Civil Procedure – Execution of Decrees – Objection under Section 47 CPC: The Supreme Court evaluated the justifiability of the delay in filing a revision petition by the State after the dismissal of its objection under Section 47 CPC. The Court found that the objection to the execution of the decree, raised several decades after the original decree, was a tactic to delay the process unduly and lacked sufficient cause [Paras 7-12].

Limitation and Delay – Condonation – Sufficient Cause: The Court reiterated the principles guiding the condonation of delay, emphasizing that while a liberal approach is often adopted, especially for the State, there must be no gross negligence or deliberate inaction. The Court held that the State had not shown sufficient cause for the delay in challenging the decree, which had been affirmed in appeal long ago [Paras 9-11].

Article 227 – High Court's Supervisory Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court scrutinized the High Court’s exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, concluding that the High Court erred in adopting a lenient approach without considering the extensive delay and lack of sufficient cause [Paras 8, 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order condoning the delay in filing the revision petition by the State. The application for condonation of delay was rejected, emphasizing the need for prompt action in litigation and the avoidance of unnecessary delays [Paras 12].

Mortgage – Redemption – Revenue Recovery: The Supreme Court held that the sale of the mortgaged property under revenue recovery proceedings for agricultural income tax arrears extinguished the mortgagor's rights. The Court emphasized that agricultural income tax is a personal liability of the landowner and not a charge on the land itself [Paras 16-21].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 76(c) of the Transfer of Property Act: The Court interpreted Section 76(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, clarifying that the mortgagee's obligation to pay "Government dues" pertains to charges of a public nature and not personal liabilities such as agricultural income tax [Para 26].

Contractual Obligations – Mortgage Deeds: The Court analyzed the mortgage deeds, concluding that the mortgagee was not contractually obligated to pay the agricultural income tax on behalf of the mortgagor. The mortgagee's responsibility was limited to Government dues directly related to the land [Paras 17-18].

Fraud and Collusion – Revenue Sale: The Court found no evidence of fraud or collusion in the public auction sale of the property. The sale was conducted to recover agricultural income tax dues, and the mortgagor's failure to challenge the sale promptly indicated a lack of bona fide dispute [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Appeals allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the First Appellate Court and the High Court, restoring the Trial Court's judgment that dismissed the suit for redemption. The sale under revenue recovery proceedings extinguished the mortgagor's rights [Para 27].

Minority Rights – Establishment and Administration of Institutions – State as Unit: The Supreme Court held that to claim linguistic minority status in a state, the institution must be established and administered by individuals who are minorities in that state. The Court emphasized that the place of residence of the trustees is relevant in determining minority status [Paras 13, 24].

Government Resolution – Recognition of Minority Status: The Government Resolution dated 4.7.2008 outlines the conditions for granting minority status to educational institutions. The Court upheld the withdrawal of the appellant's minority status as it did not meet the criteria specified, including the requirement that trustees should be residents of the state [Paras 17-19, 23].

Interpretation of Article 30: The Court reiterated that Article 30(1) provides protection to minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. However, the institution must be genuinely established by and for the minority community within the state where the minority status is claimed [Paras 25-26, 31].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court and the competent authority's order, holding that the appellant does not qualify for linguistic minority status in Maharashtra as its trustees reside outside the state [Para 31].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Forfeiture of Right: The Supreme Court held that the respondent forfeited its right to appoint an arbitrator by not making the appointment within the time specified in the demand notice issued by the appellant. The subsequent appointment made by the respondent after the appellant had moved the court under Section 11(6) was of no legal consequence [Paras 12, 20].

Section 11(6) – Role of Chief Justice: The Court clarified that when the opposite party fails to appoint an arbitrator within the specified time and the matter is brought before the Chief Justice under Section 11(6), the Chief Justice should appoint an independent and impartial arbitrator. The appointment made by the respondent during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 11(6) does not affect the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice [Paras 13, 21].

Impartiality of Arbitrator: The Court emphasized the importance of appointing an independent and impartial arbitrator, particularly when the respondent has forfeited its right to make the appointment. This ensures the fairness and integrity of the arbitration process [Para 21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed the appellant's application under Section 11(6). The case was remanded back to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court for fresh consideration and appointment of an arbitrator in accordance with law [Para 25].

Dying Declaration – Reliability – Procedure: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction based on the dying declaration of the deceased, emphasizing that it was recorded by a Judicial Magistrate in the presence of a doctor who certified the victim's fitness to make the statement. The Court noted that the declaration was consistent and credible, and the procedure followed was proper [Paras 7-8, 10].

Accused's Injuries – Defence of Rescue Attempt: The Court rejected the appellant's defence that he sustained burn injuries while trying to rescue his wife. It was noted that the appellant did not seek medical treatment for his injuries until his arrest, casting doubt on his claim [Para 17].

Dowry Harassment – Motive: The Court found sufficient evidence of dowry harassment and cruelty towards the deceased, which provided a motive for the crime. The consistent harassment by the appellants over dowry demands was established through witness testimonies and the dying declaration [Paras 4, 16].

Concurrent Sentences – Upholding Lower Court Decisions: The Supreme Court affirmed the life imprisonment sentence for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the one-year rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A IPC, as ordered by the trial court and upheld by the High Court. The sentences were to run concurrently [Paras 1, 21].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentences imposed by the lower courts, finding no merit in the appeal [Paras 19-21].

