Specific Performance – Proof of Agreement to Sell – Suspicious Circumstances – Plaintiff relied upon two Agreements to Sell dated 21.11.2005 and 16.12.2005 for same property, same parties, same consideration – No plausible explanation for execution of two agreements – Explanation that first was handwritten and second typed found unconvincing – Held: Multiple unexplained agreements for same transaction cast serious doubt on genuineness of contract [Paras 12].

Agreement on Pre-Signed / Blank Papers – Evidentiary Inference – Typed Agreement dated 16.12.2005 showed abnormal narrow gaps in last lines – Thumb impressions only on last page – Admissions by plaintiff that signatures were obtained at village Nihalpura, Rajasthan and attestation done later at Gurgaon – Stamp papers purchased by plaintiff – Held: Strong inference that thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers and agreement typed subsequently – Agreement surrounded by suspicious circumstances [Paras 13–15].

Admissions in Evidence Contradicting Pleadings – Plaintiff denied in replication that agreement was executed at Nihalpura – In cross-examination admitted execution/signatures obtained at Nihalpura and attestation elsewhere – Held: Plaintiff took false stand in pleadings – Such inconsistencies materially affect credibility and proof of contract [Paras 14, 17].

Sale Consideration – Contradictions between Agreement and Sale Deed – Agreement mentioned total consideration of ₹2,00,000/- – Sale Deed prepared by plaintiff mentioned ₹1,50,000/- as full consideration – No pleading or proof as to payment of balance ₹50,000/- – Stamp papers purchased and Sale Deed prepared prior to target date without explanation – Held: Serious discrepancies go to root of transaction and render agreement unreliable [Paras 15, 18].

Readiness and Willingness – Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act – Mere affidavits of attendance before Sub-Registrar insufficient – Plaintiff failed to prove availability of balance consideration – Failed to plead or prove when and how remaining amount was paid – Held: Mandatory requirement of readiness and willingness not satisfied [Para 18].

Burden of Proof – Fraud and Execution – Onus lies first on plaintiff to prove execution of agreement beyond doubt – Only thereafter burden shifts to defendant to prove fraud – Trial Court correctly applied burden of proof – First Appellate Court wrongly shifted burden on defendant merely on admission of thumb impressions [Paras 17, 19].

First Appellate Court – Duty under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC – Judgment of First Appellate Court reversed detailed trial court findings without framing points for determination or discussing evidence – Cryptic reasoning ignoring material discrepancies and trial court analysis – Held: Judgment suffers from patent illegality and non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC [Paras 19–21].

Specific Performance – Discretionary Relief – Relief cannot be granted on shaky, inconsistent and suspicious evidence – Courts must examine intention of vendor from attendant circumstances – Grant of specific performance by First Appellate Court held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 15, 22–23].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Interference Justified – Though scope is limited, interference warranted where findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or ignore mandatory legal requirements – Present case falls within exception – High Court entitled to restore trial court decree [Para 23].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 24.12.2011 of First Appellate Court set aside – Judgment and decree dated 03.12.2010 of Trial Court restored – Suit for specific performance dismissed, decree for recovery of ₹50,000/- upheld.

Criminal Law – Murder of Minor – Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Appellant convicted for murder of 10-year-old boy and for causing disappearance of evidence – Child last seen alive in company of appellant who took him on cycle on pretext of showing exhibition – Deceased later found dead near canal in another district – Medical evidence proved death by strangulation – Chain of circumstances complete and consistent only with guilt of appellant – Conviction upheld [Paras 27–33].

Evidence – Child Witness – Credibility – Deceased last seen with appellant by his younger brother aged about 7 years at time of deposition – Trial Court satisfied about child’s competency – Testimony corroborated by independent witnesses from neighbourhood and other places – Held: Evidence of child witness reliable and admissible when corroborated [Paras 13–16].

Evidence – Last Seen Together – Independent Witnesses – Appellant seen with deceased by neighbour tailor, at railway station and later at village in Sultanpur late night – Witnesses independent and having no animus – Absence of Test Identification Parade immaterial as accused well known to witnesses – Held: Last seen circumstance firmly established [Paras 16–19].

