Trust Law – Dismissal of Suit under Section 92 CPC – Maintainability and Jurisdiction – Petitioners challenged the dismissal of a suit filed under Section 92 CPC seeking declaration of a religious institution as a public trust – Civil Judge dismissed the suit at the admission stage for lack of a trust deed, identity of trustees, and rules governing the trust – Held: Section 92 CPC includes constructive trusts of a religious nature, and the suit cannot be dismissed solely on the absence of a trust deed – However, a Civil Judge lacks jurisdiction to hear such suits, which must be filed in the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction (District Court) – Dismissal at the admission stage due to lack of jurisdiction upheld – Petitioners granted liberty to refile the suit in the District Court [Paras 1-17, 32-33].

Jurisdiction – Section 92 CPC and Religious Endowments Act – A suit under Section 92 CPC and Section 2 of the Religious Endowments Act can only be instituted in the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or a court empowered by the State Government – The Civil Judge is not the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, and thus lacks jurisdiction – The Court reaffirmed that District Judges have original jurisdiction to entertain such suits [Paras 18-29].

Constructive Trust – No Requirement for Written Trust Deed – Public Religious Endowment – The Court emphasized that the absence of a written trust deed is not conclusive proof of the non-existence of a public trust – A constructive trust for religious purposes can be created without formal documentation, based on the use of the property for religious or charitable purposes – The dismissal of the suit at the admission stage for the absence of a trust deed was erroneous [Paras 14-16].

Leave to File Suit under Section 92 CPC – Prima Facie Grounds Required – The Court reiterated that leave of the Court is necessary to file a suit under Section 92 CPC – While granting leave, the Court only examines prima facie grounds without affecting the merits of the case – Defendants are not entitled to be heard at the stage of granting leave [Paras 30-31].

Decision: Petition allowed – The dismissal order of the Civil Judge dated 13.08.2024 is set aside – The petitioners are granted liberty to file a fresh suit in the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction (District Court, Pratapgarh) after obtaining leave – The District Judge to proceed with the suit in accordance with law – Observations in this order shall not affect the merits of the case [Paras 33].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Upheld - Dying Declaration – Admissibility and Evidentiary Value – The conviction was primarily based on the dying declaration of the deceased, Munish Kumar, implicating the appellant for stabbing him. The appellant questioned the reliability of the dying declaration on the grounds that the doctor who declared the deceased fit to make a statement was not examined – Held: The Investigating Officer's testimony and the circumstances surrounding the declaration confirmed its validity. The dying declaration was corroborated by other evidence and was held to be credible and admissible [Paras 15-19].

Recovery of Weapon – Corroboration of Guilt – The appellant's conviction was further supported by the recovery of the weapon (knife) used in the crime, which was recovered pursuant to the appellant’s disclosure statement – Held: The recovery was made in accordance with the law, and no evidence suggested that the recovery was planted or fabricated. The recovery of the weapon corroborated the dying declaration and medical evidence [Paras 20-24].

Medical Evidence – Consistency with Injuries – The post-mortem report and the medical examination of the deceased revealed injuries consistent with the use of a knife. The Court noted that the injuries matched those described in the dying declaration and confirmed by the recovered weapon – Held: The medical evidence strongly supported the prosecution's case and linked the appellant to the crime [Paras 40-43].

Appeal Dismissed – The appellant's contentions regarding false implication and misappreciation of evidence were rejected. The Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court – Held: The life sentence awarded under Section 302 IPC was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed [Paras 47].

Decision: The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and life sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court are upheld.

Service Law – APAR Downgradation – Bias Allegations – Petitioner, serving as Second in Command (2-I/C) in CRPF, challenged the adverse remarks and downgradation of his APAR from "Very Good" to "Good" for the period 01.04.2018 to 29.10.2018 – Contended that the downgrade was due to bias and vindictive attitude of his Commandant (respondent no. 4) after petitioner refused to participate in illegal activities – Court noted inconsistencies in the APAR with contradictions between positive appraisals and adverse remarks – Held: Adverse remarks and downgradation made without objective reasoning and were likely biased [Paras 22, 29, 31, 39, 43].

Procedural Compliance – Supervisory Period for APAR – Petitioner argued that the Reporting Officer lacked authority to record the APAR since he had not worked under him for the mandatory period of three months – Court found that while leave days should be deducted, the petitioner had worked under the Reporting Officer for sufficient time after leave adjustment, but the grading lacked objectivity and fairness – Held: APAR recorded without due diligence [Paras 24, 30, 39].

