Election Law – Election Petition – Rejection Application – Material Facts – Pleading Standard – Petitioner challenged the election of Respondent No. 1 returned from Chandivali Assembly Constituency by a margin of 20,625 votes on grounds of corrupt practice, violation of Model Code of Conduct, defective Form 26 Affidavit, and apprehended EVM tampering – Respondent No. 1 filed application for rejection under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the Petition did not disclose a cause of action for want of material facts – Held: The Election Petition is liable to be dismissed for failure to plead material facts as mandated under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Rejection Application allowed and Petition dismissed [Paras 1–80].

"Material Facts" – Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Mandatory Pleading Requirement

Election Petition – Pleading – Section 83 – An election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies and, in respect of corrupt practice, full particulars including the names of parties, and the date and place of commission – Omission of even a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and entitles the returned candidate to seek rejection under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC – The distinction between facta probanda (material facts to be pleaded) and facta probantia (evidence to be proved at trial) must be maintained – Material facts are those primary and basic facts which constitute the complete cause of action and without which the petition is not maintainable [Paras 32–35, 63–66].

"Undue Influence vs. Influence" – Section 123(2) – Corrupt Practice – Road Show During Silent Period

Corrupt Practice – Undue Influence – Section 123(2) – Star campaigner and then Chief Minister visited the Constituency on the polling day at 3:08 PM and allegedly conducted a road show near five polling stations within the prohibited 48-hour period in violation of Section 126 – Petitioner alleged this constituted corrupt practice of undue influence under Section 123(2) to attract Section 100(1)(b) – Held: Mere canvassing and soliciting votes, even by a star campaigner during prohibited hours, does not per se constitute "undue influence" within the meaning of Section 123(2) unless it is shown that such conduct interfered with the free exercise of electoral will of the electorate by way of threat, coercion, inducement, or misrepresentation – Rallying loyal supporters constitutes "influence" and not "undue influence" – Petition contained no whisper of threat, coercion, inducement or fraud – The pleadings stop short of indicating how such influence was undue – The distinction between "influence" and "undue influence" is critical and the Petition failed to bridge it [Paras 38–47].

"Violation of Section 126 vs. Corrupt Practice" – Independent Sanction – Section 100(1)(d)(iv)

Electoral Offence – Prohibition of Campaign During Silent Period – Section 126 – A campaign during the 48-hour prohibited period constitutes a violation of Section 126 attracting its own criminal sanction of imprisonment up to two years or fine or both – However, a violation of Section 126 does not automatically constitute a "corrupt practice" under Section 123 and thereby cannot ipso facto attract Section 100(1)(b) – For Section 100(1)(d)(iv), the petitioner must further plead and prove that the non-compliance materially affected the electoral result insofar as it concerned the returned candidate – Mere bald averment that "but for the visit the Petitioner would have won" is insufficient – There must be some rational basis in the pleadings to indicate materiality of impact to enable the returned candidate to meet the allegation [Paras 48–70].

"Form 26 Affidavit – Excessive Disclosure – Non-Disclosure of Asset" – Sections 100(1)(b) and 100(1)(d)(iv)

Form 26 Affidavit – Defective Disclosure – Returned candidate disclosed civil cases along with criminal cases in the Form 26 Affidavit, allegedly misleading voters into perceiving more civil than criminal exposure – Also alleged non-disclosure of residential premises occupied by the returned candidate as an asset – Held: There is no prohibition on a candidate voluntarily disclosing more than the statutory minimum – There is no pleading of how excessive disclosure of civil cases constituted undue influence within Section 123(2) or materially affected the electoral result – As regards undisclosed residential premises, there is not even an averment that title is in the name of the returned candidate – Relying on Mangani Lal Mandal and Karim Uddin Barbhuiya: material facts as to how defects in the Form 26 Affidavit materially affected the electoral result are entirely absent – Petition fails on this ground too [Paras 71–76].

