Senior citizen -- Reversion of property -- Absence of maintenance clause in transfer deed and failure to prove neglect or refusal to maintain -- No ground to declare transfer void.

***

Senior citizen -- Transfer of property -- Family settlement -- Property transferred pursuant to family arrangement and not in consideration of maintenance -- Attempt to seek reversion of property from one child only held unjustified.

***

A. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 23 -- Constitution of India, Articles 226/227 -- Reversion of property -- Challenge to order passed by learned Single Judge setting aside order of Tribunal directing son to revert property to senior citizen mother -- Held, twin conditions under Section 23 are required to be fulfilled before transfer can be declared void, namely, existence of condition in transfer deed obligating transferee to maintain senior citizen and proof of failure or refusal to provide such maintenance -- Transfer deed contained no such condition requiring son to maintain appellant-senior citizen -- No evidence was brought before the Tribunal to show that the appellant-senior citizen was not being maintained or the senior citizen did not have means to maintain herself -- Mere fact that son was residing in Austria held insufficient to invoke Section 23, particularly when he was residing abroad even at time of transfer and senior citizen had also stayed with him in Austria while receiving pension from Austrian Government -- Reversion rightly declined.

(Para 8 to 18)

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 23 -- Family settlement -- Reversion of property -- Property distributed amongst children through family settlement -- One child had already reconveyed property to senior citizen which was thereafter sold by her -- Held, transfer was not made in lieu of maintenance so as to attract provisions of Section 23 of 2007 Act -- Attempt to recover property from one child alone indicative of effort to redistribute property amongst other children -- Reversion rightly declined.

(Para 15, 16)

Lambardar -- Appointment -- Sarbrah Lambardar -- Mere experience as Sarbrah Lambardar does not confer preferential right to appointment -- Choice of Collector upheld -- Writ dismissed.

***

Lambardar -- Appointment -- Sarbrah Lambardar -- Preference to a Sarbrah Lambardar can be granted only where comparative merits of candidates are nearly equal -- Candidate younger in age, possessing larger landholding and recommended by lower revenue authorities rightly preferred for appointment.

***

A. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (17 of 1887), Constitution of India, Articles 226/227 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Challenge to orders of Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner appointing respondent as Lambardar -- Petitioner contended that being a former Sarbrah Lambardar, he was entitled to preference in view of Government notification dated 25.12.2021 -- Held, preference on basis of service as Sarbrah Lambardar cannot override comparative merits of candidates and grant of such preference being akin to hereditary claim already held unconstitutional -- Appointed candidate found younger in age, possessing larger landholding and recommended by lower revenue authorities -- Collector after considering comparative merits appointed respondent as Lambardar -- Choice of Collector not liable to interference unless shown to be perverse or suffering from patent illegality -- No illegality or perversity found in concurrent orders passed by revenue authorities -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 6 to 10)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (17 of 1887) -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Sarbrah Lambardar -- Mere experience as Sarbrah Lambardar not decisive -- Preference on such basis can be granted only when comparative merits of candidates are substantially similar -- Appointed candidate found younger in age than petitioner, possessed larger landholding and was recommended by lower revenue authorities -- Appointment upheld.

(Para 7)

Sarpanch -- Removal from office -- Unauthorized occupation of Panchayat land -- Demarcation conducted pursuant to Court order established encroachment by petitioner and his brother over Panchayat Deh land -- Writ dismissed.

***

Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Sections 51(3), 175(n) -- Constitution of India, Articles 226/227 -- Removal of Sarpanch -- Unauthorized possession of Panchayat land -- Deputy Commissioner removed petitioner from office of Sarpanch on allegation of encroachment over land recorded as Panchayat Deh -- High Court directed demarcation under supervision of SDM in presence of petitioner and stakeholders -- Demarcation report established illegal occupation to extent of 1171 sq. yards by petitioner and his brother -- No merit -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 3, 4)

Panch -- Removal from office -- Unauthorized possession of Panchayat land -- Petitioner removed from post of Panch -- Eviction order attained finality as same was never challenged -- Authorities rightly held petitioner disqualified to continue as Panch.

***

Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Sections 51(3), 175(n) -- Constitution of India, Articles 226/227 -- Removal of Panch -- Unauthorized occupation/ encroachment -- Eviction order passed by Assistant Collector against petitioner regarding Gram Panchayat land -- Once eviction order attained finality and remained unchallenged, competent authority justified in invoking provisions of Sections 51 and 175(n) for removing petitioner from post of Panch -- No ground for interference in writ jurisdiction.

(Paras 5 to 7)

Partition proceedings -- Clubbing of partition proceedings relating to different khewats -- Mere convenience of some co-sharers not sufficient to direct clubbing of khewats having different co-sharers -- Clubbing permissible only with consent of all co-sharers.

***

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 111, 121 -- Partition proceedings -- Clubbing of khewats -- Different co-sharers in different khewats -- Partition proceedings cannot be clubbed unless all co-sharers consent to same -- Clubbing of three khewats, which are subject matter of three separate partition applications, having different co-sharers cannot be permitted unless all the co-sharers in respective khewats agree to the same -- Merely for convenience of the some of the co-sharers, the partition cannot be carried out by directing clubbing of khewats unless all the co-sharers consent to the same.

