Will Genuineness Dispute – Question of genuineness of a Will dated 09.10.1984, executed by Palaniandi Udyar in favor of Navamani Ammal, was the central issue - Trial Court upheld Will's genuineness, reversed by First Appellate Court, but restored by High Court - Supreme Court evaluated evidence, testimonies, and circumstances surrounding Will's execution [Paras 1-2, 8-12]

Health and Consciousness of Testator – Evidence from various witnesses (PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, DW1) considered to establish that the testator was in good senses and capable of understanding and making decisions at the time of executing the Will - Counterclaims of the testator’s ill health not found convincing [Paras 9-9.5]

Distribution of Property and Care of Testator – Testator left significant property, only a part bequeathed to respondent - Balance property for widow and daughter - Appellants not living with testator or caring for his property at his death - High Court's judgment held valid as testator's intent to provide for wife and daughter evident [Paras 10-12.2]

Admission and Denial in Pleadings – Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of specific para-wise replies in pleadings, referring to Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 of CPC - General or evasive denials insufficient - Proper compliance with these rules would streamline legal proceedings [Paras 14-15.6]

Decision: Appeal dismissed for lack of merit, upholding the High Court’s decision that the Will was not surrounded by suspicious circumstances and was genuine. [Para 16]

Custody Dispute of Minor Child – Dispute over the custody of a 14-year-old girl, living since birth with appellants and respondent No.10, against the biological father's claim (respondent No.2) – Appeal against High Court’s order to hand over child to biological father – Issue under parens patriae jurisdiction. [Paras 2-5]

Background and Legal Proceedings – The child, born a twin, was given to appellant No. 2 (child's maternal aunt) due to financial difficulties – The father's subsequent actions included an FIR, a closure report accepted by the court, and a private complaint still pending – The mother filed and withdrew a habeas corpus petition. [Paras 6-6.3]

Appellants' Willingness for Child's Welfare – Appellants proposed financial security and equal rights for the child with their other children – Emphasis on child's welfare, stability, and opposition to uprooting her at 14 years of age. [Paras 6.4-6.6]

Respondent No. 2's Position – Argued against abandonment, asserting continuous effort to regain custody – Emphasized on child's welfare and right to be with biological family, including twin sister. [Paras 7-7.2]

Child Custody – Parens Patriae Jurisdiction – The Supreme Court addressed the issue of custody of a minor child, focusing on the child’s welfare as the paramount consideration under the parens patriae jurisdiction. The case involved a dispute between the biological father and the appellants, who had been caring for the child since infancy. [Para 2, 9]

Custody vs. Guardianship – Clarified – The Court distinguished between custody and guardianship, emphasizing that the case concerned only custody, not guardianship or adoption, particularly under Mohammedan law where adoption is not recognized but Kafalah (custody) is. [Para 6.3, 9]

Best Interests of the Child – Paramount – The Supreme Court emphasized that in custody matters, the child’s welfare and best interests are of paramount importance over the rights of the parties or personal law. Stability, consistency, and the child’s wishes, especially at an age where they can form intelligent opinions, were key considerations. [Para 10, 13, 16, 17, 20]

Interaction with the Child – Insightful – The Court’s interaction with the child, who expressed a desire to remain with the appellants, informed its decision. The child’s sense of stability and happiness with the appellants was pivotal. [Para 17, 20]

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside, custody remains with appellants – Child’s welfare and her preference deemed paramount over biological father’s claim. [Para 21]

Quashing of Tender Process – Civil Appeal – Tender irregularities and illegalities – Supreme Court sets aside High Court order allowing execution of project despite confirmed irregularities in tender process – Held that the action of HIMUDA (R-1) and M/s Vasu Constructions (R-2) in proceeding with the initial tender was mala fide and a misuse of legal processes, amounting to judicial oversight. Orders fresh tender process to be initiated in accordance with law. [Paras 1-14]

Due Process in Tendering – Analysis – Supreme Court criticizes HIMUDA for collusion and not acting in public interest – Emphasizes on fair and transparent tendering process in line with legal and procedural norms – Highlights the need for proper evaluation and qualification in tender processes. [Para 12]