"EVM Tampering – Bare Apprehension – No Causal Link" – Section 100

Electronic Voting Machines – Apprehended Tampering – Petitioner availed of the right to get 20 EVM sets verified by paying prescribed fees in accordance with the Supreme Court guidelines in Association for Democratic Reforms – Held: Availing of the right to test EVMs does not by itself constitute pleading of material facts sufficient to invoke Section 100 – There is no pleading linking the EVMs identified to Shinde's visit or to any other cause reasonably giving rise to an apprehension of tampering – The right to seek a verification check and the existence of a cause of action under Section 100 to declare the election void are entirely different – Pleadings on EVMs do not disclose a cause of action [Paras 77–78].

Decision: Rejection Application (Application in Election Petition No. 26 of 2025) allowed – Election Petition No. 9 of 2025 dismissed – No costs – Application in EP (L) No. 26326 of 2025 disposed of in consequence – Random check of EVMs already permitted shall be carried out unhindered by this judgment – Nothing in this judgment pronounces upon the merits of any criminal proceedings arising from the alleged violation of Section 126 of the Act [Paras 79–83].

Election Law – Rejection of Election Petition – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Returned candidate sought rejection of election petition on ground that pleadings lacked material facts necessary to sustain allegations of corrupt practice and invalid election – Court held that an election petition must disclose a complete cause of action through clear pleadings of material facts and failure to do so renders the petition liable to rejection.

Representation of the People Act – Section 83 – Requirement of Material Facts – An election petition must contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies – Material facts constitute the fundamental facts necessary to establish the grounds under Section 100 or corrupt practices under Section 123 – Absence of such foundational facts is fatal to the maintainability of the petition.

Election Petition – Distinction between Material Facts and Particulars – Material facts are the primary facts which constitute the cause of action, whereas particulars are the details that support those facts – Failure to plead material facts cannot be cured by amendment, while deficiency in particulars may be remedied if foundational facts are already pleaded.

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope of Examination – While deciding an application for rejection of pleadings, the Court must consider only the averments contained in the election petition and assume them to be true – If the pleadings, even when taken at face value, do not disclose a cause of action under the Representation of the People Act, the petition must be rejected at the threshold.

Election Disputes – Strict Statutory Compliance – Election petitions are purely statutory proceedings and must strictly comply with requirements of the Representation of the People Act – Courts must ensure that election results are not lightly unsettled in the absence of clear and specific pleadings supported by material facts.

Decision: Application seeking rejection of the election petition examined in light of statutory requirements relating to pleading of material facts under the Representation of the People Act and principles governing rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Gratuity claim – Limitation – Interest – Definition of wages – Employees filed applications for gratuity after several years – Employer contested on grounds of limitation and exclusion of special allowance from wages – Held: Where employer fails to issue notice under Section 7(2), limitation under Rule 10 does not apply – Employer liable to pay interest under Section 7(3A) on unpaid amounts – Matter remanded to determine whether special allowance constitutes dearness allowance under Section 2(s) – Petitions partly allowed.

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Section 7(1), Section 7(2) – Limitation – Employer's Obligation – Employees claimed gratuity after gap of several years without filing Form "I" within prescribed time – Employer contended claim barred by limitation – Held: Section 7(2) casts clear obligation on employer to determine gratuity and issue notice whether or not application is made by employee – Second proviso to Rule 10 provides that where employer fails to issue notice under Section 7(2) read with Rule 8, limitation shall not apply – Employer cannot defeat claim by taking advantage of delay when delay contributed to by employer's inaction – Objection on ground of limitation rejected [Paras 18-25]

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Section 7(3), Section 7(3A) – Interest on Delayed Payment – Employer deposited admitted amount before Controlling Authority but disputed balance – Employee entitled to interest on unpaid portion – Held: Section 7(3A) provides for simple interest where gratuity not paid within thirty days – Proviso creates exception only where delay attributable to employee and employer obtains written permission from Controlling Authority – No such permission obtained – Interest not payable on admitted amount from date of deposit – Interest payable on remaining balance from date specified until actual payment [Paras 26-36]

