Succession Law — Constitutional Challenge — Goa Succession Act, 2012 — Amendment Acts of 2022 and 2023 — Alteration of Order of Succession — Surviving Spouse Elevated to Second Position — Challenge to Validity under Article 14 — The two Writ Petitions challenged the amendment of Section 52 of the Act of 2012, whereby the surviving spouse, originally placed at Serial No. (iv) in the order of intestate succession, was elevated to Serial No. (ii), succeeding immediately after descendants and taking precedence over ascendants and brothers/sisters — The petitioners, being ascendants and siblings of deceased estate leavers, claimed that the amendments divested them of their right of succession without any rational basis — Held: The legislature is entitled to rectify the order of legal succession and, having regard to the unique matrimonial regime in Goa founded on communion of assets, the surviving spouse's elevation to second position is not manifestly arbitrary [Paras 1, 4–11, 66, 95, 102, 134].

Constitutional Law — Manifest Arbitrariness — Article 14 — Test and Application — The Court examined the doctrine of manifest arbitrariness as evolved in Shayara Bano v. Union of India and further elaborated in In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1995 — Manifest arbitrariness requires that a legislative action be capricious, irrational, and without adequate determining principle, or be excessive and disproportionate — Mere hardship to one class of persons or conferment of benefit on another does not constitute manifest arbitrariness — On comparison with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which accord the widow/widower equal or superior standing to ascendants, the Court found no irrationality or absence of determining principle in the legislative choice — Held: The amendments do not exhibit manifest arbitrariness [Paras 73–88, 91–95, 96–105].

Retrospectivity — Vested Rights — Crystallised Rights — Explanation to Section 52 — The Amendment Act of 2023 was deemed to have come into force on 21/12/2016, raising a challenge that retrospective operation divested vested rights of those who had already succeeded as heirs under unamended Section 52 — The Court held that the right of succession is transmitted on death of the estate leaver as per Section 13 of the Act, and such transmission does constitute a vested right — However, the individuation and demarcation of an heir's specific share crystallises only upon completion of inventory/partition proceedings — The explanation appended to Section 52 by the Amendment Act of 2023 expressly saved all crystallised rights and confined the retrospective operation to cases and appeals pending before Courts — Held: The amendment does not operate to divest crystallised rights; the savings clause in the explanation is sufficient protection [Paras 106–128, 133–134].

Nature of Succession under the Goa Succession Act — Transmission v. Crystallisation — Inventory Proceedings — The Court distinguished between transmission of ownership and possession on death under Section 13 and the crystallisation of individual shares through inventory or partition proceedings — While rejecting the State's argument that no right vests until completion of inventory, the Court held that succession opens and a vested right is transmitted on death, but exclusive ownership of specific assets accrues only upon partition — Inventory proceedings serve the purpose of carving out individual shares and do not condition the initial vesting of the right of inheritance [Paras 133].

Succession — Portuguese Civil Code — Communion of Assets — Historical Background — The Act of 2012 consolidates the law of intestate and testamentary succession in Goa, rooted in the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 — The default matrimonial regime in Goa is communion of assets whereby spouses share equally in present and future assets — On death of an estate leaver, the surviving spouse as moiety holder takes 50% of the estate, with the balance 50% devolving by succession — The legislature, by placing the surviving spouse at Serial No. (ii), ensured that the spouse succeeds the entire balance estate in the absence of descendants, a position consistent with the matrimonial regime and comparable to the succession scheme under the Hindu Succession Act and the Indian Succession Act — Held: The amendment advances the principle of the marital relationship prevailing in Goa [Paras 59–65, 95, 102, 134].

Prenuptial Agreement — Separation of Assets — Decisional Autonomy — The intervener's submission that the amendment nullified the effect of prenuptial agreements for separation of assets, thereby violating the right to decisional autonomy under Article 21 and the right to privacy recognised in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, was rejected — The Court held that during the subsistence of marriage the parties are governed by their prenuptial contract, but on death of one spouse, succession devolves in accordance with the Act of 2012 without discrimination between matrimonial regimes — Held: The challenge based on autonomy and prenuptial regime is not sustainable [Paras 42–44, 134].

Presumption of Constitutionality — Judicial Restraint — Legislative Wisdom — It is a well-settled principle that there exists a presumption of constitutionality in favour of every statute and the burden lies on the challenger to demonstrate clear constitutional transgression — Courts cannot interfere with legislative wisdom on grounds of hardship, inconvenience, or preference for a different policy — The propriety and expediency of a legislative measure are for the legislature alone — Held: The parameters for declaring a statute unconstitutional are not met in the present case and the challenge must fail [Paras 68–72, 129].

