Registration Act – Power of Registrar – Cancellation of Registered Document – District Registrar entertained complaint under Section 68(2) and nullified three registered sale deeds on allegation of fraud – Held: Section 68(2) only confers supervisory power over Sub-Registrars and authority to rectify errors relating to registration records – It does not confer power to cancel or declare registered documents as null and void – Such power lies exclusively with Civil Court [Paras 9, 15–16].

Registration of Documents – Fraud Allegations – Jurisdiction of Registering Authority – Allegations of fraudulent sale transactions raised between parties – Held: Registering authority cannot adjudicate disputed questions of title or civil rights – Fraud in general sense cannot be expanded to permit administrative authorities to cancel registered documents – Parties must approach Civil Court for declaration of invalidity of sale deeds [Paras 12–14].

Civil Disputes – Parallel Proceedings – Complaint before Registrar during pendency of civil suit – Civil suit seeking declaration of sale deeds as null and void was already pending – Registrar nevertheless entertained complaint and cancelled documents – Held: Such exercise of power amounts to usurpation of jurisdiction of Civil Court and violates property rights protected under Article 300A of the Constitution [Paras 15–16].

Writ Jurisdiction – Determination of Disputed Facts – Learned Single Judge dismissed writ petition on basis of alleged fraud – Division Bench held that disputed questions regarding consideration and genuineness of transaction must be decided in civil suit and not in writ proceedings [Para 17].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Order of Single Judge set aside – Order of District Registrar cancelling sale deeds quashed – Parties relegated to pursue remedies before Civil Court.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the BUDS Act - Digital Gold Business – Petitioners challenged FIR alleging that their business model involved sale of physical gold backed by bullion stored in third-party vaults and therefore did not constitute “deposit” under BUDS Act – State alleged that large sums were collected from the public through digital platform promising gold linked value and referral incentives – Held: Allegations disclose serious and triable issues regarding acceptance of money from public under an unregulated scheme – Investigation cannot be stifled at inception – Petition to quash FIR rejected [Paras 8–12].

Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 – Meaning of “Deposit” – Petitioners contended that payments made by customers for purchase of digital gold constitute commercial transactions and not deposits – Court held that definition of “deposit” under Section 2(4) is broad and cannot be narrowly construed to exclude modern financial arrangements such as digital gold or commodity-linked schemes – Substance of transaction rather than its form must be examined – Whether the scheme amounts to deposit collection is a matter for investigation [Paras 8, 11].

Financial Technology – Digital Gold Platforms – Regulatory Vacuum – RBI and SEBI communications indicated that digital gold products are not regulated under existing securities or banking frameworks – Court observed that absence of regulation by SEBI or RBI does not place such schemes beyond reach of criminal law – Transactions collecting money from public without regulatory oversight may still fall within BUDS Act [Paras 7, 11].

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Quashing – Investigation Stage – Court reiterated that quashing of FIR under Section 528 BNSS (analogous to Section 482 CrPC) is an exception and not the rule – At the stage of FIR the Court cannot evaluate disputed facts or determine whether allegations will ultimately result in conviction – Investigation must be permitted to proceed when allegations disclose cognizable offence [Paras 9–10].

Interpretation of Welfare Legislation – Purposive Construction – BUDS Act enacted as remedial legislation to curb innovative financial frauds and schemes designed to circumvent regulatory oversight – Court held that interpretation must be purposive and expansive to address evolving cyber-enabled financial schemes rather than confined to traditional cash deposit models [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – FIR in Crime No.25 of 2026 under Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of BUDS Act upheld – Investigation permitted to proceed – Observations made confined only to adjudication under Section 528 BNSS and shall not affect merits of trial.

Labour Law – Compassionate Appointment – NCWA-VI – Dependent Son – Management Estopped by Conduct – Employee died in harness on 24.12.2000 – Widow applied for compassionate appointment on 25.05.2001 – Application kept pending without disposal due to management's failure to maintain service record of deceased employee – Widow withdrew application after 11 years and sought appointment for dependent son Manoj Bouri – Management processed application, held screening on 12.01.2013, conducted pre-employment medical examination on 23.08.2013 and found candidate fit, but after remaining silent for five years, rejected application on 10.12.2018 on ground of delayed submission – Held: Delay in processing was attributable to management's negligence – Management having admitted and processed the dependent son's application by holding screening and medical tests, is estopped from questioning delayed submission – Dependent son entitled to compassionate appointment as per Clause 9.3.0 of NCWA-VI – Award directing employment within three months confirmed [Paras 28-33].

