Property Law – Validity of Court Auction vs. Later Will – Court Auction Prevails – Title Vested with Auction Purchaser – Supreme Court affirmed that property purchased by late Padmini Chandrasekaran via court auction in 1962 and registered sale deed in 1963 vested her with absolute title – Later will dated 30.05.1962 executed by original owner (Somasundaram) in favour of his adopted son (Defendant No.1) could not override the completed court sale – Will probated in 1966 was rendered ineffective vis-à-vis the property already alienated [Paras 3–6, 11, 19].

Executor's Capacity – Moulding of Relief to Avoid Multiple Litigations – Permissible – Although the Trust (plaintiff) was found not entitled to the property directly, the High Court moulded relief in favour of executor (Dr. H.B.N. Shetty) to enforce the bequest made in favour of a private beneficiary (Vinayagamurthy) – Held: Moulding of relief was justified in peculiar circumstances to avoid a third round of litigation; such relief is within judicial discretion and not arbitrary [Paras 12, 20–24].

Moulding of Relief – Legal Scope and Limits – Explained – Supreme Court clarified that courts may mould relief to serve complete justice and prevent multiplicity of proceedings, especially when claims are substantiated in trial but technical description of plaintiff impedes direct relief – However, such power must not prejudice or surprise defendants – In this case, moulding was proper and backed by full trial findings [Paras 20–24].

Possession Follows Title – Adverse Possession Not Made Out – The land in dispute was vacant; hence possession follows title – Defendants’ claim of adverse possession dismissed as untenable in law – Court reiterated that possession cannot be adverse unless clearly hostile and established over statutory period [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Decrees of the High Court upheld – Sale deeds dated 24.02.1992 in favour of Appellants (Defendant Nos. 3 to 6) declared void – Relief validly moulded in favour of executor to give effect to bequest – Costs of ₹1,00,000 payable to Madras High Court Legal Aid Services Authority within four weeks [Paras 25–26].

Service Jurisprudence – Transfer on Medical Grounds – Nature of Request – Not Public Interest – The respondent sought change of cadre from Staff Nurse to First Division Assistant due to bronchitis, and consented to be placed junior-most in the new cadre – Held: The transfer was at the employee’s request and not in public interest; seniority to be reckoned from the date of transfer and not original appointment – Change of cadre does not alter this rule [Paras 5-7, 2224].

Interpretation of Service Rules – Rule 16(a)(iii), 1977 Rules – Voluntary Consent to Lower Post – Valid – Rule 16 permits appointment of a permanently incapacitated employee to a lower post only with consent – Such consent was expressly given by the respondent – No violation of rules in fixing her seniority accordingly [Paras 9-13].

Seniority Principles – Rule 6, 1957 Rules – Effect of Transfer at Employee's Request – Seniority Not Carried – Transfer made on request places employee below all existing employees in the new cadre – Respondent not entitled to claim seniority from original post of Staff Nurse [Paras 14-20, 23.2].

Distinction in Transfer Types – Public Interest vs. Personal Request – Essential to Determine Seniority Impact – Transfers in public interest retain seniority; those at personal request do not – Respondent’s transfer due to medical reasons, though compassionate, was not administrative exigency – Cannot claim benefit of seniority retention [Paras 15-19].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of Tribunal and High Court Set

Aside – Seniority of respondent to be reckoned from 19.04.1989, date of appointment as First Division Assistant, and not from 05.01.1979 as Staff Nurse [Paras 24-25].

Anticipatory Bail – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Alleged Caste Slur Not in Public View – Bail Granted – FIR alleged that the appellant insulted the complainant with caste-based remarks and orchestrated an abduction conspiracy – Supreme Court noted absence of public view element necessary to invoke SC/ST Act provisions under Sections 3(1)® and 3(1)(s) – Also observed that the appellant’s involvement was inferential, not direct – Held: Anticipatory bail granted following principles in Prathvi Raj Chauhan and Shajan Skaria [Paras 3-5, 7-8].