Circumstantial Evidence – Motive – Importance – Appellant had monetary dispute with mother of deceased – Though motive alone not decisive, existence of motive lends support to prosecution case – Absence of recovery not fatal when medical and circumstantial evidence conclusive [Paras 15, 29–31].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Strangulation – Post-mortem proved death due to asphyxia caused by compression of neck – Injuries consistent with manual strangulation – Time of death matching prosecution timeline – Medical evidence corroborated ocular and circumstantial evidence [Paras 7, 25–26].

Criminal Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – Five Golden Principles – Prosecution proved complete chain of circumstances excluding every hypothesis of innocence – No perversity or illegality in findings of Trial Court – Held: Conviction justified [Paras 27–33].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC affirmed – Appellant directed to surrender to serve remaining sentence.

Service Law – Assistant Teacher – Appointment Obtained by Fraud – Cancellation After 15 Years of Service – Petitioner appointed as Assistant Teacher in 2010 and continued in service for nearly 15 years – Appointment cancelled by District Basic Education Officer on verification of records and STF enquiry finding educational and domicile certificates forged and belonging to another person – Held: Length of service does not sanctify an appointment obtained by fraud – Fraud vitiates everything [Paras 2–5].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Fraudulent Appointment – Plea of violation of principles of natural justice rejected – Where appointment is secured on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, no detailed enquiry or opportunity of hearing is required – Beneficiary of fraud cannot invoke protections of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 [Paras 5, 7].

Judicial Review – Alternative Remedy – Writ Maintainability – Though alternative remedy of appeal was available, writ petition not pressed on that ground at final stage – Court held that availability of alternative remedy is not a bar where plea of denial of opportunity of hearing is raised – Nevertheless, on merits, no interference warranted [Paras 6–7].

Precedents – Fraudulent Appointments – Consistent View of High Court – Reliance placed on earlier decisions holding that appointments obtained by fraud are void ab initio and can be cancelled without departmental enquiry – Fraud unravels all acts and confers no enforceable right [Para 5].

Public Employment – Education System – Systemic Fraud – Court expressed serious concern over large-scale appointments of Assistant Teachers on forged certificates with collusion or connivance of officials – Such illegal appointments undermine purity of education system and prejudice students’ interest, which is paramount [Paras 8–9].

Directions – State-wide Scrutiny – Mandamus Issued – Principal Secretary, Basic Education directed to conduct comprehensive and time-bound scrutiny of appointments of Assistant Teachers across the State – Action to include cancellation of fraudulent appointments, recovery of salary wherever permissible, and disciplinary/penal action against erring officials – Exercise to be completed preferably within six months [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Cancellation order upheld – Mandatory directions issued to State authorities for State-wide verification and action against fraudulent appointments – Registrar (Compliance) directed to communicate order for immediate compliance [Paras 7, 10–12].

NDPS Act – Suspension of Sentence Pending Appeal – Commercial Quantity – Appellants convicted for recovery of 81.303 kgs of ganja sought suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal – Long period of custody (more than 2 years and 10 months) and arguable infirmities in prosecution case considered – Held: Appellants made out a prima facie case warranting suspension of sentence and bail [Paras 12, 17–20].

Search and Seizure – Section 50 NDPS Act – Applicability – Prosecution case that contraband recovered from secret chamber of vehicle – Trial Court held Section 50 inapplicable as no recovery from personal search – Appellate Court noted that both personal search and vehicle search were conducted – Gazetted Officer allegedly present but not examined – Absence of examination of Gazetted Officer raises serious doubt at prima facie stage [Paras 16–17].

Sampling and Seizure – Violation of Standing Order No. 1 of 1989 – 80 packets of contraband allegedly seized – Before Magistrate, contraband produced in two nylon sacks with mixed contents – Only samples from mixed bulk drawn – No material showing when, how or under whose authority 80 packets were mixed – Such mixing contrary to mandatory sampling procedure – Serious procedural irregularity affecting prosecution case [Paras 14–15, 17].

Section 52-A NDPS Act – Inventory and Certification – Certificate issued by Judicial Magistrate referred only to two nylon sacks and not to individual packets – Magistrate who issued certificate not examined as witness – Prima facie infirmity in proving sanctity of inventory and sampling process [Paras 14–15, 17].