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Section 2(s) – Definition of Wages – Special Allowance – Whether special allowance forms part of wages for gratuity calculation – Employer contended special allowance is consolidated component of incentives, not dearness allowance – Held: Character of salary component cannot be determined merely by nomenclature – Depends on purpose of payment, manner of calculation, whether linked to cost of living – Appellate Authority failed to examine whether special allowance is in reality dearness allowance – Matter remanded for fresh consideration on this limited issue [Paras 37-45]

Evidence – Photocopied Documents – Evidentiary Value – Employee relied on photocopied document showing restructuring of perks – Authorities below did not examine original document or record finding about authenticity – Held: When documents produced in photocopy form, authority must examine whether they can be relied upon as secondary evidence – Exercise not carried out – Matter remanded for proper evaluation [Paras 40-41, 43-44]

Decision: Writ petitions partly allowed – Judgments of Appellate Authority dated 19.10.2024 and Controlling Authority dated 09.11.2023 affirmed except as modified – Matter remitted to Appellate Authority for fresh consideration on question whether special allowance constitutes dearness allowance under Section 2(s) and whether documents establish entitlement to gratuity at rate of 26 days – Appellate Authority to decide within eight weeks – No order as to costs.

Foreigners Act – Citizenship – Foreigners Tribunal – Writ petition challenging opinion declaring petitioner a foreigner – Petitioner failed to prove lineage with grandfather through contemporaneous records – Key documents including Kabin Nama, school certificate, and Gaon Panchayat certificate not proved by issuing authorities – DW-2 introduced new facts beyond pleadings regarding father’s residence in Cooch Bihar – Discrepancies in names across electoral rolls not explained – Burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act not discharged – Held: No infirmity in Tribunal’s decision – Writ petition dismissed.

Foreigners Act – Foreigners Tribunal – Declaration as Foreigner – Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 – Petitioner declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal No. 9, Dhubri in F.T. Case No. FT-9/79/GKJ/2015 – Petitioner claimed to be an Indian citizen and that the letter ‘D’ was erroneously inserted against her name in the electoral roll – Petitioner attempted to establish lineage with her grandfather Sahar Uddin whose name appeared in the voters’ lists of 1966 and 1970 – However, failed to prove any linkage between herself and her grandfather through contemporaneous records – Registered Sale Deed of 1994 not accepted as a linking document due to overwriting on the purchaser’s name without explanation – Held: Petitioner failed to discharge her onus under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 [Paras 2, 9, 24, 25].

Evidence – Proof of Documents – Documentary Evidence Not Proved Through Contemporaneous Records – Petitioner relied on Kabin Nama, school certificate, and Gaon Panchayat certificate to establish lineage with her parents and grandparents – However, the Qazi who registered the marriage was not examined – The Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat who issued the certificate was not produced as a witness – The Headmaster who issued the school certificate was also not examined – The Member of the Tribunal did not sign the school certificate (Ext-1) – Held: Documents and their contents were not proved as the issuing authorities were not produced as witnesses and contents were not established through contemporaneous records – A document cannot be proved on the basis of personal knowledge alone [Paras 7, 14, 15, 16].

Foreigners Tribunal – Pleadings – Evidence Beyond Written Statement – DW-2 (petitioner’s brother) introduced new facts through his evidence-in-chief that their father was a voter of Tufanganj Constituency in Cooch Bihar prior to 1990 – This fact was never mentioned by the petitioner in her written statement or evidence – DW-1 never submitted that her father was a resident of Cooch Bihar – Dissimilarities surfaced between the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 – Evidence recorded and exhibited in a haphazard manner with overlapping markings – Held: A party cannot traverse beyond the pleadings made in the written statement – Written statement is the basic statement of defence of a proceedee before the Foreigners Tribunal [Paras 12, 13, 17, 19, 21].

Foreigners Act – Burden of Proof – Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 read with Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Burden of proving citizenship lies upon the person who asserts to be a citizen – Facts relating to date of birth, place of birth, parentage, and their citizenship are within the personal knowledge of the person concerned – Petitioner failed to establish that her father Sakir Hossain was the son of Sohar Uddin – Not a single document was proved to establish that the petitioner’s father was a voter or an Indian citizen – Discrepancies in names of father and grandfather across voters’ lists of different years and constituencies were not properly explained [Paras 20, 22, 23, 25, 26].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No infirmity found in the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunal No. 9, Dhubri – Petitioner held to be a foreigner of post-25.03.1971 stream – Consequences of the impugned order to follow – Bail order dated 09.02.2017 stands vacated – No order as to costs [Paras 26, 27, 28].

