First Appellate Court – Duty to Address All Issues – High Court failed to re-appreciate the evidence and did not comply with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC – Appellate court must frame points for determination and address all issues based on evidence – High Court's judgment set aside for non-compliance [Paras 6-7].

Willingness to Perform Contract – Specific Performance Suit – Plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform contract critical for decree – Plaintiff initially demanded eviction of tenants before executing sale deed – Plaintiff's affidavit in High Court stating willingness to purchase with tenants not considered as per original pleadings – Trial court's findings on willingness upheld [Paras 8-10].

Procedure for Amending Pleadings – Affidavit Filed Without Amendments – High Court improperly relied on plaintiff’s affidavit filed in appeal without amending the original plaint – Procedure adopted by High Court disapproved – Proper procedure under Order VI Rule 17 CPC required [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court's judgment and decree set aside – Trial court's dismissal of specific performance suit restored – Appellant directed to refund advance payment with interest within eight weeks [Paras 10-11].

Occupancy Rights vs. Ownership Rights – Conflict of Acts – High Court annulled occupancy rights granted under the Inams Act in favor of ownership rights under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act – Tenancy Act’s Section 38-E(1) overrides the Inams Act – Protected tenants become full owners with effect from the date specified in the notification, superseding occupancy rights [Paras 1-23].

Protected Tenants’ Rights – Certification and Vesting – Ownership certificate under Section 38-E issued before the grant of occupancy rights – Protected tenants deemed full owners upon issuance of certificate – Oral surrender of tenancy rights by protected tenant deemed invalid under Tenancy Act [Paras 26-31].

Procedural Compliance – Certification under Section 38-E requires inquiry and conclusive evidence of protected tenant’s ownership – Provisions of the Tenancy Act prioritize tenant's rights and override conflicting provisions in Inams Act – Compliance with prescribed statutory procedures necessary for validity [Paras 34-37].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – High Court’s annulment of occupancy rights upheld – Tenancy Act’s provisions given precedence – Protected tenant’s ownership rights validated – No order as to costs [Para 46].

Arrears of Salaries – Compliance with Pay Commission Recommendations – High Court directed the appellant to pay salaries as per 5th and 6th Pay Commissions – Appellant’s failure to comply led respondents to approach Deputy Director (Education) – Submission to restrict arrears to three years preceding the writ petition rejected – Duty of institution to comply with pay scale revisions without requiring staff to repeatedly approach authorities [Paras 1-5].

Duty to Pay Revised Salaries – Legal Obligations – Entitlement to revised pay scales per Schedule C of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules – Arrears must be cleared without imposing limitations based on delayed compliance or procedural delays [Para 4].

Equitable Relief – Inaction and Liability – Lapse and inaction by appellant institution do not negate entitlement of staff to arrears – Respondents not to suffer due to institutional non-compliance – Arrears to be paid within eight weeks, failing which interest at 9% per annum applicable [Para 5].

Decision – Special Leave Petitions Dismissed – High Court’s order upheld – Appellants directed to clear arrears within eight weeks – Deputy Director (Education) to ensure compliance and disbursement to respondents [Paras 5-6].

DNA Testing – Personal Liberty and Privacy – High Court directed the plaintiff to undergo DNA test to prove biological relationship – Supreme Court held DNA tests should not be ordered as routine but only in deserving cases – Forcing DNA test on an unwilling plaintiff violates personal liberty and right to privacy – Plaintiff entitled to rely on other evidence without compulsory DNA testing [Paras 1-17].

Burden of Proof – Plaintiff’s Evidence – Plaintiff produced sworn affidavits, school leaving certificates, and domicile certificate to prove relationship – Defendants’ claim that plaintiff is not their brother not substantiated by compelling evidence – Court should not compel further evidence through DNA testing at defendants’ request – Suit to be decided based on available evidence [Paras 14-16].

Adverse Inference – Refusal to Undergo DNA Test – Refusal to undergo DNA test may allow court to draw adverse inference under Section 114 of the Evidence Act – Plaintiff’s refusal to be considered with other evidence presented – Case not warranting exceptional DNA testing [Para 15].

Right to Privacy – Judicial Principles – Courts must balance quest for truth with protection of individual rights – Proportionality test in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India applies to DNA testing orders – Right to privacy must be upheld unless there is an eminent need [Paras 13, 16].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Trial Court’s order dated 28.11.2017 restored – Suit to proceed without compulsory DNA test – Costs to be borne by respective parties [Paras 17-18].