Kudikidappukaran Rights – Determination and Registration: The Supreme Court held that the status of a person as a Kudikidappukaran must be determined under Section 80 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, and must be registered in the prescribed register maintained by the local authority. The Court emphasized that the claim of Kudikidappu rights cannot be asserted under other sections of the Act without first establishing and registering such status [Paras 11-12, 20].

Eviction Proceedings – Rent Control and Kudikidappukaran Status: The Court examined the interplay between eviction proceedings under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, and the determination of Kudikidappukaran status. The Court noted that any question regarding the status of a Kudikidappukaran must be referred to the Land Tribunal, and its decision must be accepted by the Rent Control Court [Paras 14-15, 19].

Jurisdiction – Civil Courts and Land Tribunal: The Court reiterated that civil courts, including rent control courts, have no jurisdiction to settle questions required to be decided by the Land Tribunal under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Tribunal's decision on such questions is binding and can only be challenged through the prescribed appellate and revision procedures under the Act [Paras 14, 20].

Appellate Authority's Role – Section 80B Applications: The Supreme Court criticized the Appellate Authority for exceeding its jurisdiction by allowing the appeal under Section 80B of the Act without the proper determination of the appellants' status as Kudikidappukaran. The Court set aside the Appellate Authority's order as it was without jurisdiction and not in accordance with the law [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's decision, which confirmed the eviction order and set aside the Appellate Authority's order under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the eviction and rejecting the claim of Kudikidappu rights [Paras 23].

FIR and Investigation – Admissibility and Reliability: The Supreme Court addressed the admissibility of the FIR, which was based on the statement of PW2. The appellant argued that the FIR was inadmissible as it was hit by Section 162 CrPC, and the actual first information was suppressed. The Court held that the information given by PW2 was properly treated as the FIR, and the prosecution's investigation was not tainted or unreliable [Paras 4-7, 14].

Eyewitness Testimony – Consistency and Credibility: The conviction was primarily based on the consistent and credible testimonies of PW2 (cousin of the deceased) and other eyewitnesses (PW3, PW5, and PW7). The Court found their accounts reliable, despite minor discrepancies, and upheld the lower courts' findings [Paras 14-15].

Medical Evidence vs. Ocular Evidence: The appellant contended that the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's timeline, suggesting the death occurred earlier than alleged. The Court reiterated that when medical evidence conflicts with reliable ocular evidence, the latter prevails. The Court found the medical officer's testimony on rigor mortis unreliable and upheld the conviction based on the eyewitnesses' accounts [Paras 15-17].

Independent Witnesses and Material Evidence: The Court addressed the non-examination of independent witnesses, noting that the prosecution is not obligated to examine every witness if the ones presented are credible. The defense's claim that the prosecution withheld the actual first information and fabricated evidence was rejected [Paras 5, 10-11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and life sentence of the appellant for the murder of Shailendra Kumar. The findings of the lower courts were affirmed based on credible eyewitness testimonies and the proper application of legal principles regarding FIRs and the evaluation of evidence [Paras 16-17].

Confession and Recovery – Admissibility and Reliability: The Supreme Court addressed the admissibility and reliability of confessional statements and the recovery of contraband items. The Court upheld the conviction of the appellants, emphasizing the proper recording of confessions and corroborative evidence from recovery operations. The appellants' arguments challenging the legality of recoveries and the credibility of panch witnesses were dismissed [Paras 6-25].

Possession of Contraband – Conscious Possession: The Court examined the concept of "conscious possession" concerning the recovery of AK-56 rifles and other contraband items. It held that the appellant's failure to explain the source of his knowledge about the contraband indicated conscious possession. The Court found that the appellant's arguments regarding the absence of a key and the non-examination of certain witnesses were insufficient to negate possession [Paras 16-20].

Role of Panch Witnesses – Independent Corroboration: The Court found that the evidence provided by panch witnesses, corroborated by contemporaneous panchnamas, was credible and trustworthy. The appellants' claims of panch witnesses being stock witnesses were rejected. The Court held that minor discrepancies did not undermine the overall reliability of the prosecution's case [Paras 10-11, 21-24].

Conspiracy – Participation and Knowledge: The Court dealt with the charges of conspiracy, highlighting the role of each appellant in furthering the conspiracy. The involvement of the appellants in various conspiratorial meetings, handling and transportation of contraband, and harboring co-conspirators were key factors in upholding the convictions. The Court noted that the lack of explicit knowledge about the specific nature of contraband did not absolve the appellants from conspiracy charges [Paras 26-40].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences of the appellants, finding no merit in the challenges raised against the lower courts' judgments. The evidence on record was deemed sufficient to support the findings of guilt [Paras 41-50].

Plot Allotment – Non-Payment of Consideration – Humanitarian Grounds: The Supreme Court considered the case of an illiterate widow whose plot allotment was cancelled due to non-payment of the full consideration amount. Despite the strict legal position against extending time for payment, the Court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 142 to grant relief on humanitarian grounds [Paras 7-8].

Judicial Discretion – Articles 142 and 226: The Court highlighted its discretionary power under Article 142 to ensure complete justice. It recognized the hardship faced by the appellant, an illiterate widow with minor children, and directed the regularization of the plot in her name upon payment of the balance amount with interest [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court directed the Mysore Urban Development Authority to regularize and register the site originally allotted to the appellant's husband in her name. The appellant was instructed to pay the remaining amount with 18% interest within three months, after which possession of the site would be handed over to her. This order was made on humanitarian grounds and not to be treated as a precedent [Paras 8-10].