Contract Law – Specific Performance – Sham and Bogus Agreement – Appeal against the decree for specific performance of a sale agreement. Appellants contended that the agreement was sham and intended only to prevent the original owner from selling the property due to his vices. Supreme Court rejected the contention, holding that there was no reliable evidence to prove the agreement was not intended to be acted upon. The plea of the agreement being sham was not adequately raised during the trial [Paras 1-12].

Evidence – Admissibility – Sections 91 and 92 of Evidence Act – Sections 91 and 92 do not prevent parties from adducing evidence to show that the terms of a written document were not intended to be acted upon. However, the plea must be consistent and supported by credible evidence. In this case, the plea of sham agreement was introduced as an afterthought and lacked credibility [Paras 11-12].

Property Law – Bona Fide Purchasers – Notice and Registration – The sale agreement was registered, giving constructive notice to subsequent purchasers. The appellants failed to conduct due diligence to ascertain prior encumbrances. Therefore, they cannot be considered bona fide purchasers without notice of the original contract [Paras 13].

Specific Relief – Subsequent Sale Deeds – The absence of a prayer to cancel subsequent sale deeds does not bar a decree for specific performance if the subsequent purchasers are not bona fide. The court can direct subsequent purchasers to join in executing the sale deed without cancelling their transactions [Paras 14-16].

Land Reforms – Agricultural Land – Permission for Sale – Execution of the sale deed requires permission under the Zamindari Abolition Act for selling agricultural land to non-agriculturists. The court directed the defendants to seek necessary permissions and made the decree contingent upon obtaining such permissions [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – The decree for specific performance modified to limit the sale to one-half undivided share in favor of the first plaintiff only. The defendants are directed to obtain necessary permissions for the sale. If permissions are not obtained, the first plaintiff is entitled to a refund with interest. The suit was dismissed concerning the second plaintiff [Paras 21].

Stamp Duty – Admissibility of Insufficiently Stamped Document – Appellant contested the High Court’s order which overturned the Trial Court’s direction to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty on a GPA – Trial Court had initially admitted the GPA without considering its insufficient stamping – High Court’s decision quashed, reaffirming the Trial Court’s right to revisit the document’s admissibility under its inherent powers [Paras 1-23].

Power of Court under Section 151 CPC – Inherent Powers – Discussed the applicability of Section 151 CPC in allowing a court to revisit the admissibility of a document due to insufficient stamping – Emphasized the court’s duty to ensure compliance with stamp duty regulations to prevent abuse of process and uphold fiscal interests [Paras 10-23].

Legislative Intent – Compliance with Stamp Duty Requirements – Court highlighted the necessity for judicial officers to apply their mind when admitting documents into evidence – Failure to do so undermines legislative intent and fiscal integrity [Para 21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Trial Court's order requiring payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty restored – Trial Court instructed to expedite proceedings [Para 23].

Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – The appellant-defendant challenged the High Court's judgment confirming the appellate court's order which granted specific performance to the plaintiff-respondent. The Supreme Court analyzed whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The Court emphasized the need for continuous readiness and willingness, which the plaintiff failed to demonstrate due to prolonged inaction and unexplained delays [Paras 1-15].

Delay and Laches – The Supreme Court noted significant unexplained delays by the plaintiff in enforcing the agreement, including a two-year gap before issuing a legal notice and a further delay before filing the suit. The Court held that such delays indicate a lack of readiness and willingness, thereby disentitling the plaintiff to equitable relief of specific performance [Paras 9-13].

Equitable Relief – The Court reiterated that specific performance is a discretionary and equitable relief. It emphasized that unexplained and unreasonable delays undermine the plaintiff’s claim to such relief. The trial court’s original decision denying specific performance and granting an alternate relief of refund was upheld [Paras 10-15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court and Appellate Court orders set aside – Trial Court's order restored, denying specific performance and ordering a refund with interest.

Partition Suit – Burden of Proof – Matrimonial Relations – Appellant filed a suit for partition and separate possession, claiming to be the son of respondent from his marriage with Padminibai. Trial Court and First Appellate Court decreed the suit, but High Court reversed these decisions, finding inconsistencies in the evidence. Supreme Court upheld High Court’s judgment, emphasizing the heavy burden of proof on the appellant to establish the matrimonial relationship and his legitimacy, which he failed to discharge satisfactorily [Paras 1-7].

Re-Appreciation of Evidence – Scope in Second Appeal – Appellant contested the High Court’s re-evaluation of evidence in second appeal, arguing that such re-appreciation was beyond its jurisdiction. Supreme Court found that the High Court was justified in reassessing the evidence due to significant discrepancies in the appellant’s case, particularly concerning the alleged marriage and legitimacy claims [Paras 4-6].

Delay in Filing Suit – Impact on Credibility – Suit was filed approximately 16-17 years after the appellant attained majority, without any prior claim or dispute raised. This delay, combined with the lack of substantial evidence regarding the matrimonial relationship and appellant’s birth from that wedlock, weakened the appellant’s case [Para 5].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment affirmed – Appellant failed to establish the claimed matrimonial relationship and his legitimate claim to the property. The court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the dismissal of the suit, with no order as to costs [Para 7].

