Adverse Possession – Requirement of Continuous, Open, and Hostile Possession – Claim Rejected – The appellants' plea of adverse possession failed due to lack of proof of continuous, open, and hostile possession for the required period. The evidence showed that their possession was permissive, as they were cultivating the land as lessees (Adhiyadar). The Court held that without proving adverse possession for the prescriptive period, the appellants' claim could not stand [Paras 32-34, 37-45].

Benami Transactions – Section 4 of the Benami Transactions Act – Sale Deed Validated – The appellants’ argument that the property was held benami by Sitaram for the joint family was rejected. The Court upheld the sale deed executed in favor of the respondent, holding that the Benami Transactions Act prohibited any claim by the appellants, who were barred from asserting that the property belonged to the joint family [Paras 31, 41].

Limitation – Article 65 of the Limitation Act – Suit Within Time – The Court clarified that the limitation period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act begins when the defendant's possession becomes adverse, not from the date of the original transaction. Since the appellants failed to prove adverse possession, the suit was deemed timely filed [Paras 36-40].

Perverse Findings – High Court's Reversal of Lower Court Judgments – The High Court found the trial court and first appellate court’s judgments to be perverse, especially regarding the finding that the property was joint family property. The courts below had not properly appreciated the evidence, and the High Court was correct in reversing those judgments [Paras 13, 15, 25].

Contempt of Court – Allegation of Creating Third-Party Rights During Status Quo Order – The contempt petition accused the appellants of creating third-party rights in violation of a status quo order. The Court, however, closed the contempt proceedings, allowing the respondent-plaintiff to execute the decree for possession following the dismissal of the appeals [Paras 48-51].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed – The Supreme Court confirmed the High Court’s findings that the plaintiff had title over the property and that the defendants' possession was permissive, not adverse – The contempt petition regarding the creation of third-party rights during the pendency of the case was dismissed, and the Court directed the plaintiff to execute the decree for recovery of possession .

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Prima Facie Case for Investigation - High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 406 and 420 IPC on the grounds that the FIR did not disclose entrustment or dishonest intention from the outset – The appellant contended that the accused failed to pay rent despite false assurances and retained possession of the truck – Held: The High Court erred in quashing the FIR at the threshold without considering the police investigation and charge-sheet, as it prematurely thwarted a legitimate investigation – Appeal allowed, High Court’s decision set aside, matter remitted for fresh consideration [Paras 9-12, 18-19].

Criminal Breach of Trust – Misappropriation of Vehicle – Entrustment and Retention - The allegation of non-payment of rent, coupled with failure to return the vehicle, may suggest dishonest retention or disposal, which could constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC – High Court ought to have allowed investigation into these claims before deciding on quashing the FIR [Paras 13-16].

Cheating – Dishonest Intention – False Assurances and Retention of Possession

Though one month’s rent was paid, the subsequent non-payment of rent and false assurances, while retaining possession of the truck, raised a prima facie case of dishonest intention, warranting investigation under Section 420 IPC [Paras 11-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The order of the High Court quashing the FIR and related proceedings is set aside – Case remanded for fresh adjudication after considering materials collected during the investigation – Costs made easy [Para 19].

Criminal Law – Suspension of Sentence – Section 302 IPC – Bail Granted to Co-Accused – The appellants were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for their involvement in the death of Babu Lal – The appellants argued that no overt act was attributed to them, and they only held the victim down while another co-accused delivered the fatal blow – Held: Considering the role of the appellants and distinguishing it from the main accused, as well as the fact that they are women with young children, the Court granted suspension of sentence and bail to the appellants, subject to conditions to be imposed by the Sessions Court.

Distinguishable Role of Co-Accused – Women Accused Granted Bail – The appellants, who are two women, were convicted along with others for murder – Since no direct act of violence was attributed to them and their role was limited to holding the victim, the Court found it appropriate to grant them bail, especially in light of their familial responsibilities, including one appellant who had given birth while previously incarcerated .

Decision:

Leave granted – Appeal allowed – The appellants are granted suspension of sentence and bail, subject to conditions imposed by the Sessions Court – They are required to appear before the court when directed by the High Court during the pending appeal.

Defamation – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – The appellant sought quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for defamation after making statements against respondent No. 2, calling him a "sexual predator" – Supreme Court held: The appellant, realizing his mistake, tendered an unconditional apology and agreed to publish the same in a leading newspaper and compensate the respondent with a token amount – Criminal proceedings quashed in the interest of both parties [Paras 1-4].

Unconditional Apology and Compensation – Resolution of Dispute – The Court accepted the appellant's offer of an unconditional apology to the respondent, to be published in "Daily Eenadu" and ordered a token compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 for the mental agony caused by the defamatory allegations – Proceedings in CC No. 196 of 2019 and the related suit were quashed [Paras 6-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Criminal proceedings in CC No. 196 of 2019 and Original Suit No. 1490/2018 pending before the courts in Telangana were quashed – Appellant to tender an unconditional apology and pay compensation to respondent No. 2 [Paras 9-11].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Law – CIRP Deferral – Jurisdiction Under Article 226 – The appellant challenged the High Court’s order deferring the CIRP of KSK Mahanadi Power Company Limited after denying the respondents’ request for consolidation of CIRP with two other entities – Held: The High Court erred in deferring the CIRP despite refusing consolidation – The High Court’s direction to defer the CIRP under Article 226 is unwarranted as it breaches the discipline of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – CIRP deferral quashed [Paras 6-11].

Consolidation of CIRP – High Court Declined Relief – The respondents had sought consolidation of the CIRP of three corporate entities before the NCLT, which was rejected – The High Court also declined the same relief but, paradoxically, deferred the CIRP process – Held: The High Court had no basis to issue the deferral order after rejecting the primary relief, and such a direction is beyond the scope of its jurisdiction under Article 226 [Para 10].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – The impugned order of the High Court directing the deferment of the CIRP is set aside – The CIRP shall continue as per the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [Paras 11-12].