(Paras 4 to 12)

Lambardar -- Appointment -- Collector found respondent more suitable candidate and appointed him as Lambardar -- Concurrent findings recorded by Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner upheld -- No illegality or perversity found -- Writ petition dismissed.

***

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Sections 28, 29 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1908, Rules 14 to 16 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Scope of judicial review -- Choice of Collector in matter of appointment of Lambardar should not be lightly interfered with merely because another view is possible -- Interference warranted only in cases of patent illegality or perversity -- Concurrent findings of Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner affirming appointment of respondent as Lambardar -- No illegality or perversity therein -- No ground made out for interference in writ jurisdiction.

(Paras 8 to 10)

Watercourse -- Change of alignment -- Challenge to orders passed by Canal Authorities directing restoration of sanctioned watercourse on common watt (boundary) between lands of parties -- Dismissal of civil suit on account of failure to prove demarcation report does not negate existence of sanctioned watercourse.

***

Punjab Canal and Drainage Act, 2023, Section 14(3) -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Change in alignment of watercourse -- Scope of judicial review -- Canal Authorities competent to restore alignment of sanctioned watercourse running on common watt between adjoining landowners -- Dismissal of civil suit on account of failure to prove demarcation report does not negate existence of sanctioned watercourse -- Canal Authorities rightly directed demarcation through Local Commission before implementation of alignment -- Direction held fair and in interest of all shareholders to ensure operationalization of watercourse at originally sanctioned site -- Impugned orders upheld.

(Paras 6 to 9)

Writ jurisdiction -- Challenge to notice issued by District Development and Panchayat Officer under provisions of Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 -- Petitioner relegated to avail statutory remedy by submitting response before competent authority -- Writ petition dismissed.

***

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Sections 20, 200 and 208 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Show-cause notice issued by District Development and Panchayat Officer -- Judicial review at preliminary stage -- Scope -- High Court should not entertain writ petitions against notices issued by statutory authorities as a matter of routine -- Party must ordinarily submit reply before competent authority and pursue statutory remedies against adverse order, if any -- Writ petition dismissed, however, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail her other remedies, in accordance with law.

(Para 4-5)

Recruitment -- Eligibility criteria -- Relevant date for acquiring essential qualification -- Candidate must possess prescribed qualification on last date of submission of application -- Acquisition of qualification prior to examination or interview held immaterial.

***

Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, Rule 12 -- Recruitment process -- Assistant Prosecution Officer -- Advertisement required candidate to possess Degree in Law -- Respondents had not acquired LL.B. degree on last date of submission of application and were still appearing in final year examination -- Deletion of proviso to Rule 12 permitting final year candidates to apply manifested legislative intent that only candidates possessing requisite qualification on relevant date are eligible -- Press note clarifying eligibility with reference to last date of application held consistent with Rules and advertisement -- High Court erred in permitting ineligible candidates to participate in selection process on ground that qualification was acquired prior to examination -- Eligibility conditions cannot be altered by liberal interpretation to enlarge pool of candidates -- Maxim “aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum”, what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly, squarely applies to the case -- Impugned judgments set aside and appeals allowed.

(Para 18 to 26)

Recruitment -- Regular appointment -- Advertisement issued for regular post -- Candidate found suitable and selected through regular selection process -- Appointment of candidate on contractual basis alone, without assigning any reason, held arbitrary and discriminatory.

***

Constitution of India, Articles 14 & 16 -- Appointment -- Regular vacancy -- Advertisement issued for regular appointment of Assistant Professor -- Appellant possessed requisite qualifications and was selected through same selection process as other candidates who were granted regular appointments -- Selection Committee recommended appellant alone for contractual appointment without assigning any reason -- No material on record justifying differential treatment -- Acceptance of the contractual appointment does not estop a challenge to the illegality or irregularity of the selection process -- Denial of regular appointment held patently illegal and discriminatory -- Orders of High Court set aside -- Respondent-Institute directed to appoint appellant on regular basis with continuity of service but without financial benefits.

(Para 12 to 15)

Arbitration agreement -- Incorporation by reference -- Development Agreement containing arbitration clause -- Later Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements incorporating all terms and conditions of earlier Development Agreement -- Arbitration clause held binding upon parties to later agreements.

***

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Sections 7(5), 11 & 21 -- Arbitration agreement -- Incorporation by reference -- Development Agreement containing arbitration clause -- Subsequent Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements specifically provided that all terms and conditions of Development Agreement shall form part of later agreements and all clauses thereof shall be binding on parties -- Not a mere reference to earlier agreement but complete incorporation thereof -- High Court erred in holding that there was no arbitration agreement between parties -- Impugned order set aside -- Sole Arbitrator appointed.

(Para 8 to 13)

NCLAT – Appeal without certified copy of impugned order -- Filing of appeal, without even applying for a certified copy of the order, practically meant that there was no filing of an appeal in the eyes of law.

***

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 61(2) -- National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016, Rules 14, 15, 22 & 26(2) -- Appeal -- Certified copy of impugned order not filed -- Filing of certified copy under Rule 22(2) is mandatory requirement -- Filing of appeal, without even applying for a certified copy of the order, practically meant that there was no filing of an appeal in the eyes of law -- Appeal refiled after 150 days still suffered from material defects including non-filing of certified copy -- NCLAT erred in condoning delay without examining maintainability and validity of institution of appeal -- Order condoning delay set aside and appeal held liable to be rejected at threshold.