Service Law – DLR Employee – Regularisation vs Work-Charged Establishment – Petitioner engaged as Daily Labour Roll (DLR) Watchman in 1984 – Despite availability of regular posts and long service, authorities brought him over to Work-Charged Establishment in 2012 – Petitioner retired in 2015 without pensionary benefits – Held: When employee served continuously for over three decades and similarly situated employees were regularised, action of authorities in denying regular establishment benefits is arbitrary – Authorities directed to consider bringing petitioner to Regular/Pensionable Establishment notionally to enable pensionary benefits [Paras 5, 9-10].

Service Jurisprudence – Long Continuous Service of Casual/NMR/DLR Employees – Obligation of State as Model Employer – Courts emphasised that State cannot exploit employees by extracting service for decades while denying regular benefits – Employees engaged prior to cut-off date and continuously serving are entitled to sympathetic consideration for regularisation and pensionary benefits [Paras 6.3, 6.4, 6.11].

Regularisation – Finance Department Resolution dated 15.05.1997 – Scheme for absorption of NMR/DLR employees – Resolution does not mandate that such employees must first be brought to Work-Charged Establishment before regularisation – Failure of authorities to undertake exercise of regularisation despite long service contrary to scheme and judicial pronouncements [Paras 6.2].

Equality – Article 14 of the Constitution – Discriminatory treatment – Similarly situated employees in other divisions were regularised while petitioner was denied the same benefit – State cannot adopt different standards for employees similarly placed – Principle of parity and consistency applicable [Paras 7.4, 7.11].

Work-Charged Employees – Pensionary Benefits – Courts have repeatedly directed notional absorption in Regular Establishment even by creation of supernumerary post to ensure pensionary benefits to long-serving employees – Denial of pension after decades of service amounts to exploitation by State [Paras 6.7, 7.7, 9.2].

Pension – Social Security Measure – Employee served for about 31 years from 1984 till retirement – State cannot deny pension after extracting long years of service – Welfare State must ensure social security to such employees [Paras 8, 9.1].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Opposite parties directed to consider bringing the petitioner to the Regular/Pensionable Establishment notionally for the period necessary to qualify for pension and extend all consequential benefits including pensionary benefits – Exercise to be completed within three months.

Civil Law – Permanent Injunction – Religious Shrine – Concurrent Findings – Appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining respondents from interfering with their possession over agricultural land measuring 8B-0B, including 0B-2B bearing Khasra No. 28//22/2 where a Guga Mari is situated – Trial Court partly decreed the suit but dismissed the claim over 0B-2B where the Guga Mari exists – First Appellate Court upheld the dismissal – High Court finds no substantial question of law – Held: RSA dismissed in limine [Paras 1, 5, 9].

Possession – Proof of Exclusive Possession – Simpliciter Suit for Injunction – Burden of Proof – In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff is required to prove exclusive possession over the suit land – Appellants failed to lead any cogent or reliable evidence to establish exclusive possession over the 0B-2B land where the Guga Mari is situated – Both courts concurrently found that the land was being used for worship by the villagers since time immemorial – No evidence, even remotely, pointed to exclusive possession of appellants [Paras 8, 9].

Compromise – Evidentiary Value – Failure to Rebut – Defendant-respondents relied upon compromise document Ex.D1 purportedly signed by Plaintiff-Appellant No. 2 (Goverdhan Singh @ Gordhan Singh), whereby the appellants' family relinquished any right or concern over the Guga Mari land in consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- paid by the villagers – Plaintiff-Appellant No. 2 chose not to enter the witness box – No handwriting expert was examined to dispute the signatures/thumb-impressions on Ex.D1 – Held: Compromise remained unrebutted and operates against the appellants [Para 8].