Temple Dispute – Longstanding Association Between Parties – Civil Suits Filed – Alleged Abduction Emerged from Property Conflict – FIR indicated that appellant and complainant had been trustees of a temple trust since 2012 and fell into dispute from 2017, leading to multiple civil litigations – Held: Background reinforces inference-based allegations and merits protection from arrest [Paras 6-7].

Bail Direction – No Comment on Merits – Observations Not to Affect Trial – Held: Bail order not to influence trial proceedings – Any opinion herein shall not affect merits or final decision in the criminal case [Para 8].

Criminal Law - Rape Allegation – Promise of Marriage – Quashing of Proceedings – Appeal Allowed – The appellant sought quashing of criminal proceedings alleging rape and cheating on the ground that the relationship was consensual and the alleged promise of marriage, if any, came post facto – Supreme Court found that there was no inducement through false promise of marriage preceding the sexual relationship – The complainant’s own statements did not reveal coercion or inducement prior to intercourse – Held: Continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse of process – Proceedings quashed [Paras 7-13].

Consent and Coercion – Inconsistent Allegations – Statements of Victim Contradictory – The Court noted the victim’s repeated voluntary visits to the hotel and lack of immediate complaint despite alleged trauma – The allegations of coercion and forceful intercourse were held to be incompatible with the surrounding circumstances – Held: The narrative was inherently improbable and prosecution unsustainable [Paras 8-12].

Exercise of Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Justified in Exceptional Cases – Supreme Court emphasized that continuation of baseless prosecution would violate fairness and liberty – Held: This was a fit case for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 to quash the trial pending before the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Erode [Para 13].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Proceedings in S.C. No. 49 of 2022 quashed – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Law - Murder – Common Intention – Conviction Under Section 302/34 IPC – Conviction Upheld – The appellant along with two co-accused allegedly assaulted the deceased with a knife leading to his death – Courts below found consistent eyewitness accounts confirming the appellant’s presence and role – Minor discrepancies in witness statements were not found fatal – Held:

Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC justified – Benefit of Section 304-I not applicable due to appellant being armed with knife indicating prior intent [Paras 3, 6, 20, 23].

Delay in Recording Statements – Explanation of Riot and Law-and-Order Issues – No Adverse Inference – Delay of 2/3 days in recording eyewitness statements under Section 161 CrPC explained due to communal tension and police’s focus on restoring law and order – Held: Delay not fatal to prosecution where satisfactorily explained [Paras 21].

Non-examination of Informant as Prosecution Witness – Informant Examined as

Defence Witness – No Prejudice – Trial Court had benefit of her testimony which aligned with FIR and other eyewitness accounts – Held: No adverse inference due to party examining her as defence witness instead of prosecution [Para 22].

Remission and Premature Release – Right to Consideration Under Applicable Policy – Liberty to Apply Afresh – Appellant had completed over 14 years of actual imprisonment and over 20 years with remission – Rejection based on incorrect interpretation of policy (requiring 24 years including remission) – Held: Appellant may file fresh representation which shall be considered in light of law and beneficial policy in force at time of eligibility [Paras 24-30].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC confirmed – Liberty granted to appellant to reapply for remission, to be considered expeditiously within three months [Paras 31].

Civil Law – Title Suit – Declaration and Possession – Appellants' claim over suit land based on court auction in 1970 followed by sale deed and continuous possession – Trial Court decreed in appellants' favour but High Court reversed citing lack of documentary proof of original assignment to Govindu – Supreme Court held appellants established continuous possession and title through court auction and registered sale deed – State failed to prove legal resumption or title – Held: Appellants’ possession since 1970 and supporting evidence establish title – State’s claim of assigned land not supported by credible documents – Appellants entitled to compensation in lieu of land due to public construction [Paras 6–7, 16–18, 25–29, 85–86, 114–115]​.