(Para 6 to 11)

***

Lok Adalat award -- Breach of terms of compromise -- Where compromise arrived at before Lok Adalat was allegedly breached, aggrieved party could either seek execution of award or seek revival/fresh adjudication of earlier proceedings -- Simultaneous continuation of execution proceedings and fresh proceedings under Section 12 of DV Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C. held impermissible.

***

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 21 -- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Maintenance -- Lok Adalat award -- Execution proceedings -- Maintainability -- Parties entered into compromise before Lok Adalat whereby husband agreed to pay maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month to wife and minor daughter -- Subsequently, wife initiated fresh proceedings under Section 12 of DV Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C. and obtained interim maintenance/monetary relief -- Wife thereafter also sought execution of Lok Adalat award for recovery of maintenance amount -- Held, respondents could not simultaneously pursue execution of earlier compromise award and fresh maintenance proceedings founded on same cause -- Execution proceedings quashed -- Petitioner, however, directed to continue compliance of maintenance orders passed in subsequent proceedings.

(Paras 11 to 14)

***

Consolidation / clubbing of suits -- Scope -- Clubbing and consolidation of cases permissible where common issues are involved and parameters for such exercise are satisfied -- Purpose is to avoid multiplicity of evidence and conflicting adjudications.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Section 151 – Consolidation/ clubbing of suits -- Trial Court dismissing application for consolidation on ground that there is no provision for clubbing of cases and Section 10 CPC does not permit such course -- Trial Court has completely misdirected itself by returning the findings that there is no concept of consolidation or clubbing the cases -- Section 10 CPC relates to principle of res-subjudice and has no application to issue of consolidation or clubbing of suits -- Consolidation/clubbing of suits permissible to avoid multiplicity of recording of evidence and isolated adjudication having bearing on connected lis -- Impugned order set aside -- Application for consolidation restored for fresh decision on merits.

(Paras 5 to 8)

***

Departmental proceedings -- Continuance of disciplinary proceedings after retirement -- Where disciplinary proceedings were initiated before employee attained age of superannuation and Service Regulations permit continuation of proceedings, same can continue and be brought to logical conclusion even after retirement.

***

Departmental proceedings -- Punishment after retirement -- Reduction in pay scale -- Validity -- Punishment of reduction by three stages in time scale of pay on permanent basis imposed after retirement held legally implementable.

***

Punjab and Sind Bank Officers’ Service Regulations, 1982, Regulation 20(3)(iii) -- Punjab and Sind Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995, Regulation 46, 48 -- Departmental proceedings -- Superannuation -- Reduction in pay scale after retirement -- Validity -- Charge-sheet served on date of superannuation of appellant -- Departmental proceedings continued and punishment of reduction by three stages in time scale of pay on permanent basis imposed -- Contention that only action under Pension Regulations could be taken after retirement – Held, Service Regulations specifically permitted continuation of disciplinary proceedings after superannuation as if officer continued in service -- Punishment imposed capable of implementation as pension could be recomputed on basis of reduced pay scale -- No perversity in enquiry report or disciplinary action -- High Court rightly upheld punishment -- Appeal dismissed.

(Paras 14 to 22, 36 to 39)

Minor offence under section 222 Cr.P.C. – Punishment for minor offence compare to charged offence -- Section 364 IPC cannot be treated as minor/cognate offence of Section 302 IPC -- Accused charged under Section 302 IPC cannot be convicted under Section 364 IPC in absence of specific charge.

***

Minor offence under section 222 Cr.P.C. – Minor offence not determined merely by lesser punishment -- Where two offences are cognate offences and main ingredients are common, offence carrying lesser sentence can be treated as minor offence vis-a-vis other offence.

***

Minor offence under section 222 Cr.P.C. – Composition of the offence under Section 304-B is vastly different from the offence of murder indicated under Section 302 IPC and hence the former cannot be regarded as a minor offence vis-a-vis the latter.

***

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 364 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 221, 222 -- Conviction for offence not charged -- Minor offence -- Scope – Murder / Kidnapping or abduction in order to murder -- Accused charged for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC -- Trial Court acquitting accused of offence under Section 302 IPC but convicting under Section 364 IPC on finding that accused had taken deceased with him on pretext of watching movie -- Validity -- Offence under Section 364 IPC is separate and distinct offence and cannot be construed as minor/ cognate offence vis-a-vis Section 302 IPC -- Ingredients of both offences not common -- In absence of specific charge under Section 364 IPC, conviction thereunder caused prejudice to accused and violated fair trial norms -- No evidence of forceful taking away or abduction of deceased by accused -- High Court justified in setting aside conviction -- Appeal dismissed.

(Paras 8 to 11)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 222 -- Minor offence -- Interpretation -- Expression “minor offence” found in Section 222 is not defined under the Code, it can be discerned from the context which is not merely that the prescribed punishment is less than the major offence -- If the two offences are cognate offences and the main ingredients are common, the offence punishable with lesser sentence can be considered as a minor offence with reference to the other offence.