Substantial Question of Law – Second Appeal – Scope – High Court in Regular Second Appeal is competent to interfere only when a substantial question of law arises – Where both Trial Court and First Appellate Court have returned concurrent findings of fact based on evidence on record, and no substantial question of law is demonstrated, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed – Held: No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises in the present case [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent judgments and decrees of the Trial Court dated 29.07.2015 and the First Appellate Court dated 18.11.2017 upheld – Pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Criminal Law – Murder and Criminal Conspiracy – Partial Acquittal – Journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati shot dead on 24.10.2002 at Sirsa allegedly at the instance of Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh (A1), Chief of Dera Sacha Sauda, for publishing articles against him – A2 (Kuldeep Singh) and A3 (Nirmal Singh) identified as the actual assailants; A4 (Krishan Lal) as the Prabandhak of the Dera who provided the licensed weapon – Trial Court convicted all four appellants under Section 302/120-B IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment – On appeal, High Court upholds convictions of A2, A3 and A4 as proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction of A1 set aside on finding that sole eyewitness to conspiracy (PW31-Khatta Singh) was wholly unreliable and his testimony uncorroborated – Held: Prosecution failed to prove case against A1 beyond reasonable doubt; appeals of A2, A3 and A4 dismissed; appeal of A1 allowed and he is acquitted [Paras 121–204].

“Related and Interested Witnesses – Evidentiary Value” – Eye-witnesses – Related witnesses – PW3-Anshul Chhatrapati and PW5-Aridaman, sons of the deceased, identified A2 and A3 as the assailants – Defence argued that as related witnesses their testimony required corroboration – Held: Relationship of a witness to the deceased is not a ground to discard testimony; a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and implicate an innocent person – Testimony of PW3 and PW5 found consistent and trustworthy; could not be shattered in cross-examination – Minor inconsistencies due to lapse of time are of no consequence [Paras 128–143].

“Minor Inconsistencies in Testimony – Not Fatal to Prosecution” – Discrepancies in evidence – Incident occurred in 2002; PW3 examined in 2009 and PW5 in 2010 – Held: When deposition is made after considerable time, minor inconsistencies are natural and do not impeach credibility – Principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus not applicable in India – Material omissions or contradictions that go to the root of the matter alone can assist the defence [Paras 140–141].

“Test Identification Parade – Non-Conduct Not Fatal” – A2 arrested at spot; names of both assailants given in FIR registered same night on PW5's statement – A3 named A2 in his disclosure statement – Held: Non-holding of TIP does not demolish prosecution case when names of accused surfaced at earliest stage and one accused was apprehended from the spot – Court identification inadmissible only if it is the first identification and there is no prior identification – In the present case, identification in Court was not the first identification [Paras 161–163].

“Forensic and Ballistic Evidence – Seals on Parcels” – Argument that bullets were never examined in FSL since AIIMS seals found on containers when opened in Court – Held: Possibility that covers were cut from the side and re-sealed by successive agencies cannot be ruled out – Senior FSL Officers (PW27 and PW28) deposed on oath that ballistic examination was duly conducted – Arguments as regards seals more relevant at stage of trial and not years after the case property was opened in court – Lapua bullets (flat-head) are comparatively softer and may get deformed upon impact, explaining variation in size – No reason to disbelieve testimony of PW27, PW28 and PW30 [Paras 164–169].

“Defective Investigation – Benefit Not Automatically Available to Accused” – Non-recording of DDR of detention of A2 at police post Khairpur; no mention of time of arrest in arrest memo; delay in sending special report to Magistrate; statement of Ram Chander Chhatrapati not recorded in hospital – Held: Defective investigation, per se, does not enure to benefit of accused unless defect goes to root of prosecution case – Court is obligated to examine prosecution evidence de hors such lapses and determine if it is reliable – Investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial [Paras 145–155].

“Role of A4 – Licensed Weapon Found With Assailants” – Revolver used in the offence was licenced weapon of A4 (Krishan Lal) – A4 offered no explanation as to how his weapon reached the assailants – Defence witness (DW4) gave contradictory version about weapon being taken by police on 25.02.2002, not reported to any authority – A4's own statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. contradicted DW4's version – Held: Adverse inference rightly drawn against A4; his connection to the Dera as Prabandhak established through documentary evidence – Conviction of A4 under Sections 302/120-B and 29 of Arms Act upheld [Paras 172–174].