Possession and Ownership – Presumption under Section 110 Evidence Act (now Section 113 of BSA, 2023) – Appellants in uninterrupted possession since 1970 – State unable to rebut presumption of ownership by proving its title – Court reiterated that possession raises prima facie presumption of ownership – State’s inability to show resumption order or patta documents undermines its claim – Held: Burden was on State to prove lawful resumption and ownership, which it failed to discharge [Paras 83–85]​.

Resumption Proceedings – Legality and Procedure – State claimed land was resumed in 1989 as assigned land under a conditional patta issued in 1943 – No resumption records or D-form patta were produced – DW1 (Mandal Revenue Officer) admitted issuance of patta passbook and revenue receipts to appellants – Held: Absence of resumption documentation renders takeover of land illegal – Constructed government building cannot defeat appellants’ right to compensation [Paras 18, 23, 114–116]​.

Limitation and Delay – Suit filed in 1996 for recovery of possession – State contended suit was barred due to 1989 resumption – Supreme Court observed appellants' uninterrupted possession until dispossession, and that State failed to prove due process of resumption – Held: Suit was maintainable and not barred by limitation as possession and cause of action were sufficiently proved [Paras 4, 114]​.

Government Land vs Private Title – Differentiation – Court emphasized difference between Land Patta Holders and Government Allottees – Highlighted that Pattadars have heritable, transferrable rights, whereas government assignees may not – In this case, appellants were recognized as Pattadars with legal standing under the 1971 Act – State could not produce assignment documents or invoke 1977 Act restrictions retroactively [Paras 40–44]​.

Compensation – Relief granted in lieu of land restoration – Court declined to order restoration of possession due to longstanding construction – Directed State to compensate appellants monetarily for wrongful dispossession of legally held land – Applied equitable principles where public purpose construction already completed [Paras 114–116]​.

Right to Property – Article 300-A of Constitution – Protection Against Deprivation Without Authority of Law – State Cannot Resume Land Without Due Process – Even if land is assigned, it is “property” under Article 300-A – Appellants held Pattadar Passbooks and paid land revenue – Held: The deprivation of property by the State without lawful authority violates Article 300-A – Compensation is constitutionally mandated [Paras 123-126].

Unconstitutional Conditions – No Compensation Clause in Assigned Land Patta – Clause Held Invalid – A clause in patta that deprives assignees of compensation on resumption was held unconstitutional – Violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21 and 31-A – State must not impose conditions requiring surrender of constitutional rights to receive government benefit – Held: State must compensate assignees at full market value even on resumption [Paras 115-122].

Section 80 CPC – Mandatory Statutory Notice – State Ignored Legal Notice – Adverse Inference Drawn – Appellants had issued valid notice under Section 80 CPC before filing suit – State failed to respond or act on it – Held: Statutory notice under Section 80 is not a mere formality; lack of response is against public policy and can attract adverse inference in trial [Paras 93-113].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Appellants held to have lawful title and possession – Entitled to compensation for deprivation of land due to illegal resumption by State.

Civil Law - Gift vs. Will – Determination of Nature of 1985 Document – Settlement Deed Held Valid – Despite the document being titled as a Will by the father, the Supreme Court held that its content, structure, and operative clauses evidenced a gift/settlement in praesenti – The donor retained life interest and limited rights, but unequivocally conveyed ownership to the daughter – The High Court rightly reversed concurrent findings of the lower courts – Held: The deed conveyed vested rights in praesenti and cannot be treated as a Will [Paras 10-15.2].

Acceptance of Gift – Proof from Conduct – Gift Upheld – The donee had presented the gift for registration and was in possession of the original deed – These acts amounted to valid acceptance under Section 122 – Delivery of physical possession not essential for a valid gift – Conduct evidenced acceptance and made the gift irrevocable [Paras 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 11.1, 14.1, 15.2, 18].