(Para 9)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 304B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 221, 222 -- Murder – Dowry death -- Composition of the offence under Section 304-B is vastly different from the offence of murder indicated under Section 302 IPC and hence the former cannot be regarded as a minor offence vis-a-vis the latter.

(Para 10)

***

Confiscation proceedings -- Disproportionate assets -- Death of delinquent public servant during pendency of appeal does not automatically terminate confiscation proceedings, particularly when wife/other person holding property had been independently noticed and heard -- Abatement is distinct from acquittal -- High Court required to decide appeal on merits.

***

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13 -- Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 (Bihar Act 6 of 2010), Sections 13, 14, 15, 19 -- Disproportionate assets -- Confiscation of property -- Death of public servant during pendency of appeal -- Effect -- Confiscation proceedings cannot be set aside merely on account of death of delinquent officer/public servant -- Wife/other person through whom money or property is held, having been put to notice and heard, proceedings can continue against such person -- Abatement is distinct from acquittal and is not a comment on merits of matter -- High Court ought to have decided appeal on merits instead of setting aside proceedings on ground of death of accused public servant -- Impugned judgments set aside -- Appeals restored to file of High Court for decision on merits.

(Paras 8 to 13)

***

Pre-emption – Co-sharer – Right of kinsfolk co-sharer -- Plaintiff being co-sharer in joint khewat was entitled to exercise right of pre-emption even though he was related to vendor -- Declaration of Section 15(2) of Punjab Pre-emption Act as unconstitutional did not take away right of co-sharer under Section 15(1)(b).

***

Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (1 of 1913), Section 15(1)(b) Fourthly, 15(2) – Pre-emption suit -- Plaintiff sought possession by way of pre-emption on ground of being co-sharer in joint khewat -- Defendant contended that since plaintiff was related to vendor, claim could arise only under Section 15(2), which had been declared ultra vires -- Held, right of pre-emption available to co-sharer under Section 15(1)(b) remains intact notwithstanding declaration of Section 15(2) as unconstitutional -- Kinsfolk of vendor, if also co-sharers, are entitled to maintain suit for pre-emption under Section 15(1)(b) Fourthly -- Judgments and decrees passed by Courts below decreeing suit upheld -- Regular Second Appeal dismissed.

(Paras 7 to 10)

***

Family settlement – Oral family arrangement – Validity -- Property found to have fallen to share of defendant No.1 in family settlement -- Defendant No.1 constructed houses from his own funds and remained in settled possession -- Concurrent findings of fact not liable to be interfered with in second appeal.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Section 100 – Regular Second Appeal -- Family settlement -- Partition suit -- Plaintiff sought possession by way of partition claiming suit property to be ancestral and joint Hindu family property -- Defendant No.1 pleaded that property had fallen to his share in oral family settlement -- Conceded position of fact that the parties partitioned their agricultural property long back -- They are neither joint in mess nor in residence -- Plaintiff is residing in Mumbai -- Defendant No.1 alone was residing in village and is in settled possession of houses constructed from his own funds -- Held, oral family settlement is valid and binding -- Concurrent findings of fact recorded by Courts below did not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting.

(Paras 10 to 12)

***

Adverse possession – Mere long and continuous possession does not ripen into ownership unless possession is proved to be hostile, open and in denial of title of true owner.

***

Adverse possession – Pleadings -- Absence of specific pleadings regarding hostile possession fatal to plea of adverse possession.

***

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Adverse possession – Nature -- Pleadings -- Mere possession, irrespective of its duration, does not ipso facto mature into ownership unless such possession is proved to be open, continuous, hostile, and unequivocally adverse to the true owner -- Doctrine of adverse possession necessarily postulates a clear denial of the title of the lawful owner coupled with an assertion of hostile animus – Absent a clear and hostile animus to possess, the mere occupation of the land does not ripen into legal ownership -- It is a fundamental tenet of civil jurisprudence that a claim for adverse possession must be supported by precise averments regarding the date of commencement and the nature of the hostile occupation.

(Para 15-17)

***

Interim injunction -- Observations made while deciding application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC are only tentative in nature – Trial Court to decide the suit de hors the observations made.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 –Interim injunction – Observations therein -- Effect of -- Observations made in order passed on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC are only for the purpose of deciding the said application and same are not to be taken into consideration at the stage of final adjudication -- Trial Court directed to decide the main suit on the basis of the evidence and arguments, de hors the observations made in the impugned orders.

(Para 3-5)

***

Execution -- Enhanced compensation – Proforma respondents -- Petitioners impleaded as proforma respondents in Regular First Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation -- Benefit of enhanced compensation granted to petitioners.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 41 Rule 4 -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18 -- Enhanced compensation -- Proforma respondents in appeal -- Joint reference petition filed by landowners was decided by common judgment -- Appeal against enhancement filed by some co-owners while petitioners were impleaded as proforma respondents -- Executing Court dismissed execution petition qua petitioners on ground that they were not appellants in appeal -- Held, once petitioners were parties as proforma respondents in appeal, benefit of enhanced compensation granted therein equally accrued to them in terms of Order 41 Rule 4 CPC -- Impugned order set aside and Executing Court directed to entertain execution petition and release enhanced compensation in accordance with law.