Judicial Oversight – High Court’s Disposal of Writ Petition – Supreme Court finds fault with High Court’s acceptance of statements from respondent’s counsels without proper scrutiny – Terms the High Court’s decision as lacking proper application of mind and ignoring committee’s findings on irregularities and illegalities in the tender process. [Para 13]

Decision – Setting aside of High Court Order – Orders fresh tender process – Directs HIMUDA to deposit costs for misuse of judicial process – Supreme Court mandates HIMUDA to initiate a new, lawful, and transparent tender process, setting aside the High Court's order, and imposes a cost of Rs. 5,00,000 on HIMUDA for mala fide actions. [Para 14]

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – The Supreme Court considered the conviction of the appellant for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The court thoroughly examined the evidence, including testimonies and forensic reports, to determine whether the elements of the offense were satisfied. [Para 3-44]

Evidence – Contradictions and Reliability – The Court noted substantial inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses. It highlighted the discrepancies in the statements of family members of the deceased and the absence of critical evidence, such as the recovery of the poison or the container used for consumption. [Para 23-30, 44-45]

Abetment to Suicide – Legal Interpretation – The Court elaborated on the legal understanding of 'abetment' under IPC, especially focusing on the need for active instigation or aiding in committing suicide. It analyzed relevant case law to delineate the contours of 'instigation' and 'intention' in the context of abetment to suicide. [Para 31-39]

Forensic Evidence – Role in Suicide Cases – The judgment underscored the significance of forensic evidence in cases of death by poisoning. It emphasized the criticality of recovering traces of poison and establishing a clear link between the consumption of poison and the alleged act of abetment. [Para 41-46]

Decision - Evidence not sufficient to establish the charge of abetment to suicide - Conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC set aside - Bail bonds discharged [Paras 48-52].

Agreement for Sale and Suit for Specific Performance – Appeal against High Court's judgment dismissing specific performance for a property sale agreement – Original agreement dated 16th January 1980 for a plot in Chandigarh – Dispute over price reduction and possession transfer – Plaintiffs, including Major Gen. Darshan Singh, alleged property possession and price reduction after the original agreement – Trial Court denied specific performance but granted damages of Rs.40,000/- [Paras 2-5].

Conduct of Plaintiffs and Suit Agreement – First plaintiff's inconsistent statements regarding possession and price of property – Suit property recognized as HUF property, contrary to plaintiff's claim in the plaint – Trial Court, Appellate Court, and High Court found plaintiffs' conduct disqualifying them from equitable relief of specific performance [Paras 10-14].

Discretionary Nature of Specific Performance – Specific performance as an equitable relief, dependent on plaintiff's conduct – Supreme Court affirmed lower courts' denial of specific performance due to plaintiffs' misleading claims and pursuit of full property rights despite knowing its HUF status [Paras 9, 14].

Modification of Trial Court's Decree – Supreme Court modifies decree to award interest at 6% per annum on Rs.40,000/- damages from the date of the Trial Court's decree until payment or realization [Para 15].

Partial Allowance of Appeal – Appeal partly allowed, modifying the Trial Court's decree concerning interest on damages – No order as to costs [Para 16].

Consumer Law – Consumer Complaint – Development Agreement – The Supreme Court considered appeals involving a development agreement dispute between the complainants and a developer, where the original developer died, and the obligations were in question. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's (NCDRC) orders were challenged, which held the legal heirs of the deceased developer responsible for completing obligations under the development agreement. [Para 1-2, 7-8, 11-12]

Obligations Under Development Agreement – Scope of Liability – The Court examined the extent to which obligations under a development agreement can be enforced against the legal heirs of a deceased sole proprietor. It delved into the nature of proprietary concerns and the distinction between proprietary and personal rights, emphasizing the inheritable and uninheritable nature of such rights. [Para 13-17, 22-24, 27-28]

Liability of Legal Heirs – Determination – The Court held that while the legal heirs are liable for monetary obligations from the estate of the deceased, they are not liable for obligations that are personal in nature and depend on the skills or expertise of the deceased. The obligations specific to the development agreement that required personal performance by the original developer were deemed unenforceable against the legal heirs. [Para 21, 26-28, 31]