Independent Witnesses – Hostility – Evidentiary Value – Independent witnesses turned hostile though admitting signatures on seizure list – While official witnesses can be relied upon, procedural lapses in seizure and sampling diluted prosecution case at this stage [Paras 13–15].

Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act – Not an Absolute Bar – Where material on record discloses prima facie infirmities and arguable points in appeal, rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act do not stand in the way of suspension of sentence – Bail granted subject to strict conditions [Para 18].

Decision: CRAN 2 of 2025 allowed – Sentence and fine imposed by judgment dated 25.04.2025 in NDPS Case No. 08 of 2023 suspended during pendency of appeal – Appellants released on bail with conditions restricting movement and ensuring appearance – Observations prima facie in nature.

Rape and Murder of Five-Year-Old Child – Brutal Sexual Assault using Knife – DNA and Circumstantial Evidence Complete – Conviction under BNS and POCSO Affirmed – Case falling in “Rarest of Rare” – Death Sentence Confirmed.

Criminal Law – Rape and Murder of Minor Child – Brutal Sexual Assault – Conviction Affirmed – Deceased girl aged five years subjected to extreme sexual violence, including use of knife to enlarge vaginal opening, causing fatal pelvic injuries – Body concealed in plastic water tank inside accused’s residence – Medical evidence conclusively proved homicidal death following sexual assault – Held: Conviction under BNS and POCSO Act justified and free from perversity [Paras 10–13, 32].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain Complete – Exclusive Possession and Conduct of Accused – Dead body recovered from bathroom tank of flat occupied by accused with his family – Accused failed to offer any explanation for presence of corpse in premises under his control – Conduct before and after incident, including concealment of body, pointed unerringly towards guilt – Chain of circumstances complete, excluding every hypothesis except guilt [Paras 14–16, 28–31].

Discovery under Section 23, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Recovery of Incriminating Articles – Disclosure statement of accused led to recovery of blood-stained clothes and weapon (knife) from his residence – Only that portion of statement leading to discovery admissible – Recovery corroborated by independent witnesses – Reliance placed on Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra and Palukuri Kottaya principle [Paras 17–20].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – DNA Analysis – Scientific Corroboration – DNA profiles from deceased’s clothing, pillow, shawl and plastic tank matched with accused’s blood sample – Parentage of deceased established through DNA – Minor absence of Y-STR profile from vaginal swabs not fatal to prosecution case – DNA evidence provided conclusive link between accused and crime [Paras 24–26].

Mental Health Defence – Rejected – Plea of bipolar disorder or mental incapacity not substantiated – Medical expert clarified accused was capable of understanding nature of acts and defending himself – Depression due to incarceration not equivalent to legal insanity – No benefit of diminished responsibility available [Para 27].

Appellate Review – No Reappreciation Warranted – Trial Court’s findings based on cogent oral, documentary and scientific evidence – No material contradictions or illegalities shown – Conviction affirmed [Paras 31–32].

Death Penalty – Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances – Balance-Sheet Test – Victim a helpless five-year-old child – Manner of assault barbaric, grotesque and diabolical – Use of knife to cause fatal genital injuries – Post-crime conduct of concealing body – Accused a repeat offender with criminal antecedents – Mitigating factors such as family responsibilities and socioeconomic background insufficient – Held: Case squarely falls within “rarest of rare” category [Paras 35–41].

Sentencing Jurisprudence – Article 21 – Collective Conscience of Society – Capital punishment permissible where alternative option unquestionably foreclosed – Reliance placed on Bachan Singh, Machhi Singh, Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) – Death sentence neither arbitrary nor disproportionate – Confirmation warranted [Paras 37–43].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction affirmed – Reference answered – Death sentence confirmed – Records directed to be returned to Trial Court forthwith.

Pre-emption – Tenant’s Right – Municipal Area – Extinguishment of Right – Sale of co-sharer’s land effected after inclusion of village within municipal limits – Held: Right of pre-emption stood extinguished – Suit for pre-emption not maintainable [Paras 8].