(Paras 7 and 8)

***

Compromise after conviction – Acquittal -- Parties amicably settled dispute during pendency of revision petition -- High Court set aside conviction and sentence and acquitted petitioners.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 323, 325, 506, 149 -- Compromise after conviction -- Parties amicably settled dispute during pendency of revision petition -- Complainant and State had no objection to compounding of offences -- High Court exercising powers under Section 528 BNSS set aside conviction and sentence and acquitted petitioners, holding that offences were private in nature and continuation of proceedings would defeat ends of justice.

(Paras 7 to 10)

***

Benami transaction -- Burden to prove benami transaction lies heavily upon person asserting same and mere payment of consideration by another does not establish benami nature of transaction unless intention to retain beneficial ownership is proved.

***

Adverse possession -- Permissive possession -- Mere long possession does not mature into ownership -- In absence of clear pleadings and cogent proof regarding hostile animus, plea of adverse possession is untenable.

***

A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 54 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 65, Section 27 -- Benami transaction -- Adverse possession -- Burden of proof -- Plaintiff sought possession after termination of licence granted to defendant-brother -- Defendant claimed that property though purchased in plaintiff’s name was actually purchased by father and sale deed was benami -- Mere proof that consideration proceeded from father not sufficient to establish benami transaction -- Intention of person supplying consideration held determinative test -- Evidence on record established that father intended to purchase property in plaintiff’s name and confer title upon him -- Plea of adverse possession untenable as possession was permissive in inception and no evidence led regarding point of time when possession became hostile to knowledge of true owner -- Repairs, reconstruction and long possession do not by themselves constitute adverse possession -- Concurrent findings of Courts below upheld -- RSA dismissed.

(Paras 12.1 to 14)

B. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 65, Section 27 -- Adverse possession -- It is trite that where possession is permissive in its inception, the person in possession must not only assert but also clearly establish the point of time at which such possession became hostile to the knowledge of the true owner -- In the absence of any such specific pleading or proof, the claim of adverse possession is rendered wholly untenable.

(Para 13.3)

***

Nominee –Savings account’s Nominee is entitled only to receive amount lying in account and does not acquire ownership of entire estate by virtue of nomination alone.

***

Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 370 -- Nominee -- Succession certificate -- Plaintiff proved to be nominee in post office savings account -- Nomination held to confer right only to withdraw amount lying in account and not succession rights over entire estate -- Succession certificate obtained by defendant without impleading plaintiff and without disclosure of complete facts not conclusive of title -- It merely authorizes collection of debts and securities and does not adjudicate ownership of the estate conclusively.

 (Paras 12, 13)

***

Regular bail – Commercial quantity -- NDPS -- Prolonged custody, absence of criminal antecedents and no progress in trial constitute valid grounds for grant of regular bail despite rigours of S.37 NDPS Act.

***

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21(c), 27-A, 37, 42, 50 -- Regular bail -- Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 465 grams heroin effected on basis of secret information from public place -- Petitioner in custody for one year six days -- No criminal antecedents -- Out of 12 prosecution witnesses, none examined till date -- Alleged violations of mandatory provisions of Ss.42 and 50 NDPS Act raised -- Trial likely to take considerable time -- Right to speedy trial cannot be defeated by prolonged incarceration -- Rigours of S.37 NDPS Act held not absolute where trial is delayed -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Paras 5 to 8)

***

Execution -- Judgment Debtor cannot frustrate execution of decree by purchasing part of property during pendency of execution proceedings and thereafter raising plea of co-sharership -- Transfer pendente lite does not defeat decree for possession nor confer right to obstruct execution.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 102 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Execution -- Objections by Judgment Debtor -- Lis pendens -- Decree for possession attained finality -- Judgment Debtor during pendency of execution proceedings purchased part of alleged joint land and claimed status of co-sharer to resist execution -- Purchase made subsequent to decree and during execution proceedings held hit by doctrine of lis pendens -- Executing Court cannot go beyond decree -- Subsequent transaction cannot render decree inexecutable -- Even transferee pendente lite not entitled to resist execution in view of O.21 R.102 CPC -- Objections rightly dismissed -- No interference warranted under Art.227 of Constitution.

(Paras 8 to 13)

***

Recall/re-examination of witness -- Power under O.18 R.17 CPC is exercisable sparingly by Court itself for clarification of ambiguity or eliciting further information and cannot be invoked by party to neutralize effect of cross-examination or fill lacuna in evidence.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 17, Section 151 -- Recall/re-examination of witness -- Maintainability of application -- Power under O.18 R.17 CPC intended only to enable Court to clarify doubts and not to permit party to improve case or fill lacunae -- A witness can be recalled for re-examination only by the Court in order to clarify any ambiguity or elicit further information -- Under the said provision, a witness cannot be recalled for further re-examination on an application made by either party -- Said provision is not available to a private party; but is only available to the Court to remove ambiguity and to elicit further information.

(Paras 14 to 18)

***

Ad valorem Court fee -- Plaintiff being signatory/executant of sale deed and seeking possession after its revocation along with recovery of specified amount, held, liable to pay ad valorem Court fee notwithstanding suit being styled as one for mandatory injunction.