“Criminal Conspiracy – Proof by Circumstantial Evidence” – Section 120-A and 120-B IPC – Conspiracy always hatched in secrecy; direct evidence rarely available – Held: Meeting of minds of two or more persons to do an illegal act is sine qua non of criminal conspiracy; it may be proved by necessary implication from circumstances and conduct of accused – Not necessary that all conspirators know every detail – Agreement may be inferred from chain of circumstances [Paras 176–179].

“Sole Witness to Conspiracy (Khatta Singh/PW31) – Wholly Unreliable” – PW31-Khatta Singh, alleged ex-driver of A1, sole witness to conspiracy – Kept silent for approximately five years post incident; disclosed only Ranjit Singh murder conspiracy in December 2006; named A1 in present case only on 21.06.2007, after CBI was under pressure to file charge sheet – Filed applications complaining CBI was threatening him to falsely implicate A1 – Turned hostile in trial; re-examined after A1's conviction in another case (2017) and then supported CBI version – Held: Witness oscillated like a ping pong ball; if under threat in present case, incomprehensible why he disclosed Ranjit Singh conspiracy without fear – CBI appears to have coerced the witness; evidence of wholly unreliable witness cannot be accepted – No independent corroboration of key facts (visit to Jalandhar, satsang) verified by CBI; newspaper records suggest satsang was at Zira, not Jalandhar [Paras 184–201].

“Non-Examination of SI Ram Chander – Statement of Deceased Not Produced” – SI Ram Chander recorded dying declaration-type statement of Ram Chander Chhatrapati in PGI Rohtak on 26.10.2002 – Statement not produced in evidence; SI given up as "unnecessary" witness – Treatment records show injured was conscious and stable from 26.10.2002 to 01.11.2002; no effort made to record further statements – Held: Non-production of statement of deceased and non-examination of SI Ram Chander creates serious doubt in favour of A1 – Benefit of doubt must go to accused – This, combined with unreliable testimony of PW31, renders guilt of A1 not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 156, 198–199].

Decision: CRA-D-240-D-2019 (Baba Gurmeet Singh @ Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh) – Allowed – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of charge under Section 120-B/302 IPC – CRA-D-270-D-2019 (Kuldeep Singh @ Kala), CRA-D-258-D-2019 (Nirmal Singh) and CRA-D-254-D-2019 (Krishan Lal alias Kishan Lal) – Dismissed – Convictions and sentences upheld.

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation – Appeal by Insurance Company and Cross Objection by Claimant – Claimant suffered amputation of left leg after being hit by offending lorry while walking along tram track – Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 11,57,000/- with 8% interest – Insurance company challenged income assessment while claimant sought enhancement citing higher income, 86% disability and future medical expenses – Held: Compensation required enhancement considering evidence regarding occupation, future prospects and cost of artificial limb [Paras 3-6].

Assessment of Income – Determination in absence of documentary proof – Tribunal assessed monthly income at Rs. 12,000/- – Evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 indicated claimant worked as taxi driver and earned approximately Rs. 15,000/- per month – Court held that such income was reasonable considering nature of occupation – Monthly income reassessed at Rs. 15,000/- and future prospects added at 30% [Paras 7-8].

Disability Assessment – Medical Board Certificate – Certificate indicated 86% disability but members of Medical Board were not examined before Tribunal – Tribunal considered disability at 50% – Held: Tribunal did not commit error in treating functional disability at 50% in absence of examination of medical board members [Para 6].

Computation of Compensation – Future Prospects – Multiplier Method – With reassessed income of Rs. 15,000/- and addition of 30% future prospects, monthly income taken as Rs. 19,500/- – Annual income calculated at Rs. 2,34,000/- – Considering 50% disability and multiplier of 15 for age of 38 years, loss of earning capacity assessed at Rs. 17,55,000/- – Additional Rs. 2,00,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering, medical expenses including artificial limb and future treatment – Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 20,00,000/- as just and reasonable [Paras 8-9].