Labour Law – NCWA-VI – Clause 9.5.0 – Female Dependant – Monetary Compensation – Employment – Option – Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA-VI entitles female dependant of deceased workman to either employment or monetary compensation – Where female dependant opts for monetary compensation in lieu of employment, a dependent male member becomes entitled to employment under Clause 9.3.0 – Female dependant entitled to monetary compensation from date of death till son's employment or her attaining age of 60 years, whichever is earlier – Award of monetary compensation to widow from 24.12.2000 till employment provided to son or widow attaining 60 years of age upheld [Paras 25-26, 30-31].

Labour Law – Compassionate Appointment – Live Roster – Dependent Minor Son – Clause 9.5.0(iii) of NCWA-VI provides that if no employment has been offered and the male dependant of the deceased worker is 12 years and above, he shall be kept on live roster and provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualifications on attaining majority – Son was aged 13-14 years at time of father's death and was thus entitled to be maintained in live roster – Management's failure to maintain the same and to inform dependants of this right was itself a failure of duty [Paras 18, 21, 28].

Labour Law – Industrial Tribunal – Award – Interference in Writ – Management's Negligence – Management misplaced service book of deceased employee, failed to dispose of widow's application within reasonable time and failed to inform minor son's right under NCWA – After finding son fit for employment in 2013, remained silent for five years before rejecting application in 2018 – No interference with Tribunal's award warranted – Writ petition dismissed – Petitioner directed to comply with award directions within one month [Paras 32-34].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Award of Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol in Reference Case No.44 of 2022 confirmed – Eastern Coalfields Ltd. directed to comply with directions in impugned award within one month from date of order.

Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act – Suit dismissed despite proof of agreement and payment – Plaintiff proved execution of agreement to sell, payment of entire sale consideration and delivery of possession – However plaintiff failed to establish continuous readiness and willingness to perform remaining obligations such as execution and registration of sale deed and related expenses – Mere issuance of notices and payment of stamp duty insufficient – Trial Court rightly exercised discretion in refusing specific performance – Appeal dismissed [Paras 20-23, 34-35].

Specific Performance – Equitable and Discretionary Relief – Courts not bound to grant decree merely because agreement proved – Relief depends on conduct of plaintiff and proof of readiness and willingness from date of agreement till decree – Absence of evidence showing practical preparedness to complete registration justified refusal of decree [Paras 21-24, 34].

Agreement to Sell with Possession – Whether creates title – Agreement reciting payment of entire consideration and delivery of possession amounts to instrument in nature of conveyance requiring stamp duty and compulsory registration – Unregistered document cannot transfer title to immovable property – Ownership can be transferred only through registered deed of conveyance [Paras 27-32].

Registration of Documents – Effect of Unregistered Instrument – Section 17 & 49 Registration Act – Unregistered agreement affecting immovable property cannot confer title nor be received as evidence of transfer except for collateral purposes – Declaration of title cannot be granted on basis of such unregistered agreement [Paras 29-32].

Evidence – Adverse Inference – Defendant failing to enter witness box – Defendant disputed delivery of possession but did not depose in evidence – Adverse inference drawn under settled principle that party withholding himself from witness box weakens his defence [Paras 18, 33].

Cross-Objection – Order 41 Rule 22 CPC – Challenge to finding without appeal – Respondent challenged finding regarding delivery of possession – However absence of rebuttal evidence and adverse inference justified sustaining trial court finding – Cross-objection dismissed [Paras 11, 33].

Specific Performance – Distinction between “Readiness” and “Willingness” – Readiness relates to financial capacity while willingness relates to conduct of plaintiff – Both must be pleaded and proved continuously from date of agreement till decree – Mere assertion without supporting evidence insufficient [Paras 24-26].

Decision: First appeal dismissed – Trial court judgment refusing decree of specific performance upheld – Cross-objection filed by defendant dismissed – Parties directed to bear their own costs.

Criminal Law – Murder of Minor Child – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Trial Court convicted accused under Sections 302 and 201 IPC for allegedly murdering a 4½-year-old boy after administering liquor and abandoning him in a marshy land – Prosecution relied mainly on the circumstance that the child was last seen entering the verandah of the accused’s house – High Court held that the testimony of PW2, the sole witness to the “last seen” circumstance, was unreliable as he failed to disclose the fact to anyone immediately despite participating in the search for the missing child – Held: Prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused – Conviction unsustainable – Benefit of doubt to the accused [Paras 18-21, 35].

Evidence – “Last Seen Together” Theory – Reliability of Sole Witness – PW2 claimed to have seen the deceased child entering the accused’s house shortly before the child went missing – However, PW2 did not disclose this fact to the child’s family members, neighbours, or even to his own wife (PW3) while participating in the search on the same day – Such non-disclosure of a crucial fact at the earliest opportunity rendered his testimony suspicious – Held: Evidence of PW2 unsafe to rely upon without independent corroboration [Paras 18-20].