***

Court Fees Act, 1870, S.7(iv)(c), Art.17(iii) Sch.II -- Ad valorem Court fee -- Suit for possession camouflaged as mandatory injunction -- Plaintiff sought revocation/cancellation of sale deed executed by himself and also sought release of specified balance sale consideration -- Mere clever drafting of suit as one for mandatory injunction cannot avoid payment of proper Court fee – Signatory of sale deed seeking its annulment liable to pay ad valorem Court fee on consideration mentioned in deed -- Trial Court rightly directed plaintiff to affix ad valorem Court fee -- Revision dismissed.

(Paras 10 to 15)

***

Anticipatory bail -- Abetment of suicide -- Refusal to perform marriage and alleged abusive behaviour, without any positive act of instigation proximate to occurrence, would not prima facie constitute offence of abetment of suicide -- Anticipatory bail granted.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 108 -- Anticipatory bail – Abetment of suicide -- Allegation that deceased committed suicide after fiancée refused to marry him and petitioners allegedly abused and threatened him -- Deceased consumed poisonous substance and died after 10 days -- No suicide note or dying declaration on record -- Abusing or refusal to perform marriage is not sufficient to constitute offence of abetment of suicide -- Petitioners granted anticipatory bail.

(Para 7-8)

***

Regular bail -- NDPS -- Petitioner neither named in secret information nor apprehended at spot -- No recovery effected from petitioner -- Implication primarily based upon disclosure statement -- Trial likely to take considerable time -- Regular bail granted.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 15-B, 15-C, 29, 61 -- Regular bail – NDPS -- Recovery of 28.750 Kgs. Doda Poppy Husk effected from co-accused travelling in car -- Petitioner neither nominated in secret information nor apprehended at spot -- No recovery effected from petitioner at time of arrest -- Allegations against petitioner based mainly on disclosure statement of co-accused regarding supply of contraband -- No other substantive evidence shown at stage of bail – Custody of 02 months and 26 days and trial of the case is likely to consume considerable time -- Further incarceration held not justified -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 6-8)

***

Arrest of accused -- Direction -- Petitioner sought directions for arrest of accused persons and fair investigation -- Petition disposed of with direction to Senior Superintendent of Police to consider and decide representation within stipulated period in accordance with law.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Sections 91, 191(3), 190, 351(2) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 315, 148, 149, 506 -- Direction for arrest and fair investigation -- Petition disposed of with direction to SSP to consider and decide representation within four weeks in accordance with law.

(Para 2 & 6)

***

Regular bail -- Parity -- Murder case -- No specific role of firing attributed to petitioner, alleged only to have accompanied accused persons and remained present at spot -- Co-accused having similar role already granted bail -- Custody of 02 years, 05 months and 23 days -- Not even single prosecution witness examined -- Regular bail granted.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Sections 103(1), 3(5), 61(2) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 34, 120-B -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 -- Regular bail -- Murder case -- Petitioner not attributed specific role of firing upon deceased -- Alleged involvement primarily based upon disclosure statement and presence at spot -- Co-accused attributed similar role of conducting recce already enlarged on bail -- Investigation completed and challan presented -- Charges framed but no prosecution witness examined till date -- Petitioner undergone custody of 02 years, 05 months and 23 days -- Further incarceration would serve no useful purpose -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.
 

(Para 6-10)

***

Regular bail -- Parity -- NDPS -- Co-accused already granted regular bail -- Case of petitioner at par with co-accused -- Petitioner in custody since 25.11.2024 -- Trial likely to take time -- Regular bail granted.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22-C, 37 -- Regular bail – NDPS -- Recovery of 120 grams Buprenorphine falling within commercial quantity -- Co-accused having similar role already granted regular bail -- Incarceration of 01 year, 05 months & 11 days -- Petitioner is involved in 02 other cases, however in 01 case, he is on bail -- Veracity of allegations to be tested during trial -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail on basis of parity with co-accused.
 

(Para 6-10)

***

Superdari – NDPS -- Seized vehicle should not be allowed to remain parked in police station for long duration after completion of investigation, as continued retention causes deterioration and serves no useful purpose –Interim custody granted by imposing adequate safeguards to protect prosecution interest.

***

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 18, 29 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 -- Release of vehicle on sapurdari – NDPS -- Commercial quantity of opium recovered from vehicle -- Merely because the vehicle may ultimately become subject matter of confiscation proceedings under the NDPS Act cannot be a ground to deny interim custody thereof for an indefinite period -- Registered owner through special power of attorney holder expressed willingness to furnish security and produce vehicle as and when required -- Impugned order refusing release set aside -- Vehicle ordered to be released on sapurdari subject to conditions restraining alienation and ensuring production before Court.