Unilateral Revocation of Gift – Not Permissible – Cancellation Deed Void – Defendant No.1 (father) could not unilaterally cancel the 1985 gift/settlement – The cancellation deed and the subsequent sale deed executed in 1993 were declared void and non-binding on the donee – Held: Once accepted, a gift cannot be revoked unilaterally unless specifically provided in the instrument [Paras 6.4, 11, 14.1, 18].

Possession and Mutation Entries – No Presumption of Ownership – Appellant’s Reliance on Possession Invalid – Possession and revenue record mutation post-sale deed in favour of appellant did not establish ownership – Such entries only indicate who pays revenue and carry no presumption of title [Paras 6.6, 18].

Composite Nature – Gift and Settlement Elements – Retention of Life Interest Not Fatal – A document may contain elements of both gift and settlement – Reservation of life interest does not negate the immediate transfer of ownership – Nomenclature is irrelevant; content determines character – Document must be read harmoniously to give effect to the transfer [Paras 11.3-11.5, 14,

15.2].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Gift/Settlement Confirmed – The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s judgment – Ext.A1 document declared a valid settlement deed – Cancellation and sale deeds held invalid – Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs [Paras 20-21].

CBI Investigation – Jurisdiction of High Court – Direction Set Aside – The High Court while granting bail directed CBI investigation based on a statement under Section 161

CrPC – Supreme Court held that such a direction in a bail proceeding exceeded jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC – Held: No exceptional circumstance justified invoking extraordinary power – Direction to CBI quashed [Paras 2, 6-8].

Scope of Bail Jurisdiction – Improper Extension to Investigative Oversight – The High Court issued directives after bail was granted by relying on unverified statements and confronting the Investigating Officer in court – Held: The jurisdiction in bail ends with the decision on bail and cannot extend to supervising or altering the course of investigation [Paras 3, 6-7].

Precedents on Jurisdictional Limits – Reaffirmed – The Court relied on earlier decisions including State of West Bengal v. CPDR, M. Murugesan, Seemant Kumar Singh, and

Man Singh Verma – Held: Courts must refrain from overstepping their statutory jurisdiction in criminal proceedings [Paras 3, 6].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Impugned order set aside to the extent of CBI direction – Bail not opposed by State and left undisturbed – No interference with investigation facts [Paras 8-9].

Criminal Law - Unlawful Assembly – Mere Presence at Scene – Reversal of Acquittal Set Aside – Accused Appellants Not Proven to Be Part of Mob – The appellants were named in the FIR and arrested at the spot during a riot involving over 1000 people – The High Court reversed their acquittal based solely on presence at the crime scene – Held: Mere presence, without overt act or incriminating material, does not establish membership of an unlawful assembly – Acquittal restored [Paras 11, 15, 16]. 
 
Standard of Proof – Reversal of Acquittal – Caution in Appeal Against Acquittal – No New Evidence or Infirmity in Trial Court’s View – The Trial Court found prosecution evidence perfunctory and acquitted all accused – High Court’s interference was unjustified as there was no compelling reason to overturn a plausible acquittal finding – Held: High Court erred in reversing acquittal without concrete evidence [Paras 11, 12, 17]. 
 
Evidentiary Value – Testimony of Prosecution Witnesses Discarded – PW-2 and PW-4 Found Unreliable – The High Court itself discarded the only eye-witnesses for lack of credibility – No identification parade was held – Accused named after 2 years – Held: Conviction cannot rest on such testimony [Paras 5, 6, 15]. 
 
Innocent Bystander Doctrine – No Evidence of Overt Act or Common Object – Appellants Were Residents of the Village – Without Prohibitory Orders, Presence Not Incriminating – Held: Accused cannot be convicted merely for being present at the riot scene unless active participation is proved [Paras 13-15]. 
 
Judgment – Appeals Allowed – High Court Judgment Reversed – Trial Court Acquittal Restored – Supreme Court held that the appellants were wrongfully convicted by the High Court and reinstated their acquittal as recorded by the Trial Court – Appeals allowed [Paras 17-18].