Criminal Procedure – Summoning of Additional Accused – Section 319 CrPC – Respondent summoned by Trial Court to face trial for corruption charges based on witness deposition – High Court quashed the order due to lack of prior sanction under Section 19 of the P.C Act – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing mandatory requirement of prior sanction for public servants [Paras 1-11].

Sanction for Prosecution – Section 19 P.C Act – Requirement of Prior Sanction – Court held that prior sanction is a sine qua non for taking cognizance of offences under the P.C Act – Even under Section 319 CrPC, prosecution must first obtain sanction before summoning a public servant – Trial Court erred in not insisting on prior sanction [Paras 7-11].

Legal Precedents – Application of Dilawar Singh v. Parvinder Singh (2005) 12 SCC 709 – Supreme Court cited precedents affirming that Section 19 of P.C Act overrides Section 319 CrPC – Cognizance of offence against public servant invalid without requisite sanction [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of High Court upheld – Trial Court's order summoning respondent set aside due to lack of prior sanction under Section 19 of P.C Act.

Criminal Law – Discharge Application – Appellant sought discharge from charges of rape and criminal intimidation – Lower courts dismissed the application, framing charges based on prima facie evidence – Supreme Court re-evaluates the sufficiency of evidence, including contradictions in prosecutrix’s statements and lack of material evidence [Paras 1-19].

Consent – Misconception of Fact – Supreme Court examines the concept of consent under Section 90 IPC – Finds that prosecutrix’s consent was not vitiated by misconception or coercion – Relationship was consensual, allegations of blackmail and threats not substantiated by evidence [Paras 20-24].

Evidence – Lack of Corroboration – Court notes the absence of critical evidence such as photographs, mobile phone, and financial transactions – Finds that the prosecutrix’s claims are unsupported by tangible proof, weakening the prosecution’s case [Paras 17, 24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Orders of the High Court and Sessions Judge set aside – Criminal proceedings quashed – Supreme Court emphasizes that continuing the trial would be an abuse of judicial process due to lack of credible evidence and consensual nature of the relationship [Paras 25-28].

Arbitration Law - Limitation for Setting Aside Award - Appellant State challenged arbitral award dated June 30, 2022 - Petition under Section 34 filed on October 31, 2022 after Pooja vacation - High Court dismissed the petition for being time-barred - Supreme Court affirmed High Court's decision - Held, limitation period expired on September 30, 2022 - No benefit under Section 4 of Limitation Act since prescribed period expired before court vacation - Petition under Section 34 not filed within extended period allowed by proviso to Section 34(3) [Paras 1-11].

Period of Limitation - Calculation under Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Limitation period for challenging arbitral award is three months - Computation of period excludes the date of receipt of award - Application filed beyond the three-month period plus maximum allowable extension of 30 days is time-barred [Paras 5-8].

Section 4 of Limitation Act - Applicability to Arbitration Cases - Explained that 'prescribed period' does not include the 30-day extension under Section 34(3) proviso - Section 4 not applicable where the original period of limitation expired before the court's closure [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - High Court's dismissal of the petition under Section 34 for being time-barred upheld - No merit in appellants' argument for extension under Limitation Act provisions [Para 11].

Criminal Law - Conviction for Murder and Unlawful Assembly - Appellants challenged the conviction under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149, and 307 r/w 149 IPC - Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentences - Appellants' participation as part of the unlawful assembly with common object to commit murder established - No active role needed for conviction under Section 149 IPC [Paras 1-33].

Unlawful Assembly - Common Object - Presence of appellants at the crime scene with other accused persons sufficient for conviction under Section 149 IPC - Evidence of eye-witnesses substantiating appellants' presence and common intention - Conviction upheld despite no specific roles assigned to appellants [Paras 17-30].

Life Imprisonment - Minimum Sentence for Murder - Appellants' plea for reduction of sentence due to long incarceration rejected - Minimum sentence for murder is life imprisonment - Appellants may apply for remission or premature release as per State policy [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Appeals dismissed - Conviction and sentence upheld - Appellants may seek remission or premature release in accordance with State policy [Para 33].

Service Law – Reservation for Disabled Candidates – The respondent, a 100% visually impaired candidate, appeared in the CSE-2008 but was denied an appointment – Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Delhi High Court directed the Union of India to fill backlog vacancies as per the PWD Act, 1995 – Supreme Court upholds CAT and High Court decisions, directs the Union of India to reconsider the backlog vacancies and accommodate the respondent and other similarly placed candidates [Paras 1-5].

Compliance with PWD Act – The Supreme Court observed that the Union of India failed to implement the provisions of the PWD Act, 1995, resulting in unfilled backlog vacancies – It was noted that IRS (IT) and IRS (C&E) services were not exempted from the reservation for the visually impaired as per Section 33 of the PWD Act – Court directed the Union of India to redo the exercise of ascertaining backlog vacancies for visually impaired candidates [Paras 6-11].

Section 36 of the PWD Act – The Court emphasized the need for interchange of vacancies among different categories of disabilities as per Section 36 of the PWD Act to ensure that eligible candidates are accommodated – This was particularly important given the gross default by the Union of India in implementing the PWD Act provisions [Paras 10-15].

Decision – Appeal disposed of with directions – Union of India to consider respondent no.1 and other eligible visually impaired candidates for appointment against backlog vacancies within three months – Appointments to be prospective, with no arrears of salary or seniority benefits – Directions issued as a one-time measure under Article 142 of the Constitution of India [Paras 15-15(e)].