Bias in APAR – Petitioner alleged bias due to previous conflicts with respondent no. 4, including false advisories and malicious downgrading – Court held that the cumulative pattern of prior "Very Good"/"Outstanding" APARs and a sudden downgrade in a short period supported reasonable apprehension of bias – APAR found inconsistent and motivated by personal vendetta – Held: APAR quashed due to bias and lack of objective assessment [Paras 41, 43].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned APAR and orders rejecting representation set aside – Adverse remarks and downgradation for the period from 01.04.2018 to 29.10.2018 quashed – Respondents directed not to rely on the impugned APAR for any future assessments of the petitioner [Paras 43, 44].

Family Law – Maintenance and Marriage Expenses – Appeal against the judgment and decree of trial court awarding Rs. 2,000 per month towards maintenance and Rs. 5,00,000 towards marriage expenses under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Plaintiff, the daughter of the defendant, sought maintenance and marriage expenses, claiming that the defendant, her father, neglected her – Defendant contended that the plaintiff was not his daughter and that her mother was a concubine – Trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff [Paras 1, 2, 3, 6, 7].

Paternity Dispute – The defendant disputed the paternity of the plaintiff – Evidence, including the plaintiff's SSC certificate and appointment order, mentioned the defendant as her father – The court found sufficient evidence to establish the defendant’s paternity, rejecting the defendant’s claim that he was not obligated to maintain the plaintiff after she attained majority – The court held that the defendant was legally obligated to maintain the plaintiff as per Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act [Paras 9, 12, 16, 18].

Modification of Maintenance – During the appeal, it was revealed that the plaintiff had secured a government job as a Deputy Tahsildar in 2009 – Considering her employment and the defendant’s old age (91 years), the court reduced the maintenance from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 1,000 per month, applicable until September 2009, when the plaintiff secured employment – The arrears of maintenance were adjusted against Rs. 41,000 already paid by the defendant [Paras 19, 20, 21].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Monthly maintenance reduced to Rs. 1,000 from the date of the suit until September 2009 – Other aspects of the trial court’s judgment, including the marriage expenses, remain unchanged – Each party directed to bear their own costs in the appeal [Paras 20, 21].

Customs Act – Pre-Arrest Bail – Dismissal of Bail Applications – Petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC for alleged involvement in smuggling gold under the Customs Act, 1962 – Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted a smuggling gang and seized gold and foreign currency worth Rs. 2.60 crore – Petitioners argued DRI had no jurisdiction to investigate, citing prior animosity – Prosecution countered that Section 3 of the Act, amended by the Finance Act 2022, confers investigative powers on DRI – Court found the investigation crucial and held that anticipatory bail was premature – Bail applications dismissed with the observation that any arrest would require the DRI to substantiate belief of the petitioners’ involvement in offences under Sections 135, 135A, 136, and 137 of the Act [Paras 1-7, 16].

Jurisdiction of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) – Investigative Powers – Petitioners contended that DRI lacked authority to investigate under the Customs Act – Court rejected the argument, referring to the amended Section 3 of the Customs Act (via Finance Act, 2022) and notification dated 31.03.2022, which grants DRI officers powers equivalent to Customs officers – Held: DRI officers are competent to issue notices under Section 108 of the Act and to summon the petitioners for recording statements [Paras 9-11].

Statement Under Section 108 of the Customs Act – No Pre-arrest Bail – Court reiterated legal precedents, including Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal [(2008) 13 SCC 305], which clarified that Section 108 statements differ from police statements under CrPC – The petitioners, summoned for recording statements under Section 108, cannot seek anticipatory bail at this stage as it obstructs the investigative process – Precedents also indicate that anticipatory bail is premature when summons for statements are issued under this section [Paras 12-14].

Customs Act – Precedents on Investigative Powers – Referred to various rulings by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, such as Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal [AIR 1970 SC 940] and Vijaykumar Gopichand Ramachandani v. Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani [2022 KHC Online 8031], affirming that Customs authorities can investigate and that anticipatory bail cannot obstruct statutory powers [Paras 12-15].

Decision: Bail applications dismissed – Observed that arrest, if conducted, must follow the competent authority’s belief of the petitioners' involvement in offences under Sections 135, 135A, 136, and 137 of the Customs Act [Paras 16].

Governor’s Sanction – Section 17A, Prevention of Corruption Act – Validity of Approval – Sanction Upheld - The petitioner, the Chief Minister of Karnataka, challenged the Governor's order granting approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 218 of the BNSS, contending it was issued without proper application of mind and violated natural justice. The court held that the Governor's decision involved due consideration of the facts and was issued lawfully. It further held that political office should not be shielded from investigation, and the Governor’s sanction was necessary to uphold public accountability. [Paras 2-4, 24, 31-32].