Conviction under Section 302 IPC – Appeal against Conviction – Appellant's role in the murder was established – Appeal partially allowed - The appellant, along with co-accused, was convicted of murdering the victim due to a dispute over jaggery. The appellant was the sole convict as the co-accused were acquitted. The court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC, rejecting the acquittal request but modified the sentence to the period already served due to the appellant’s prolonged incarceration of over 14 years and good conduct in prison. However, the conviction under Section 34 IPC was set aside due to lack of evidence of common intention [Paras 2-5, 12, 18].

Evidence of Witnesses – Reliability of Ocular Evidence – Testimonies of eyewitnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 corroborated - The court found the depositions of the eyewitnesses credible, detailing the presence and role of the appellant in firing the fatal shot. The minor discrepancies noted by the defense were deemed immaterial to the overall case [Paras 10-13, 17].

Non-examination of Key Witnesses – Impact on Prosecution – No adverse inference - The failure to examine certain witnesses, including the investigating officer and key eyewitnesses, was found insufficient to discard the other overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution [Paras 14-16].

Sentence Modification – Good Conduct in Prison – Sentence reduced - The appellant had already served over 14 years, including time without remission, and exhibited good behavior during incarceration, leading to a reduction in his life sentence to the time already served [Paras 22-25].

Civil Law – Partition and Execution – Limitation – The appellants, legal representatives of the original plaintiff, filed an Execution Petition for possession after the final decree in a partition suit was passed in 1970 and engrossed on stamp paper in 1990 – The respondents, legal heirs of a pendente lite transferee, challenged the petition as time-barred under Article 136 of the Limitation Act – High Court held the limitation period begins from the date of the decree, not its engrossment – The Execution Petition was time-barred, and the remand for fresh consideration by the trial court was upheld – Held: Appeal dismissed [Paras 9, 17, 24-26].

Pendente Lite Transferee – Right to Resist Execution – The respondents, as heirs of a pendente lite transferee, sought to defend their rights under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC – Appellants argued the transferee had no locus standi – Court held that a third party, even a pendente lite transferee, dispossessed under a decree, can apply for redelivery under Rule 99 and defend their independent title and interest – The term “stranger” under Rule 99 includes pendente lite transferees who were not impleaded in the suit [Paras 13-15].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Impleadment of Transferee – The respondents’ predecessor acquired the property before the final decree – The Court reaffirmed the principle that lis pendens does not render transfers void ab initio, but subservient to the rights of the original parties – Transferees have the right to be impleaded and defend their interests if not joined in the original suit [Para 15].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court’s order upheld – The matter remanded for fresh adjudication, including the respondents' independent title claim – Costs made easy [Para 20].
 

Service Law – Recruitment Process – Eligibility Criteria – Quashing of Selection Process – The appellant and others challenged the cancellation of the recruitment process for Junior Engineer (Civil) posts in Bihar, initiated through an advertisement dated 08.03.2019 – The State Government canceled the process following litigation on the eligibility of candidates with diplomas from universities not approved by AICTE – The High Court allowed the cancellation without fully adjudicating the issues – The Supreme Court held that altering the rules after the selection process violates established principles – Fresh merit list ordered with age relaxation provisions [Paras 1-30].

Doctrine of Acquiescence – Participation in Selection Process – Appellants argued that the writ petitioners, having participated in the recruitment process, could not challenge the eligibility criteria after being unsuccessful – The Supreme Court cited established precedents that altering criteria post-selection is impermissible, affirming the vested rights of successful candidates in the selection process [Paras 27-32].

Rule of Law – Arbitrary State Action – The cancellation of the recruitment process, despite completion and the preparation of a final select list, was deemed arbitrary and unjustified – The Court ordered the preparation of a fresh select list considering prior High Court directions and AICTE’s stand on eligibility, providing relief to candidates who were previously disqualified under the 2017 rules [Paras 30, 32].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Cancellation of the recruitment process set aside – Fresh select list to be prepared within three months, and appointments to follow within 30 days thereafter – Provision for age relaxation as a one-time measure for candidates affected by the delayed recruitment process [Paras 30-32].

Criminal Law – Conviction Reversal – Acquittal – The appellants were convicted by the High Court for abduction and murder under Sections 364/34 and 302/34 IPC – The Supreme Court reversed this conviction, holding that the High Court erred in overturning the Trial Court's acquittal of two accused (A-6, A-7) – The High Court’s decision lacked proper reasoning to reverse acquittals, especially when the Trial Court’s view was plausible – Appellants were acquitted as prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-30].

Witness Testimonies – Credibility of Eye-Witnesses – The testimonies of prosecution witnesses (PW18, PW2, PW4, and PW5) were inconsistent and unreliable – Discrepancies regarding their presence at the crime scene raised doubts – Non-examination of natural witnesses such as tenants and neighbors further weakened the prosecution’s case – The Court found that PW18’s statement regarding the involvement of A-6 and A-7 was an improvement over the FIR, casting serious doubt on the prosecution’s version [Paras 12-26].

Motive and Circumstantial Evidence – The prosecution’s case largely rested on circumstantial evidence, but the chain of evidence was incomplete – The presence of property disputes provided a motive, but this alone could not prove guilt – The prosecution failed to link the accused directly to the murder, and no reliable evidence of abduction was found – Thus, the Court ruled that the conviction for murder could not be sustained [Paras 27-35].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction set aside – All seven appellants acquitted – They are to be released immediately if not wanted in any other case [Paras 35-40].