Tenancy – Proof – Gair Maurusi Entry – Absence of Rent – Revenue records consistently showed plaintiff in possession as gair maurusi with entry “bila lagan bawaja tameer makaan” – No entry of rent, no lease deed, no pleadings or proof regarding creation of tenancy – Held: Possession simpliciter or gair maurusi entry without rent does not establish tenancy – Tenancy being bilateral relationship cannot be inferred merely from possession [Paras 10.1–10.2, 13].

Pleadings and Evidence – Beyond Pleadings – Plaintiff attempted to improve case during evidence by alleging tenancy under Gram Panchayat at nominal rent – Such plea neither pleaded nor supported by documents – Held: Evidence beyond pleadings cannot be considered – No amount of evidence can substitute absence of pleadings [Paras 10.2].

Earlier Judgments – Binding Effect – Parties Not Same – Earlier civil judgment relied upon by plaintiff did not bind defendants who were not parties thereto – Subsequent suit dismissal did not adjudicate nature of possession – Held: Earlier judgments do not conclusively prove tenancy [Paras 10.3, 13].

Second Appeal – Scope – Section 100 CPC – Findings of Fact – First Appellate Court being final court of facts reversed trial court’s finding on tenancy after detailed re-appreciation of evidence – Findings neither perverse nor illegal – Held: No substantial question of law arises – Interference declined [Paras 13–14].

Possession – Protection – Due Process of Law – Though tenancy not proved, plaintiff found to be in settled possession – Held: Plaintiff cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law [Paras 8, 15].

Contempt Petition – Not Pressed – COCP dismissed as not pressed [Para 16].

Decision: RSA dismissed – Finding affirmed that plaintiff is not proved to be tenant though in possession – Protection against dispossession except by due process upheld – COCP No. 3975 of 2018 disposed of as not pressed.

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Bail – Section 43D(5) – Statutory Embargo – Appeal under Section 21(4) NIA Act against rejection of bail – Accused alleged to be member of proscribed terrorist organisation Islamic State – Involvement in radicalisation, conspiracy, reconnaissance, arson and terror funding through cryptocurrency – Held: When Court finds reasonable grounds for believing that accusations are prima facie true, statutory bar under Section 43D(5) squarely applies – Bail cannot be granted [Paras 9–11].

Terrorist Activities – Prima Facie Case – Evidentiary Material at Bail Stage – Material on record including voluntary statement, seizure of mobile phone, digital evidence, FSL report and cryptocurrency transactions considered – Images of sensitive locations, arson-related material and news clippings recovered – Evidence showing receipt and transfer of terror funds through crypto wallets – Held: Cumulative material establishes prima facie involvement in terrorist activities and conspiracy – Trial Court justified in rejecting bail [Paras 3–5, 9–11].

Criminal Conspiracy and Support to Terrorist Organisation – Sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 & 40 UAPA – Appellant alleged to have facilitated terror funding, shared crypto wallet details, converted funds into cash and assisted co-accused – Participation in reconnaissance and arson held to be acts furthering objectives of terrorist organisation – Contentions that ingredients of Section 15 UAPA not made out rejected – Prima facie satisfaction sufficient at bail stage [Paras 6, 9–11].

Bail Jurisdiction – Scope of Appellate Interference – Appellate Court to examine whether Trial Court’s view is perverse or ignores material on record – Trial Court discussed evidence in detail and recorded reasons for prima facie satisfaction – No ground made out for interference with bail rejection order [Paras 11–13].

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents – Arrest and Procedural Safeguards – Reliance placed on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement – Held: Observations regarding procedural safeguards do not dilute statutory bar under Section 43D(5) UAPA in presence of prima facie material – Bail rightly declined [Para 12].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Order dated 20.05.2025 rejecting bail upheld – Appellant not entitled to enlargement on bail.

Tenancy Rights – Heritability – Death of Tenant – Punjab Village Common Lands Act – Tenant Kulwant Rai held to be in cultivating possession as gair maurusi for decades – Upon his death, tenancy rights devolved upon legal heirs – Gram Panchayat failed to show any statutory provision extinguishing tenancy on death – Held: Tenancy rights are heritable and plaintiffs lawfully stepped into shoes of deceased tenant [Paras 12].