Motor Accident Compensation – Modification of Award – Tribunal’s award modified – Claimant held entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization – Insurance company directed to deposit amount before Registrar General of High Court within eight weeks – Claimant permitted to withdraw upon completion of formalities [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal and Cross Objection disposed of – Judgment and Award dated 24.11.2015 modified – Compensation enhanced from Rs. 11,57,000/- to Rs. 20,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from date of filing of claim petition – Insurance Company directed to deposit amount within eight weeks – Claimant permitted to withdraw upon compliance of formalities.

Succession Law – Proof of Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Wills Executed Abroad – Two Wills dated 05.04.1999 and 17.04.1999 executed by Dr. M. Leela Rama Krishna Prasad (testator), a doctor settled in the USA, in favour of a private charitable trust were challenged as unproved and surrounded by suspicious circumstances – Trial Court disbelieved the Wills and granted a half share to the testator's widow Smt. Padmaja – On appeal, Division Bench found that D.W.4 (attending physician and attestor), an independent and credible witness of impeccable standing, had proved the execution of the Will dated 17.04.1999, satisfying the requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act – Held: The Will of 17.04.1999 is proved and valid – Properties of Dr. Prasad in India to devolve in accordance with the said Will [Paras 23–66].

Proof of Will – Testamentary Capacity – Sound and Disposing Mind – Testator Hospitalised – The testator executed the Will of 05.04.1999 in the afternoon at D.W.4's residence, prior to his hospitalisation in the evening on account of chest pain – Medical records (Ex.A7) showed the testator was actively participating in decisions about his treatment and was improving; doctors had contemplated discharge on 18.04.1999 – Evidence of P.W.2 (forensic specialist) opining that heavy sedation impaired the testator's mental capacity was insufficient to rebut the medical records – Held: Testator was in a sound and disposing mind at the time of executing both Wills [Paras 37–39].

Proof of Will – Custody of Will – Attestation by Indian Consulate in San Francisco – Affidavit of Widow Acknowledging Will – Ambiguity in chain of custody and attestation by the Indian Consulate in San Francisco (instead of Atlanta) noted as suspicious circumstances – However, Smt. Padmaja's own affidavit dated 31.01.2000 (Ex.B6) acknowledged execution of the Will of 17.04.1999 and its attestation by the Consulate – Widow's legal notice of 11.01.2002 sought copies of Wills rather than denying their existence – Held: Taking an overall view, the Wills were executed by Dr. Prasad and reflect his wishes; suspicious circumstances do not warrant rejection [Paras 40–51, 66].

Proof of Will – Non-Examination of Second Attesting Witness – Section 68 Evidence Act – Will of 17.04.1999 attested by D.W.4 and Dr. Amaraneni Swarajya – Only D.W.4 examined – Held: Section 68 requirements are satisfied upon examination of at least one attesting witness alive, subject to process of Court, and capable of giving evidence – Non-examination of K.R.K. Murthy (who was an attesting witness to the Will of 05.04.1999) not fatal, as the Will of 05.04.1999 was superseded by the Will of 17.04.1999 [Paras 34–35].

Proof of Will – Foreign Will – Probate in Foreign Country – Section 213 and 228, Indian Succession Act – Contention that a Will executed in USA must first be probated in an American court before it can be produced in India – Held: Section 228 operates in a situation where a Will already probated abroad cannot be produced in original, and permits letters of administration on certified copy – It does not prohibit production of a Will executed outside India before an Indian court without foreign probate – Courts in Andhra Pradesh do not have jurisdiction to grant probate; hence, Wills executed by Hindus for properties in Andhra Pradesh can always be proved in civil proceedings without probate [Paras 55–59].

Proof of Will – Hague Convention – Conflict of Laws – Form of Testamentary Dispositions – Will executed in USA, relating to immoveable properties in India – Held: Under the Convention on the Conflict of Laws relating to the Form of Testamentary Dispositions (1961), a testamentary disposition is valid as to form if it complies with the law of the place where the immoveable properties are situated – Will of 17.04.1999 being in conformity with Indian law is valid; Convention does not bar its production before an Indian court [Paras 59–61].