Motor Accident – Negligence and Liability – High Court overturned Tribunal's finding of contributory negligence – Evidence from witnesses (PW-1 and PW-3) indicated Eicher van took sudden right turn without signal – High Court's reliance on witness evidence over First Information Report justified – Accident due to negligence of Eicher van driver affirmed [Paras 1-9].

Quantum of Compensation – Assessment and Enhancement – High Court assessed deceased's income based on Form-16 for FY 2012-2013 – Annual income determined as Rs. 12,29,949/- – Future prospects and multiplier applied correctly – Compensation awarded in line with precedents (Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi) – No reduction warranted [Para 9].

Weightage of Evidence – FIR vs. Witness Testimony – Tribunal's reliance on FIR over witness testimony incorrect – High Court rightly prioritized witness testimony under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act – Case-specific evidence evaluation necessary [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court's order upheld – Compensation awarded affirmed – Appellant to pay balance compensation within two months – No order as to costs [Paras 9-10].

Loss of Dependency – Enhancement of Compensation – Deceased was a driver with a heavy vehicle driving license – Tribunal adopted minimum wage for skilled labor to compute income – High Court's dismissal of appeal without considering evidence and grounds raised by appellants – Income assessment based on minimum wage not justified – Oral evidence of deceased's income considered – Income assessed at Rs. 8,000 per month – Compensation recalculated including future prospects and deductions for personal expenses [Paras 1-12].

Consortium and Dependency – Parental Consortium – Appellants entitled to compensation for loss of consortium – Tribunal's finding that parents were not dependents contrary to legal precedents – Compensation enhanced to include consortium [Para 10].

Assessment of Income – Evidence and Reality – Income assessment should not be detached from reality – Guesswork allowed in absence of documentary evidence – Oral testimony of deceased’s income at Rs. 15,000 per month accepted – Income considered at Rs. 8,000 per month for calculating dependency loss [Para 10].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Compensation enhanced – Additional amount awarded for loss of dependency and parental consortium – Total compensation of Rs. 4,13,964/- with interest at 6% p.a. from date of claim petition [Paras 10-12].

Family Settlement – Admissibility of Unregistered Document – High Court held family settlement document inadmissible – Supreme Court found document recorded past transactions, did not create or extinguish rights in property – Held Khararunama as admissible for explaining arrangement made and conduct of parties – Document did not attract Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act [Paras 1-37].

Evidence of Past Transactions – Use of Khararunama – Document containing record of past transactions can be admitted to show nature of possession and arrangement – Not to be used to prove transaction itself if it affects property rights – Unregistered family arrangement document can corroborate conduct and oral agreements [Paras 26-37].

Registration and Stamp Duty – Applicability – Document recording family settlement does not require registration if it does not create or extinguish rights – No need for stamp duty if it is merely a memorandum of past events [Para 35].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Document admitted for limited purpose of explaining family arrangement and conduct – No order as to costs [Paras 36-37].

Insurance Law – Motor Vehicles – Expired Temporary Registration – The vehicle's temporary registration had expired before the theft – Driving or using a vehicle without valid registration constitutes a fundamental breach of the policy – Insurance claim for theft denied due to violation of Sections 39 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Paras 10-13].

Consumer Protection – Jurisdiction – National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) – The NCDRC dismissed the insurer's revision petition – The Supreme Court held that the NCDRC erred in disregarding binding precedent and failing to recognize the fundamental breach of the insurance policy [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – NCDRC and State Commission's orders set aside – Respondent's complaint dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 15].

Pension Law – Late Entrant – Regulation 15 of Pension Regulations, 1961 – Officer not eligible as "late entrant" – Resignation vs. Voluntary Retirement – Resignation does not qualify for pensionary benefits under Regulation 15 – Respondent's resignation based on lack of promotional prospects – No entitlement to relaxation under "late entrant" category – Appeal allowed, Tribunal's order set aside [Paras 6-11].

Pension Regulations – Application – Pension Regulations, 2008 not applicable – Respondent governed by Pension Regulations, 1961 – New pension regulations do not have retrospective effect – Pre-commission service not counted towards qualifying service under 1961 regulations [Paras 9-10].

Distinction – Resignation vs. Voluntary Retirement – Resignation forfeits service benefits – Voluntary retirement permissible after qualifying service – Resignation tendered before completion of qualifying service not eligible for pension benefits [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Respondent not entitled to pensionary benefits as a "late entrant" – Armed Forces Tribunal's judgment quashed – No order as to costs [Para 12].