Decision: Writ Petitions and Miscellaneous Civil Applications dismissed — Rule discharged — Easy on costs.

Civil Law - Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, Section 50 - Succession to Male Bhumidhar - Married Daughter - Exclusion from Inheritance - Land originally held by a male bhumidhar (Ram Singh) was mutated in 1966 in equal shares between his son and married daughter (Rajban). Held, Section 50 of the DLRA provides a specific order of succession which includes an unmarried daughter but excludes a married daughter. Succession opens at the time of the death of the tenure-holder and is governed by the statute as it stood then. The married daughter, not being a statutory heir, did not acquire any inheritable interest despite the revenue entry. [Paras 19-20, 40].

Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, Sections 50, 51 and 53 - Nature of Mutation - Fiscal Entry vs Title - Petitioners claimed title through long-standing mutation and possession. Held, mutation entries are maintained solely for fiscal purposes and revenue administration. They do not, by themselves, create, vest, enlarge, or extinguish title. Inheritable rights in agricultural holdings governed by the DLRA cannot be created merely by a mutation entry in the absence of a legally recognised mode of transfer or devolution. [Paras 23-25, 34, 38].

General Principles of Law - Waiver, Estoppel and Family Arrangement - No Estoppel against Statute - Petitioners invoked waiver and long-term acquiescence by the son (Chander). Held, there can be no estoppel against statute. Conduct cannot confer a status which the law withheld. Mere silence or long-standing revenue entries do not constitute a legally operative abandonment of statutory rights in agricultural land. A family settlement must be specifically pleaded and proved with a juridical foundation, which was absent in the present case. [Paras 26-31, 39].

Precedents - Prospective Overruling - Applicability of Ram Mehar v. Mst. Dakhan - Conflict between personal law and DLRA. Held, judicial decisions are generally declaratory of what the law has always been. In the absence of an express direction for prospective operation by the court, a ruling remains retroactive. The Financial Commissioner was justified in applying the authoritative view in Ram Mehar (1972) that succession to bhumidhari rights is strictly governed by the DLRA and not general personal law, regardless of the earlier administrative understanding or the Gopi Chand (1964) decision. [Paras 32-36].

Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227 - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Limits of Review - Challenge to Financial Commissioner's order. Held, the High Court’s supervisory role is limited to checking for legal misdirection, jurisdictional error, or manifest perversity. It is not a rehearing on facts. As the Financial Commissioner identified the correct legal position regarding the effect of mutation entries, no ground for interference is made out. [Paras 37-38, 42].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Financial Commissioner's order dated 14/11/2006 upheld – No legal or jurisdictional infirmity found.

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Sections 2(zk), 2(zn), 3, 4 and 5 - Promoter - Real Estate Project - Requirement of Registration - Element of Sale - Respondent obtained land on lease from a Trust for 29 years and 11 months to develop a commercial building with rights to sub-lease but no right to sell ownership - U.P. RERA rejected registration while Appellate Tribunal directed it - Held, the purpose of 'selling' is sine-qua-non for a person to be a 'promoter' under Section 2(zk) and for a project to be a 'real estate project' under Section 2(zn). In the absence of a sale component, the activity does not attract the provisions of the Act. A lessee with restricted rights of possession and sub-leasing without the power to transfer title by sale is not required to seek registration under Section 4. [Paras 30-38, 47-49].

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Section 4(2)(l)(A) - Application for Registration - Legal Title - Authentication of title where land is owned by another - Held, while the statute provides for authentication of title for land owned by third parties, the statutory scheme primarily governs projects undertaken for the purpose of sale to allottees. Where the developer lacks the legal authority to sell plots, apartments, or buildings under the lease terms, the project falls outside the ambit of the Act. [Paras 43-48].

Interpretation of Statutes - Literal Rule of Construction - Intent of Legislature - Maxim A Verbis Legis Non Est Recedendum - Held, court must read sections in their literal sense and cannot rewrite them. The legislature consciously used the term 'sale' in defining the scope of RERA. When the language of a statutory provision is clear and unambiguous, it must be presumed that the legislature deliberately employed such words to give effect to the object of the Act, which is to regulate projects intended for sale. [Paras 39-41].

Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Sections 54 and 105 - Distinction between Sale and Lease - Held, a lease is a transfer of a right to enjoy property for a certain time, whereas a sale is a transfer of ownership for a price. RERA registration is predicated on the promoter's ability to execute a registered conveyance deed in favour of the allottee under Section 17, which is impossible where the developer only holds leasehold rights without the power of sale. [Paras 13, 31-33].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Order of the Appellate Tribunal set aside to the extent it directed registration – Appellant Authority is under no obligation to provide registration number or Login ID as the respondent's project is beyond the purview of the Act – Authority directed to withdraw Form-D prohibitory/restrictive clauses against the Respondent.

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Section 89 - Overriding effect - Overlap with Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - The provisions of the Act of 2006 shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Held, Section 89 mandates that its provisions supersede the Act of 1954 in cases of overlapping jurisdiction. [Paras 7, 15].

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Sections 51, 52 and 89 - Inconsistency in Penal Consequences - Misbranding and Sub-standard Food - Offence allegedly committed on 01.12.2010 - Penalty provisions under Sections 51 and 52 of FSSA were notified on 29.07.2010 - PFA Act provided for imprisonment while FSSA provided for monetary penalties for the same acts - Held, following the Supreme Court precedent in Manik Hiru Jhangiani vs. State of M.P., Section 89 of FSSA operates to prevail over PFA to the extent of inconsistency; prosecution under the PFA Act for acts committed after the notification of FSSA penalty provisions is legally impermissible as it would lead to double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution. [Paras 13-16].

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 7 - Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Section 3 - Definition and Classification - Samples of milk products found to contain impermissible flavouring substances and labeled "Mild Fat" - Held, allegations of "adulterated" food under Section 2(ia)(a) of the 1954 Act correspond to "sub-standard" food under Section 3(1)(zx) of the 2006 Act, and "misbranded" food under Section 2(ix) of the 1954 Act corresponds to Section 3(i)(zf) of the 2006 Act. [Paras 9-12].

Decision: Petitions allowed – Proceedings in the complaints titled State through Food Inspector vs. Tapan Milk Products and ors. pending before the Special Judicial Mobile Magistrate (Excise), Jammu and the orders taking cognizance are quashed – Complaints dismissed.

Electronic Evidence – Audio Tape Record – Admissibility – Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 / Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Plaintiffs in a suit for specific performance produced an audio cassette (tape record of alleged telephonic conversation) as evidence of a concluded oral contract – Trial Court, without determining whether the tape was primary or secondary electronic evidence, directed it to be sent to FSL for forensic examination and directed defendants to furnish voice samples – Held: Tape record copied from the original telephone instrument is secondary evidence; before any question of its admissibility or forensic examination arises, the mandatory certificate under Section 65B(4) must be produced and proved — Impugned order is a patent illegality for ignoring binding precedent [Paras 7, 8, 11, 14].

Electronic Evidence – Primary vs. Secondary Document – Hash Value – Certificate Requirement – If electronic evidence is a primary document, it must be produced along with its hash value; if it is secondary evidence, it is admissible only upon production and proof of certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act or Section 63(4) of the BSA, 2023 — Trial Court failed to address this threshold question before passing the impugned order [Para 8].

Tape Recorded Evidence – Conditions for Admissibility – Voice Identification – Tape records of conversations are "documents" under Section 3 of the Evidence Act and stand on the same footing as photographs — Conditions for admissibility include: (i) identification of the voice of the speaker; (ii) proof of accuracy of the recording ruling out tampering; (iii) relevance of the subject matter; (iv) the cassette must be sealed and kept in safe custody — Voice identification evidence is inherently suspect and courts must exercise extreme caution — Tape-recorded conversation can only be used as corroborative evidence [Paras 12, 13].

FSL Appointment – Order XXVI Rule 10A CPC – Scope – Power to appoint FSL as Court Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 10A does not dispense with the obligation to first satisfy the threshold requirements of admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B(4) — Directing defendants to furnish voice samples before the tape is proved amounts to compelling defendants to supply evidence to prove the plaintiffs' case, which exceeds the jurisdiction of the trial Court [Paras 3.3, 14].

Decision: Petition allowed — Impugned order dated 30.12.2022 quashed and set aside — Application Exhibit-119 in Special Civil Suit No. 187 of 2016 remanded to the trial Court for fresh decision in accordance with law and the binding precedents referred to in the judgment.

U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, Rule 7(3) - Spot Inspection - Requirement of Notice - District Magistrate conducted spot inspection without issuing notice to the petitioner - Inspection report indicated land was situated in Vista Farmhouse Colony with cemented roads and boundary walls - Petitioner contended violation of procedural rules - Held, while Rule 7(3) stipulates that the Collector may inspect property after due notice, the failure to issue notice constitutes a mere irregularity and not an illegality unless the petitioner demonstrates substantial prejudice. Since the petitioner failed to provide specific evidence to refute the physical findings of the report, the inspection remains valid. [Paras 6, 12, 18-22].

Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Section 47A - Market Value - Potentiality of Land - Valuation based on proximate use - Petitioner purchased land as agricultural but surrounding areas were developed for residential purposes and sold as small plots - Held, following the Full Bench decision in Smt. Pushpa Sareen vs. State of U.P., the market value must be determined considering the use to which the land is reasonably capable of being put in the proximate future. The potentiality of the land as on the date of execution of the instrument is a material factor, and the Collector is justified in considering commercial/residential activities in the vicinity. [Paras 23-26].

Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Sections 33 and 40(b) - Deficiency of Stamp Duty - Suppression of facts - Sale deed executed by petitioner as Director of a construction company - Modus operandi involved purchasing agricultural land and quickly selling it as residential units - Finding of residential utility at the time of execution - Held, the impugned orders determining deficiency, imposing penalty, and interest are supported by both facts and law; suppression of actual land nature justifies the demand. [Paras 8-9, 23, 27].

Decision: All writ petitions are dismissed – Impugned orders for deficiency of stamp duty and penalty affirmed.

Service Law – Judicial Officer – Departmental Inquiry – Initiation without Written Complaint – Validity – Petitioner, an Additional District Judge, placed under suspension and charge-sheeted on six charges including developing intimate relations with an outsourced clerk, misuse of court employees, obstructing CCTV cameras, irregularity in court sittings and threatening witnesses – Petitioner challenged initiation of inquiry on the ground that no complaint accompanied by a sworn affidavit and verifiable material was filed as required by guidelines of the Ministry of Law and Justice – Held: Rule 9(2) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 requires only the formation of an opinion by the Disciplinary Authority that there are grounds for inquiry – No written complaint is a statutory prerequisite – Power of Disciplinary Authority to initiate inquiry is independent and absolute and cannot be subjected to the requirement of a complaint supported by affidavit – Petition dismissed [Paras 15–39].

Guidelines – Ministry of Law and Justice – Scope and Applicability – The guidelines issued pursuant to the direction of the Chief Justice of India requiring complaints against judicial officers to be accompanied by sworn affidavits and verifiable material are directed at complaints by litigants having grievances against judicial officers – Such guidelines are intended to prevent frivolous complaints by disgruntled litigants and to ensure accountability of complainants – Held: Guidelines have no application where the Disciplinary Authority, on its own information, has formed an opinion that an inquiry is warranted – The requirement of a written complaint cannot whittle down the statutory power under Rule 9(2) [Paras 29–38].

Earlier Division Bench Ruling – Distinguishable – A Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 11804 of 2017 in the very petitioner's case had observed that action against a judicial officer requires a complaint with a sworn affidavit – Held: Those observations were made in a specific context where proceedings had emanated from an oral representation by members of the Bar and where there was inordinate delay – The Division Bench in that case had not considered the absolute statutory power of the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 9(2) – Said ruling cannot support the petitioner's contention [Para 37].

Vague Charges – Challenge at Inquiry Stage – Argument that charges framed against petitioner are vague and warrant quashing – Held: Vagueness of charges is a contention to be raised before the Inquiry Officer and, if unsuccessful, before the Disciplinary Authority – Court cannot examine vagueness of charges under Article 226 when inquiry is already in progress [Para 40].

Criminal Contempt – Scandalizing the Court – After reservation of judgment, petitioner filed written submissions directly through Court Master, bypassing his Advocate on Record and Senior Counsel, asserting that a senior judge of this Court has control over all branches of the High Court and is capable of instructing and directing junior judges – Held: Such assertions by an Additional District Judge imputing improper influence over judicial proceedings clearly scandalize and lower the authority of the Court and tend to obstruct the administration of justice – The same constitutes criminal contempt – Papers directed to be placed before the Division Bench assigned the Contempt roster for consideration of further proceedings – Petitioner directed to appear personally on 15.06.2026 [Paras 45–49].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Papers relating to para 2 of the written submissions directed to be placed before the Contempt Division Bench – Petitioner to remain personally present on 15/06/2026.