Lok Adalat – Challenge by Writ Petition – Jurisdiction – Fraud – Awards obtained by Lok Adalat at Eluru in O.S.Nos.445 and 446 of 2019 directed Sri Hemanth Kumar to execute sale deeds in favour of third parties in respect of properties belonging to the estate of Dr. Prasad – Sri Hemanth Kumar had suppressed the pendency of the appeal, the preliminary decree in O.S.No.69 of 2002, and the fact that he had no individual title over the property – Settlement was entered into in individual capacity, not as power of attorney holder – Held: Such suppression of material facts and deliberate misleading of the Lok Adalat amounts to fraud vitiating the awards – Awards set aside [Paras 71–73, 101–103].

Lok Adalat – Jurisdiction of Court – Section 17 CPC – Cause of Action – Properties Situated in Different Districts – Suits filed in Eluru in relation to properties situated both in West Godavari District and Vijayawada Rural Mandal – Cause of action pleaded pertained only to interference over West Godavari property – No cause of action pleaded in relation to Vijayawada properties – Held: Court in Eluru had no jurisdiction over properties in Vijayawada Rural Mandal; Lok Adalat constituted for Eluru court consequently lacked jurisdiction to pass awards in relation to Vijayawada properties [Paras 94–99].

Public Charitable Trust – Existence – Registration – Endowments Act – Trust created by Will of 17.04.1999 for benefit of mother of testator and thereafter for education and health of deserving persons – Trust never registered with Endowments Department – Held: Under Section 1(3) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, all public charitable institutions whether registered or not fall within the Act – Absence of registration does not prevent trust from coming into existence – Trust is a Public Charitable Trust and has come into existence [Paras 76–83].

Public Trust – Joinder of Trustees – Juristic Entity – Section 14 and 29, Endowments Act – Whether all trustees must join in all proceedings – Held: Under Section 14 of the Endowments Act, trust property vests in the institution, conferring juristic personality – Under Section 29(3)(b)(iii), the Executive Officer shall sue or be sued in name of the institution – In absence of an Executive Officer, Trustee can file proceedings – Writ Petitions filed by Trustee on behalf of Trust held maintainable [Paras 84–88].

Sale Deeds – Writ Petition – Registration Act – Sections 81 and 82 – Scope of Enquiry – Enquiry initiated under Section 81 and 82 of the Registration Act into deeds of sale (Doc. Nos. 3567 and 3568 of 2023) executed after death of principal – Held: Sections 81 and 82 do not independently empower cancellation of registered documents – Enquiry may proceed to ascertain infractions and for punitive purposes – Declaration of nullity of a document is within exclusive domain of civil court – Petitioners relegated to O.S.No.1692 of 2023 already filed for cancellation of sale deeds [Paras 89–92, 105–107].

Remand – Implead Petitioners – Rights of Agreement Holders – Agreements of sale executed by power of attorney holder of Dr. Prasad in favour of third parties prior to testator's death – Question of whether power of attorney coupled with interest survived death of principal left open – Held: Rights of implead petitioners over lands under agreements of sale and their possession to be adjudicated afresh by trial court on remand – Scope of enquiry restricted to this aspect only; validity of Will not to be reopened [Paras 116–128].

Decision: AS Nos.645 of 2013 and 707 of 2014 – Will of 17.04.1999 held proved and valid – Properties of Dr. Prasad to devolve in accordance with said Will – Implead petitioners impleaded as respondents for limited purpose – Matters remanded to trial court for determining rights of implead petitioners over claimed lands – W.P. Nos. 3325 & 3807 of 2020 and 15383, 15403 of 2021 allowed; Lok Adalat Awards dated 21.01.2020 set aside – W.P. No. 13966 of 2023 dismissed; Trust at liberty to pursue O.S. No. 1692 of 2023 – W.P. No. 16510 of 2023 disposed of with direction that Section 81/82 enquiry may proceed within its limited scope – C.C. No. 5225 of 2023 closed.