Circumstantial Evidence – Principles Governing Conviction – In cases resting solely on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be fully established and must form a complete chain leading only to the hypothesis of guilt of the accused – Circumstances proved must exclude every possible hypothesis consistent with innocence – Failure to establish such a complete chain entitles the accused to benefit of doubt [Paras 11-12, 35].

Evidence – False Explanation by Accused – Accused left workplace stating that he was attending a function at his wife’s house which was later found to be false – Held: Mere falsity of explanation or conduct alone cannot be treated as a decisive circumstance to prove guilt in the absence of other incriminating evidence linking the accused to the crime [Paras 23-25].

Criminal Law – Motive – Alleged Sexual Abuse – Prosecution alleged that accused committed unnatural sexual assault on the child before murdering him – However, medical and chemical examination revealed no signs of sexual assault and nothing incriminating was detected – Held: Alleged motive remained unproved, weakening the prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence [Para 26].

Evidence – Recovery of Articles – Tyre allegedly used by the child recovered from accused’s compound more than eight months after the incident and not pursuant to disclosure under Section 27 Evidence Act – Recovery from an open place near houses in a populated locality carries little evidentiary value and does not connect the accused with the offence [Para 27].

Evidence – Recovery of Liquor Bottles and Purchase of Liquor – Liquor bottles recovered from an open marshy land prior to arrest of the accused and not at his instance – Evidence of PW28 that accused purchased liquor doubtful as thousands of customers visited the shop daily – Even if purchase proved, it does not establish that the accused administered liquor to the child – Circumstance too weak to connect the accused with the crime [Paras 28-30].

Forensic Evidence – Bloodstains and Recovered Dhoti – Scientific examination detected blood on seized dhoti and samples collected from accused’s house, but origin of blood could not be determined due to insufficient quantity – In absence of proof that the blood was human or belonged to the deceased, forensic evidence does not advance the prosecution case [Paras 32-34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – To be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Private Complaint – Section 406, 420, 465, 468 of the IPC - Suppression of Material Facts – Multiple complaints filed with varying allegations – First complaint disclosed only a monetary transaction involving transfer of Rs.36,05,066/- and repayment of Rs.8,85,000/- – Subsequent complaints suppressed the earlier complaint and introduced improved allegations claiming cheating of Rs.96,00,000/- involving additional victims – Held: Suppression of the earlier complaint and improvement of allegations to give criminal colour constitutes abuse of process of law – Criminal proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 13–17, 23].

Cheating – Ingredients of offence – Requirement of dishonest intention at inception – Allegations reveal investment made with expectation of profits and later non-payment – No material to indicate fraudulent or dishonest intention of the accused at the inception of the transaction – Mere breach of promise or failure to repay investment does not constitute cheating – Dispute essentially civil in nature [Paras 18–20, 23].

Civil Dispute – Criminal Colour – First complaint indicated claim only for recovery of balance amount allegedly due – Later complaints inflated the claim amount and added additional victims while suppressing earlier complaint – Held: Criminal law cannot be invoked to settle monetary disputes arising out of investment transactions when basic ingredients of criminal offences are absent [Paras 15–17, 23].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Prevention of abuse of process – Where allegations taken at face value do not constitute offences and proceedings appear to be maliciously instituted to harass the accused – High Court justified in exercising inherent powers to quash the proceedings [Paras 21–24].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed – Private complaint, final report and all further proceedings in C.C. No.78 of 2023 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kollam quashed as against the petitioner – Registry directed to return the fixed deposit submitted by the petitioner after lifting the lien.

Limitation Law - Delay Condonation – Inordinate Delay of 2833 Days – Petitioners sought condonation of delay in filing application to set aside ex parte decree passed in 2015 – Explanation offered that petitioners relied on their counsel to conduct the case – Held: Vague and insufficient explanation – Petitioners were aware of execution proceedings as early as 2016 but remained inactive – Inordinate delay coupled with negligence and lack of bona fides cannot be condoned [Paras 11–12, 17].

Limitation – Public Policy – Law of Limitation intended to ensure finality in litigation – Courts cannot adopt liberal approach to defeat statutory limitation provisions – Substantial justice cannot override mandatory limitation when sufficient cause is not shown [Paras 14, 16].

Ex Parte Decree – Subsequent Transactions and Third-Party Rights – After ex parte decree, plaintiff deposited balance consideration, obtained sale deed through court process, took possession and subsequently sold property to third party – Held: Petitioners’ prolonged inaction allowed third-party rights to intervene and decree holder acquired substantive rights which cannot be lightly disturbed [Paras 11, 13, 15].

