Rao and others to set out settled law on revisional powers [Paras 13–17].

Decision: Revision Petition Partly Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 279 and 338 IPC set aside – Conviction and fine of ₹500 under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act upheld [Paras 40–42].

Criminal Law – Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act - Acquittal – Illegal Possession of Liquor – Compliance with Procedural Safeguards – Accused was acquitted by Trial Court in a case under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act for alleged illegal possession and sale of country liquor – Trial Court found that the prosecution failed to comply with mandatory provisions under Sections 100 and 165 of CrPC – Independent witnesses (PW-1 and PW-4) turned hostile and denied witnessing the recovery – Prosecution could not explain production of half-filled and unsealed bottles in Court [Paras 6, 15-22]

Search and Seizure – Section 165 CrPC – Validity of Search – IO did not reduce secret information into writing nor sent it to Magistrate as required under Section 165 CrPC – Supreme Court precedents mandate strict compliance in cases of warrantless search – Held: Search and seizure vitiated due to procedural lapses [Paras 15-18]

Evidence – Non-Production of Case Property – No explanation provided for half-filled and empty bottles – Seizure not proved through credible testimony – No supporting entry in daily diary about leakage of liquor – Held: Non-production of intact case property creates serious doubt about prosecution’s case [Paras 22-23]

Witness Testimony – Hostile Independent Witnesses – Panchayat members turned hostile during trial and denied witnessing search or seizure – Admission of signatures on seizure memo held insufficient to prove recovery – Held: Trial Court rightly did not rely on uncorroborated official testimonies [Paras 19-21]

Appellate Interference in Acquittal – Scope – High Court reaffirmed that acquittal can only be reversed if findings are perverse or no other reasonable view is possible – Since Trial Court’s view was plausible based on record, appeal dismissed – Presumption of innocence reaffirmed [Paras 12-14, 26]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent upheld – Bail bond to be furnished as per Section 437-A CrPC [Paras 27-28]

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant convicted under Section 306 IPC as mother-in-law of deceased who allegedly committed suicide nine years after marriage – Trial Court convicted appellant based on vague allegations of harassment – Held: No proximate or direct act of instigation or abetment proved against appellant – Essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC not fulfilled – Mere allegations of harassment not sufficient to constitute abetment – Mens rea absent – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 13–20]

Evidence – Inconsistencies and Omissions – Witnesses Contradicted Their Earlier Statements – PW-4 contradicted prior statement where he had stated that deceased was under depression due to childlessness and that relations with in-laws were cordial – Medical evidence incomplete as doctor who conducted post-mortem not examined – Held: Prosecution failed to prove active role of appellant in causing suicide – No cogent or corroborative evidence led – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 17–19]

Judicial Precedents – Standard of Proof Under Section 306 IPC – Court relies on Supreme Court rulings including Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat, Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra, Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan – Held: Proximity and direct link between accused’s conduct and suicide necessary – Conviction under Section 306 requires proof of instigation or intentional aid, mere harassment insufficient [Paras 15–16]

Abuse of Process – No Prima Facie Case – Harassment Not Proved to Be of Such Nature As to Drive Deceased to Suicide – Held: Criminal proceedings against appellant in absence of proximate cause and intent would amount to abuse of process – Acquittal warranted [Paras 20–21]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 306 IPC quashed – Appellant acquitted – Fine, if deposited, to be refunded – Bail bonds discharged – Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case

Motor Accident Claim – Driver Identity Dispute – Insurer contended that Aman Chauhan, a deceased without a valid driving license, was driving the Alto car at time of accident, rendering policy coverage void – Tribunal and High Court rejected insurer’s claim based on consistent eyewitness testimony and admission of Anil Kumar, who confessed to being the driver and fleeing the scene – FIR and police final report found unreliable as no investigating officer was examined and discrepancies existed in factual narration [Paras 5.4, 6, 9-13, 16]

Motor Vehicles Act – Liability of Insurer – Defence of breach of policy failed – Insurer failed to prove that Aman Chauhan was driver – Testimony of surviving occupant (Prince Chauhan) and six independent eyewitnesses supported that Anil Kumar was driving – Police's reliance on ASI’s second-hand report not sufficient – Tribunal rightly fastened liability on insurer [Paras 10.1 to 10.9, 14-17]