Decision – Partial Discharge of Obligations – The Supreme Court set aside the part of the NCDRC's orders that imposed personal obligations under the development agreement on the legal heirs of the deceased developer. However, it upheld the orders regarding monetary payments to be made by the legal heirs from the estate of the deceased. [Para 31-32]

Property Rights - Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions - Land Ownership - Scheme for Alternative Accommodation - The Supreme Court adjudicated on a special leave petition arising from a judgment of the High Court concerning the demolition of unauthorized constructions on government-owned land. The petitioner, not claiming ownership, was directed to vacate the premises by a specified date. The Court ordered the petitioner to remove belongings and apply for alternative accommodation as per the scheme outlined by the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA). Demolition was sanctioned post the deadline, with provision for documenting and returning belongings. The order extended to similar cases upon compliance with its terms, ensuring equitable treatment.

Property Ownership Dispute - Contest over ownership and possession of a house in Ishwaripura Ward, Katni - Plaintiff, Savitri Bai, claimed ownership based on a registered Sale Deed dated 18.01.1979, whereas the first defendant asserted her possession through a Will dated 23.03.1977 - Trial court and First Appellate Court sided with the first defendant, but High Court favored the plaintiff - Supreme Court set aside High Court's decision, restoring Trial and First Appellate Courts' judgments [Paras 1-5, 9-10, 16-17].

Will's Validity and Sale Deed Scrutiny - Will in favor of Meghraj, son of the first defendant, was contested - Supreme Court found the Will duly proved, meeting requirements under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sale Deed signed by the first defendant deemed irrelevant as Meghraj was not a party to it [Paras 8, 14-15].

Evidence Assessment - High Court's disregard for the Will and overemphasis on the first defendant's signature on the Sale Deed critiqued - Supreme Court highlighted the first defendant's lack of education and her signing multiple sale deeds in good faith, without fully understanding the implications [Paras 11-14, 16].

Decision - Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal - Set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the decisions of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court - Parties to bear their own costs [Para 17].

Reconsideration of Asian Resurfacing Judgment – Concerning High Court's power in interim order management in criminal and civil cases – Reevaluation of whether automatic vacation of interim orders after six months, directed under Asian Resurfacing, aligns with the principles of justice. [Paras 1-4, 36-37]

Constitutional Law – Powers of Supreme Court under Article 142 – Held – The Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142 are extensive but cannot be used to contravene substantive statutory provisions or principles of natural justice. Directions for automatic vacation of interim orders, applicable to all High Courts, exceed the scope of Article 142 and are not permissible. [Para 36, 37]

Interim Orders – Automatic Vacation – Inadmissibility – Held – Interim orders granted by High Courts should not automatically expire merely due to lapse of time. Such a directive cannot be issued under the Supreme Court’s Article 142 powers. The termination of interim orders must follow judicial processes and adhere to principles of natural justice. [Para 36, 37]

High Courts – Powers and Functions – Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution – Held – High Courts, being constitutional courts, are not subordinate to the Supreme Court. Their powers under Articles 226 and 227 include issuing interim orders and should not be unduly restricted. The Supreme Court’s directions should not undermine the independent functioning and powers of High Courts. [Para 23, 24]

Judicial Legislation – Limitations – Held – The Supreme Court, while exercising its powers, should avoid entering the domain of legislation, which is the exclusive prerogative of the legislature. Setting time limits for the disposal of cases or issuing blanket orders for automatic vacation of stays amounts to judicial legislation and is beyond the Court’s jurisdiction. [Para 28, 29]

Natural Justice – Importance in Judicial Decisions – Held – Adherence to the principles of natural justice is fundamental in the judicial decision-making process. Orders impacting the rights of parties, including vacating interim orders, require proper judicial examination and cannot be determined automatically or arbitrarily. [Para 17, 35]

Guidelines for Granting and Vacating Interim Relief – High Courts should consider guidelines for granting ex-parte ad-interim relief and prioritize hearing applications for vacating such relief. While detailed reasons may not be required, orders should indicate consideration of relevant factors [Para 34, 37d].

Disposition – Directions in Asian Resurfacing Overruled – The Supreme Court overruled the directions issued in Asian Resurfacing regarding automatic vacation of stay and fixed timelines for case disposal. Emphasized the need for judicial discretion and adherence to principles of natural justice in dealing with interim orders. [Para 38]