(Para 5-7)

***
Regular bail -- NDPS – Commercial quantity – Criminal antecedents -- Accused is not named in FIR, no recovery is effected from him and his role is confined to alleged preparation of forged vehicle documents, rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act not attracted -- Criminal antecedents alone cannot be a ground to deny bail.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 15(c), 25 and 29 -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 238(3), 61(2) – Regular bail – NDPS – Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 274.73 kgs poppy husk from vehicle bearing fake registration number -- Petitioner alleged to have facilitated offence by preparing forged registration certificate of vehicle used for transportation of contraband -- No contraband recovered from petitioner not named in FIR and nominated subsequently on basis of disclosure statement of co-accused -- Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act held not attracted qua petitioner -- Similarly situated co-accused already granted regular bail -- Mere involvement in other criminal cases held not sufficient to deny concession of bail -- Investigation complete and trial likely to take considerable time -- Bail is rule and is jail exception -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Paras 4 to 8)

***
NDPS – Bail – Commercial quantity -- Contraband recovered from a common concealed place accessible to several jail inmates and no recovery is effected from conscious possession of accused -- Benefit of bail given.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 37, 18-B, 20, 21-C, 22-C, 28, 29, 30, 61, 85 -- Prisons Act, 1894 (9 of 1894), Section 42, 52-A – NDPS -- Regular bail – Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 5,150 of intoxicating tablets, 98 grams of opium, and 1,170 grams of heroin, along with a mobile phone etc. from common concealed pit inside jail barrack -- Petitioner one amongst 36 inmates lodged in same barrack -- No recovery effected from conscious or exclusive possession of petitioner -- Recovery from common area accessible to all inmates -- Petitioner implicated only on basis of presence in barrack -- Co-accused similarly situated already granted regular bail -- Petitioner in custody since 30.08.2025 -- FSL report regarding recovered mobile phones still awaited -- Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act held satisfied in light of parity and absence of individual recovery -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail subject to conditions.

(Paras 3 to 8)

****
Bail – Murder -- Accused not named in FIR, fails to be identified in test identification parade and prosecution witnesses do not support case regarding his involvement, prolonged incarceration coupled with delay in trial – Bail allowed.

****

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 146, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 325, 427, 460 – Regular Bail -- Murder and rioting case -- Allegation that assailants armed with bamboo sticks and steel pipes attacked party guests at farmhouse resulting in death of one person -- Petitioner not named in FIR -- Petitioner not identified in test identification parade -- Material prosecution witnesses failed to support prosecution case -- Clean antecedents and petitioner is in custody for more than one year -- Investigation complete -- Trial not likely to conclude in near future -- No material to show likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses -- Right to speedy trial under Article 21 reiterated -- Bail is rule and jail is exception -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Paras 10 to 16)

***

Bail -- illegal immigration, kidnapping and ransom -- Long incarceration, completion of investigation, absence of evidence regarding receipt of ransom amount, and delay in conclusion of trial are relevant considerations for grant of bail.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Sections 308(2), 308(4), 308(5), 140(2), 351(2), 61 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Regular Bail -- Allegations of illegal immigration, kidnapping and ransom -- Petitioner alleged to have allured complainants for sending their sons abroad and thereafter victims allegedly kept hostage in Libya -- Petitioner in custody for more than six months -- Investigation complete and nothing remained to be recovered from petitioner -- No material on record to show that ransom amount was demanded or received by petitioner either directly or indirectly -- Co-accused already enlarged on bail -- Trial not likely to conclude in near future -- No likelihood of petitioner tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses -- Right to speedy trial under Article 21 of Constitution of India reiterated -- Bail is rule and jail is exception -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail subject to conditions.

(Paras 10 to 16)

***

Pronote and receipt -- Presumption -- Where defendant admits thumb impressions on pronote and receipt but alleges misuse of blank papers, burden to prove fraud lies upon him -- Mere oral denial without independent evidence is insufficient to rebut presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (XXVI of 1881), Section 118 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Pronote and receipt -- Recovery suit -- Loan of Rs.3,00,000/- advanced on interest @ 1.5% per month -- Defendant admitted thumb impressions on pronote and receipt but alleged misuse of blank papers and fraud -- Due execution of pronote and receipt proved by testimony of plaintiff and handwriting and fingerprint expert -- Plea of fraud held not proved, as defendant failed to lead any independent or cogent evidence in support thereof -- Mere self-serving statement of defendant insufficient to rebut statutory presumption regarding consideration -- Defendant neither replied to legal notice nor lodged any complaint regarding alleged misuse of thumb impressions, thereby rendering defence improbable -- Concurrent findings of Courts below based on proper appreciation of evidence and conduct of parties -- No ground for interference in second appeal -- Appeal dismissed.

(Paras 6 to 10)

***

Pronote and receipt -- Presumption -- Once execution of pronote and receipt is proved, presumption of consideration u/s 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises and mere denial by defendant is insufficient to rebut the same -- Isolated friendly loan transaction does not require money lending licence.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (XXVI of 1881), Section 118 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Pronote and receipt -- Recovery suit -- Friendly loan of Rs.2 lacs with interest @ 2% per month -- Due execution of pronote and receipt proved from testimony of scribe, attesting witness and plaintiff himself -- Once execution stood established, statutory presumption regarding consideration arose u/s 118 of the Act -- Mere denial by defendant held insufficient to rebut presumption -- Defendant neither examined handwriting expert nor produced any cogent documentary evidence to dispute signatures or passing of consideration -- Plea regarding absence of money lending licence rejected, as isolated transaction of friendly loan does not amount to carrying on business of money lending requiring licence -- Concurrent findings recorded by Courts below based on proper appreciation of evidence -- No substantial question of law arose -- Suit rightly decreed.