Compensation – Quantum Determination – Aman Chauhan’s income estimated at ₹15,000/month by Tribunal, though not supported by documentary proof – Court reduced monthly income to ₹10,000 based on skilled worker’s minimum wage – Total compensation modified to ₹20,53,932 from ₹30,06,000 [Paras 20-20.2]

Compensation – Quantum Re-assessment – In Jasvinder’s case, Tribunal assumed ₹12,000/month income; Court revised it to ₹10,000 based on minimum wage – After 50% deduction and 40% future prospects, compensation recalculated as ₹14,14,000 instead of ₹16,82,800 [Paras 21-21.1]

Personal Injury – Compensation – In Prince Chauhan’s claim (injury case), award of ₹50,000 upheld – Court found it reasonable and not excessive – No interference warranted [Para 22]

Evidence – FIR and Police Report – FIR based on ASI’s inference from hearsay and not supported by direct evidence – Final report filed months later without timely recording of survivor’s version – Held: FIR and police report untrustworthy, especially in absence of testimony of investigating officer [Paras 12-13, 15-16]

Appellate Interference – FAO No. 31 (Prince Chauhan) dismissed – FAO Nos. 32 and 33 (Aman Chauhan and Jasvinder) partially allowed to modify compensation quantum – Awards modified but insurer held liable [Paras 24-25]

Decision: FAO No. 31 of 2023 dismissed – FAO Nos. 32 & 33 of 2023 partially allowed – Compensation in MAC 11-R/2 of 2021 and MAC 12-R/2 of 2021 reduced – Tribunal’s finding on liability upheld – Interest to remain as awarded [Para 24]

Property Law – Permanent Injunction – Co-sharer plea – Adverse inference – Concurrent findings – Suit land 32 marlas marked ABCD – Trial Court decreed injunction on possession; First Appellate Court affirmed – Defendant’s belated co-sharer argument inapplicable as he never pleaded joint status and instead set up exclusive claims (7 marlas with himself, 25 marlas with sister) – Non-appearance of defendant warranted adverse inference – No substantial question of law – Appeal dismissed [Paras 4, 7–13].

Pleadings and Burden – Co-sharer principle not attracted – Legal proposition that one co-sharer cannot injunct another is undisputed, but inapplicable where the defendant’s own pleadings deny jointness and assert exclusive titles in defined portions – Court declines to permit a case beyond pleadings [Paras 8–9].

Evidence – Family partition and possession – First Appellate Court recorded that partition stood admitted even by defence witnesses – Sister (alleged owner of 25 marlas) residing in another village since 1947; no possession proved – Defendant did not enter the witness box; son (DW2) lacked personal knowledge of partition or identification of the alleged 7 marlas – Defence testimony inconsistent and unreliable [Para 10].

Adverse Inference – Non-appearance of a party – Adverse inference against the defendant for not stepping into the witness box, consistent with Prem Sagar v. Darbari Lal and Sardari Lal v. Kartar Singh – Defendant failed to substantiate title or possession; plaintiff’s possession proved – Decrees sustained [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Concurrent injunction in favour of the plaintiff maintained [Para 13].

Property Law – Possession under Unregistered Agreement to Sell – Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act – Agreement dated 07.05.1963 and receipt dated 15.09.1963 proved on record – However, possession of defendants taken nearly six to seven years after execution of the agreement – Held: Such possession not in part performance of the contract – Essential conditions under Section 53A not fulfilled – Defence of part performance unavailable [Paras 11–13, 16].

Specific Relief – Readiness and Willingness – Defendants failed to establish continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract – Once the suit for specific performance stood dismissed, the right to invoke Section 53A ceased – Doctrine of part performance is purely defensive and cannot sustain possession after extinguishment of contractual rights [Paras 15–16].

Adverse Possession – Inconsistency with Contractual Possession – Plea of adverse possession cannot co-exist with possession under an agreement to sell – Possession under such contract is lawful only during subsistence of the agreement – After dismissal of specific performance suit, no title or ownership can accrue by adverse possession [Para 15].

Case Law – Applicability – Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi (2023) 7 SCC 361 distinguished – Doctrine of part performance applicable only where possession is taken in pursuance of the agreement and transferee remains willing to perform the contract – Defendants failed to satisfy these conditions – No benefit from the cited authority [Para 17].

Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – No perversity or substantial question of law shown – Concurrent decrees of possession based on proper appreciation of evidence – High Court declines interference [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Decrees of possession affirmed – No order as to costs [Para 19].