Maintenance – Section 125 CrPC – Interim Maintenance – Educated Wife – Qualification vs. Actual Employment – Petitioner challenged the interim maintenance order contending that Opposite Party No.1-wife holds M.A. and B.Ed. degrees, had been provisionally selected as Sikhya Sahayaka, and is thus qualified to earn – Family Court had found that despite the claim, no prima facie document was produced to establish actual employment and, accordingly, treated Opposite Party No.1 as having no source of income – High Court, on the date of hearing, recorded the statement of counsel for Opposite Parties that the wife is not employed till date – Held: The Family Court passed a reasoned order after considering the contentions of parties; without going into merits so as not to prejudice the final disposal of the Section 125 CrPC proceeding, interim maintenance modified to Rs.15,000/- per month to wife and Rs.10,000/- per month (inclusive of educational expenses) to the son, operative from the date of filing of application i.e. 23.04.2022 [Paras 4–8].

Maintenance – Divorced Wife – Entitlement Under Section 125 CrPC – Ex-parte Divorce Decree – Opposite Party No.1 had obtained an ex-parte divorce decree against the petitioner from the Fifth Additional Family Court, Chennai in Original Petition No. 2456 of 2020 – Petitioner contended that consequent upon divorce, the wife lost marital status and was not entitled to maintenance – Family Court held that since there was no material to show remarriage of the wife after the divorce decree, she, being a divorced wife, was entitled to maintenance under Section 125(1) Explanation (b) CrPC – High Court did not disturb this finding [Para 5].

Maintenance – Suppression of Income by Husband – The petitioner had disclosed net salary of Rs.1,27,000/- per month without disclosing gross salary or producing salary documents – Family Court found the petitioner made an attempt to suppress his exact income – Personal hand loan claimed by the petitioner not taken into account as it is not a compulsory deduction from salary [Para 5].

Maintenance – Arrears and Litigation Expenses – Direction – Litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- directed to be paid within four weeks – Arrear maintenance to be paid in six monthly instalments after adjusting the amount already paid pursuant to interim order of High Court dated 06.02.2025 – Family Court, Balasore requested to endeavour disposal of C.R.P. No. 112 of 2022 within six months from the date of this order, the proceeding having been pending since 2022 [Paras 10–13].

Decision: CRLMP disposed of – Impugned order modified – Interim maintenance reduced to Rs.15,000/- per month for wife and Rs.10,000/- per month for son from the date of application – Order subject to final order to be passed by the Family Court in C.R.P. No. 112 of 2022.

Murder – Section 302/34 IPC – Common Intention – Abatement of Appeal – Surviving Appellant – Deceased Laxman was allegedly assaulted with laathis by four accused-appellants on 15.06.1982 near a well, following suspicion that Laxman had informed the police about illicit liquor manufacture at the house of Raghuver – Trial Court convicted all four accused-appellants under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment – Appellants Raghuver, Hira and Idal died during pendency of appeal and their appeals stood abated – Appeal adjudicated solely in respect of surviving accused-appellant No. 4, Chhakki [Paras 2, 11].

Section 34 IPC – Common Intention – Requirement of Premeditation, Pre-plan and Pre-concert – Prosecution witnesses Viran PW-1, Ram Dayal PW-2 and Tulsi PW-3 made only general allegations against all accused persons collectively and attributed no specific motive, cause or enmity to surviving accused-appellant Chhakki – Motive for the crime was exclusively personal to Raghuver and his brother Hira, who suspected Laxman of informing the police – Chhakki was not a family member of Raghuver and no evidence disclosed any reason for his participation – Investigating Officer PW-8 deposed that no witness stated they had seen the accused emerging from the house – Tulsi PW-3 contradicted himself in cross-examination as to whether he had seen the accused persons going from the back of the house – Held: Prosecution failed to establish premeditation, pre-plan or pre-concert between surviving accused-appellant Chhakki and the other accused-appellants; trial Court did not discuss or record any finding on common intention with reference to Chhakki; conviction with aid of Section 34 IPC is unsustainable in absence of proof of prior meeting of minds [Paras 14–20].

Section 34 IPC – Common Intention – Settled Principles – For conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, the prosecution must establish that all accused shared a pre-arranged plan and that the criminal act was done in furtherance of common intention – The plan may develop on the spot but must precede the act constituting the offence; a definite conclusion as to prior concert is essential – Trial Court merely relied on the nature and extent of injuries to infer intention to kill and did not address the requirement of premeditation and prior concert in respect of Chhakki – Held: This approach is not sustainable in law, particularly in a heinous offence like murder where every ingredient must be proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 18–20].

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence of surviving accused-appellant Chhakki under Sections 302/34 IPC as passed by the Sessions Judge, Lalitpur on 03.10.1983 in Sessions Trial No. 147 of 1982 set aside – Chhakki acquitted – Already on bail; need not surrender; bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged – Appellant to comply with Section 437-A CrPC.