Principles of Natural Justice – Show Cause Notice – Multiple Petitions Considered - The petitioner argued that natural justice principles were violated as the show cause notice was issued based only on one of the petitions, though multiple complaints were received. The court found this objection insufficient to quash the Governor's decision, ruling that procedural fairness was maintained. [Paras 18-22].

Criminal Conspiracy Allegation – Public Land Allocation – Need for Investigation – The court emphasized that the allegations of a criminal conspiracy involving misuse of public land through improper de-notification, land sales, and compensatory site allotment required thorough investigation, as the facts of the case raised substantial questions about the petitioner’s involvement. The court concluded that it was premature to dismiss the charges without a complete investigation. [Paras 45-49].

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the Governor's approval for prosecution under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 218 of BNSS was upheld, allowing the investigation to proceed. [Paras 50-52].

Civil Law – Probate of Will – Two competing Wills – Probate granted in favor of respondent based on 1993 Will – Trial court dismissed claim on 1995 Will – Appellants challenged the genuineness of the 1993 Will, alleging suspicious circumstances, including mention of deceased wife who was alive at the time of the Will's execution – Held: The 1993 Will was suspicious due to discrepancies, and the probate granted in favor of the respondent is set aside – Appellants’ claim regarding the 1995 Will was also rejected for lack of credibility [Paras 1-4, 35-56].

Proof of Will – Execution and Attestation – Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Respondent proved the execution of the 1993 Will through attesting witnesses – However, the court found suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will, including false statements about the wife’s death, leading to doubts about the testator’s true intention – A mere compliance with legal requirements is insufficient where suspicion exists – The court must be satisfied that the Will truly reflects the testator's intentions [Paras 22-31, 57].

Suspicious Circumstances – Mention of Wife’s Death – The 1993 Will stated that the testator’s wife was dead, although she was alive at the time of its execution – No provisions were made for the wife in the Will – This inconsistency raised serious doubts about the genuineness of the Will – The court held that such unexplained abnormalities indicated that the Will was not a genuine document, even though it was attested by witnesses [Paras 34-37, 52-55].

Revocation of Earlier Will – 1995 Will – Appellant’s claim of a 1995 Will revoking the 1993 Will was rejected by the trial court – Evidence provided by the appellants, including testimonies and documents, failed to substantiate the revocation or cancellation of the earlier Will – The court agreed with the trial court’s decision that the 1995 Will was not credible, pointing out discrepancies in the signatures and overwriting in the document [Paras 9, 39-47].

Decision: Appeal F.A. No. 185 of 2015 allowed – Probate granted in favor of the respondent for the 1993 Will is set aside due to suspicious circumstances – Appeal F.A.T. No. 302 of 2015 dismissed – 1995 Will also held not genuine – Appellants’ applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC rejected – Trial court judgments modified accordingly [Paras 58-59].

Service Law - Employment Eligibility – Criminal Charges and Moral Turpitude – Circular dated 04.12.2019 – The petitioner, who was selected for a post in the Rajasthan State Services based on his merit, was denied appointment due to pending criminal charges related to matrimonial disputes – Held: The respondents erred in mechanically applying the circular without considering whether the criminal case involves moral turpitude or would affect the petitioner’s character in performing his duties – The Court emphasized that each case must be individually examined to assess the nature of the charges, and a decision should be made only after a reasoned order is passed, in line with the guidelines – The petitioner’s case was remanded to the respondent authorities for reconsideration within four weeks, with directions to issue the appointment if no moral turpitude is found in the charges – The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to reconsider the case and issue a speaking order [Paras 8-15].

Civil Law - Specific Performance of Contract – Validity of Agreement – The appellant challenged the decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell, claiming the agreement was fraudulent and executed to secure a loan – Held: The plaintiff proved the execution of the agreement to sell, including receipt of earnest money. The appellant’s defence of fraud and forgery was not substantiated by evidence, and the Courts below correctly decreed specific performance [Paras 4, 6].

Additional Evidence in Appeal – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – The appellant sought to introduce additional evidence in the second appeal, claiming the need to examine his son as a witness – Held: The application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was dismissed as the evidence was available during the trial, and the appellant deliberately withheld it. The Court found no justification to allow additional evidence at the appellate stage [Paras 7, 8].

Readiness and Willingness – Performance of Contract – The plaintiff demonstrated his readiness and willingness to perform the contract by proving the payment of earnest money and his presence at the Sub-Registrar’s office on the appointed date. The Courts below rightly found in favour of the plaintiff on this issue [Para 8].

Decision: The second appeal and the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC are dismissed. The decree of specific performance passed by the Courts below is upheld [Paras 9, 10].