Counsel’s Negligence – Not a Sufficient Cause – Mere allegation that previous counsel failed to inform petitioners about the case progress does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of enormous delay when parties themselves failed to exercise due diligence [Para 12].

Consequential Relief – Rejection of Delay Petition – Once petition for condonation of delay is dismissed, petition seeking to set aside ex parte decree cannot survive and is liable to be dismissed [Para 21].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition No.107 of 2026 dismissed – Petition seeking condonation of delay of 2833 days rejected – Consequently, CRP No.6471 of 2025 seeking to set aside ex parte decree also dismissed – No costs.

Family Law – Maintenance – Enhancement – Section 127 CrPC – Revision – Partial Modification – Original maintenance of Rs. 6,500/- per month granted vide order dated 05.07.2019 under Section 125 CrPC — respondents filed enhancement application under Section 127 CrPC — Family Court enhanced total maintenance to Rs. 14,000/- per month (wife: Rs. 4,500/-; child: Rs. 7,000/-) — husband's income increased from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,900/- per month — wife, though M. Com. educated, stated on affidavit to be jobless — husband alleged wife earned Rs. 6,000/- per month but failed to prove the same — Family Court doubled maintenance merely on grounds of inflation, passage of five years and wife's unemployment without recording cogent reasons — Held: Enhancement to more than double without justification is unsustainable — revisional court intervenes to strike a balance — maintenance reduced to Rs. 5,500/- per month for wife and Rs. 6,500/- per month for child, totalling Rs. 12,000/- per month — payable from date of application [Paras 1, 6.2–6.4, 7].

"Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Maintenance Matters – Limited Interference"

Revision – Scope – Maintenance – Revisional jurisdiction is very limited and cannot be exercised in routine manner — it can be invoked only where decisions are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with provisions of law, finding is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely — in the present case, Family Court doubled maintenance without recording palpable reasons or any justification for such a conclusion — Held: Such arbitrary enhancement attracts revisional interference [Para 6.1, 6.3].

"Quantum of Maintenance – Education and Earning Capacity of Wife – Balancing Test"

Maintenance – Quantum – Education and Capacity of Wife – Maintenance should allow wife to maintain reasonable standard of living but should not be excessive or encourage idleness — wife is M. Com. educated and her prospect to earn is a relevant factor — the amount awarded must be befitting the status of the parties and capacity of spouse to pay — husband's income Rs. 25,900/- per month — husband also required to maintain ailing mother aged 76 years — child aged 13–14 years with changing needs — maintenance always dependent on factual situation — no material on record to show husband is living extravagantly — Held: Maintenance to be modulated balancing needs of wife and child against income and liabilities of husband [Paras 6.3–6.4].

Decision: Revision application allowed in part — impugned order dated 25.09.2024 modified — maintenance to wife (Respondent No. 2) reduced to Rs. 5,500/- per month and to child (Respondent No. 3) to Rs. 6,500/- per month — total maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- per month — payable from date of application — Stay Application No. 1 of 2025 disposed of as infructuous.

Partition – Registered Partition Deed vs Oral Partition – Plaintiff claimed title and possession over suit property based on registered partition deed dated 11.01.1990 – Defendants pleaded earlier oral partition in 1980 and contended that registered partition was executed only for obtaining bank loan – Held: Registered partition deed proved through attesting witness and documentary evidence – Courts below rightly preferred registered document over plea of oral partition [Paras 7–8].

Evidence – Proof of Partition Deed – Plaintiff examined himself and attesting witness to establish execution of registered partition deed – Independent witnesses corroborated that suit property was allotted to plaintiff’s share – Held: Due execution and allotment under registered partition proved [Para 7].

Revenue Records – Patta vs Title Document – Defendants relied on patta transfer order in favour of first defendant – Held: Revenue records do not confer title and cannot override registered title document – In case of conflict between title deed and revenue record, title document prevails [Para 10].

Challenge to Registered Document – Failure to Seek Cancellation – Defendants claimed that registered partition deed was nominal but did not take any steps to cancel or set aside the document – Held: Without challenging the registered partition deed, defendants cannot rely on alleged earlier oral partition to dispute plaintiff’s title [Para 9].

Second Appeal – Absence of Substantial Question of Law – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently held that plaintiff established title and entitlement to possession – Held: No substantial question of law arises for consideration under Section 100 CPC – Second appeal not maintainable [Para 11].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court dated 14.10.2025 in A.S. No.49 of 2024 affirmed – No order as to costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.