(Paras 14 to 19)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11, Section 115 -- Rejection of plaint -- Deficient court fee -- Plaintiff filed suit for damages on account of alleged defamation and tentatively valued suit at Rs.5,00,000/- while pleading that actual damages were liable to be assessed by Court -- Held, in suits for unliquidated damages founded on tort, precise amount recoverable cannot always be predetermined and valuation furnished by plaintiff remains tentative subject to adjudication -- Rejection of plaint u/O 7 Rule 11 CPC being drastic power can be exercised only where defect is apparent and incapable of being cured -- Trial Court dismissed the application and kept the issue of adequacy of court fee open for consideration at appropriate stage and preserved right to direct payment of deficient court fee, if found payable -- No jurisdictional error or material irregularity in impugned order -- Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 4-12)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Time bound disposal of petition u/s 34 of the Act -- Arbitral award passed on 22.08.2019 and objections thereto still pending since 2019 -- Held, purpose of enacting Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would stand defeated if petitions u/s 34 are not heard and decided expeditiously -- Considering prolonged pendency of petition for almost seven years, Court concerned directed to decide petition within four months in accordance with law -- Revision petition disposed of.

(Para 5-7)

Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984), Section 7 – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 25 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Child custody proceedings – Expedite trial -- Prayer for striking off defence of respondent-husband on ground that he had not led evidence and was seeking adjournments -- Held, defence cannot be struck off merely because party has not led evidence -- Family Court directed to decide custody petition expeditiously and avoid unnecessary adjournments -- Revision petition disposed of.

(Para 4-6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 22 Rules 3 and 5 -- Impleadment of legal representative – Defendant No.2 has supported the case of the plaintiff, whereas, the present petitioners/ other defendants contested the suit of the plaintiff -- Trial Court allowed the defendant No.2 to pursue the case of the plaintiff after observing that his interest was not adverse to the interest of plaintiff, whereas, since the interest of the present petitioners was adverse thus, they could not been allowed to pursue the case although petitioner No.1 was also the son of plaintiff – Held, person having interest adverse to plaintiff cannot be permitted to pursue plaintiff’s case -- Mere impleadment of LR does not confer any right, title or entitlement in estate of deceased -- Rights of parties regarding inheritance and estate left open to be adjudicated in independent proceedings -- Revision petition disposed of with clarification – Impugned order upheld with clarification.

(Para 4-8)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) Section 18, 28-A -- Enhanced compensation without filing reference -- Entitlement of co-sharers -- Execution petition dismissed by Executing Court on ground that petitioners had not sought reference u/s 18 of the Act -- Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramphal’s case (SC) (2026) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 20854 held co-sharers entitled to same compensation as awarded to other co-owners in acquired land though interest restricted -- Petitioners held entitled to compensation alongwith statutory benefits in terms of award passed in favour of co-sharers -- Matter remitted to Executing Court for fresh adjudication and release of amount in accordance with directions issued by Supreme Court -- Impugned order set aside.

(Para 5-8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11, Section 115 --  Rejection of plaint -- Scope -- Consideration confined to plaint averments alone -- Defence pleas impermissible at threshold stage -- Allegations of fraud, mistake and rectification specifically pleaded in plaint -- Limitation involving question of knowledge of fraud held to be mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence -- Suit not ex facie barred by limitation -- Trial Court rightly declined rejection of plaint -- Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC not attracted in absence of jurisdictional error or material irregularity -- Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 5-10)

Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 -- Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Departments of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 -- Compassionate appointment -- Applicable policy -- Claim for compassionate appointment has to be considered in accordance with rules/policy prevailing on date of death of employee -- Vested right accrued under Rules of 2003 could not be divested by subsequent Rules of 2006 having no retrospective effect -- Denial of benefit to petitioner while extending same to similarly situated person held discriminatory and violative of Article 14 -- Respondents directed to consider appointment of petitioner’s son under Rules of 2003.

(Para 4-11)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 37, 38 -- Co-owner -- Permanent injunction for raising construction – Co-owner in exclusive possession ordinarily cannot be restrained from raising construction over joint property, however injunction can be granted where such construction is detrimental to interests of other co-owners and may prejudice partition proceedings -- Defendants having stalled partition proceedings and simultaneously raised construction to consolidate possession, Courts below rightly held their conduct prejudicial to plaintiffs’ rights -- Discretionary relief of injunction properly exercised -- No perversity or illegality in concurrent findings -- Regular Second Appeal dismissed.

(Para 11-14)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Regular Second Appeal -- Scope of interference in a Regular Second Appeal is confined to substantial questions of law -- Concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below cannot be interfered with unless it is shown that such findings are perverse, based on misreading of evidence or suffer from patent illegality.

(Para 7)

B. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45, 68 – Unregistered Will -- Will duly proved through attesting witness, scribe and unrebutted expert evidence regarding thumb impressions of testator -- Mere exclusion of natural heirs, unequal distribution of property or non-registration of Will not suspicious circumstances -- Non-registration of a Will is not a circumstance to doubt its validity --  No cogent evidence to show that the testator was not in a sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the Will -- Defendant did not examine any expert in rebuttal to disprove the thumb impressions on the Will -- Such omission assumes importance and lends further credence to the case set up by the plaintiff – Will, upheld.

(Para 8-13)