Village Common Land – Dispossession by Gram Panchayat – Requirement of Due Process – Earlier civil decree recognised tenant’s possession and restrained dispossession except in accordance with law – Panchayat initiated ejectment proceedings under Section 7 but resorted to auction during pendency – Held: Panchayat could not dispossess tenants or their heirs without completing statutory ejectment proceedings [Paras 11, 14].

Auction of Panchayat Land – Validity – Auction conducted during pendency of injunction and ejectment proceedings – Found to be a short-cut method to oust tenants – Held: Auction dated 06.04.1985 illegal, null and void and incapable of conferring lawful possession on auction vendees [Paras 7.1, 11].

Injunction – Dispossession During Pendency of Suit – Mandatory Injunction – Plaintiffs dispossessed despite interim injunction order – Civil court competent to restore possession and grant mandatory injunction to restore status quo ante – First Appellate Court rightly ordered restoration of possession [Paras 7.2, 13].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Findings of Fact – No Substantial Question of Law – Appellate Court’s findings based on revenue record, prior judgments and evidence – No perversity or misapplication of law shown – Held: Interference in second appeal not warranted [Paras 15, 16].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 21.11.1997 passed by First Appellate Court affirmed – Plaintiffs entitled to declaration of tenancy and restoration of possession.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 9 – Ad-interim Mandatory Injunction – “Status quo ante” direction restoring earlier state of affairs – Special Judge directed parties to “maintain status quo ante as on the date of filing of Section 9 petition” without recording reasons – Held: such ad-interim mandatory injunction cannot be granted lightly and must be supported by justifiable reasons and prima facie finding that status quo was altered and justice demands restoration – Impugned non-speaking order unsustainable and liable to be set aside [Paras 25-33, 47].

Injunctions – Status quo and Status quo ante – Meaning – “Status quo” means existing state of affairs at the relevant time – “Status quo ante” means state of affairs prior to the existing state and necessarily involves disturbing present position to restore the previous one – Held: order to maintain “status quo ante” operates as mandatory direction and therefore requires higher scrutiny and reasons [Paras 27-31].

Judicial Orders – Reasons – Necessity – “Reasons are the life of law” – Orders must disclose application of mind – Litigant entitled to know why relief is granted/declined – Held: absence of reasons vitiates judicial order; reasons cannot be substituted later through arguments/affidavits [Paras 32-35, 39-40].

Administrative/Statutory Law Principles – Validity of order must stand on reasons contained in the order – Supplementation barred – Held: order can be judged only on reasons stated therein; fresh reasons cannot be supplied subsequently (Mohinder Singh Gill principle) – Therefore, respondent’s attempt to justify “status quo ante” order on alleged violation of prior directions/lease terms rejected at appellate stage [Paras 38-40].

Commercial Appeals – Maintainability – Appeal against ad-interim order during pendency of Section 9 petition – Registry objection as to maintainability overruled and appeal held maintainable [Para 24].

Lease Dispute – Possession controversy – Appellants claimed possession taken pursuant to lease termination and re-entry clauses and Section 68, Major Port Authorities Act, 2021 – Respondent asserted possession not taken as per lease and statutory procedure – Held: such contested factual/legal issues should be examined by Special Judge in pending Section 9 petitions; appellate court confines itself to legality of impugned ad-interim order [Paras 36-44].

Precedent – Bank Guarantee principles not applicable – Reliance on (2025) 10 SCC 176 (Jindal Steel and Power Ltd.) distinguished as it related to restraint on invocation of bank guarantee when Section 9 matter ripe for hearing – Present case concerns ad-interim mandatory “status quo ante” direction and hence no benefit to respondent [Paras 48-49].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned ad-interim “status quo ante” order dated 19.12.2025 (extended subsequently) set aside (judgment records setting aside at Para 51) – Special Judge directed to decide CAOP Nos.37 & 38 of 2025 under Section 9 of the 1996 Act on the date already fixed (27.01.2026) in accordance with law – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous applications, if any, closed [Paras 51-53].