***

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)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10, Order 6, 17 -- Amendment of plaint – Impleadment as party – Sut for specific performance – Decree in favour of third party -- Plaintiff is the dominus litis -- In case they are not made parties and the petitioner is not permitted to amend the plaint, then in the said circumstances, the petitioner would be fighting a half lost battle inasmuch as since the suit property now stands transferred by virtue of the judgment and decree in a suit in which the present defendants/ respondents were parties -- Rights of the plaintiff/petitioner cannot be foreclosed on account of a subsequent judgment suffered by the defendants/respondents in favour of their relative GK -- Applications filed by the petitioner for amendment as well as for impleadment allowed.

(Para 12, 13)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation -- Liability of insurer – Deceased as passenger -- Breach of policy -- Onus of proof -- Onus to prove breach of policy conditions lies squarely upon the insurance company -- A mere reference to statements in the FIR or presumptions regarding payment of fare cannot be treated as sufficient discharge of this burden -- Insurance company failed to adduce any cogent or reliable evidence to establish that the deceased was a fare-paying passenger or that there was any wilful violation of the policy terms by the insured -- Liability fastened on insurer.

(Para 13-17)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation – Tailoring work -- Housewife -- Notional income assessed at Rs.9,000 per month.

(Para 22-25)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 173 – Enhancement of compensation – Interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization allowed.

(Para 27, 28)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Punjab Courts Act, 1918 (6 of 1918), Section 41 – Regular Second Appeal -- Scope -- Applicability of Punjab Courts Act, 1918 vis-à-vis Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -- In States of Punjab & Haryana, second appeals governed by Section 41 of 1918 Act and not by Section 100 CPC -- No requirement to frame substantial question of law. Position settled by Pankajakshi’s, (2016) 6 SCC 157, Kirodi’s  (2019) 11 SCC 317 = (2019) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14222 and Satender’s case, 2022 (12) Scale 92.

(Para 6)

B. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 6 -- Family settlement – Spes Successionis -- Nature of property/ right to be included – Family settlement is not circumscribed to parties possessing an existing legal title in the property – Law recognizes that such a settlement may validly be arrived at even amongst persons having a semblance of a claim, a possible expectancy, or a mere chance of succession – It has been unequivocally held that even a prospective or contingent right to succeed to property constitutes a sufficient juridical basis for entering into a family arrangement -- Children and grandchild of the appellants-plaintiffs, possessed a legitimate expectation or chance of succession in the event of intestate devolution -- Consequently, the existence of such a potential claim furnishes an adequate legal foundation for the family settlement.

(Para 12, 12.1)

C. Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17 – Compromise decree/ Family settlement – Requirement of Registration -- Decree merely formalized and recognized the pre-existing rights which had already accrued to the respondents-defendants pursuant to the family settlement effected in the year 1989 -- In such circumstances, the decree falls within the category of declaratory recognition of antecedent rights and, therefore, does not attract the requirement of compulsory registration.

(Para 12.4)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 4 -- Fraud / misrepresentation -- Pleading and proof – Allegations must be pleaded with specificity and particularity -- Full particulars of fraud, undue influence, and misrepresentation has to be clearly set out in the pleadings -- Allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, and undue influence must be pleaded with precision and specificity, detailing the manner, circumstances, and particulars thereof -- A bald and omnibus assertion, devoid of material particulars, does not satisfy the statutory requirement -- Moreover, such allegations are required to be substantiated by cogent, convincing, and reliable evidence.

(Para 12.6, 16, 16.1)

E. Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 11 -- Transfer / Family Settlement – Minor is beneficiary -- Validity -- Family settlement, wherein a minor member of the family is conferred a share in immovable property, cannot be rendered null and void merely on account of the minority of such beneficiary -- Jurisprudential foundation of a family settlement is fundamentally distinct from that of a contractual arrangement inter se parties -- A family settlement, being an arrangement intended to preserve harmony, avoid disputes, and secure equitable distribution of property within the family, cannot be invalidated solely on the ground that one or more beneficiaries had not attained the age of majority at the relevant time.

(Para 18)

F. Mutation -- Nature and effect -- Mutation entries, being fiscal in nature, neither confer nor extinguish title -- Respondents-defendants derive their title not from the mutation, but from the judgment and decree -- Consequently, any error in the mutation entries does not, ipso facto, divest the appellants-plaintiffs of their rightful share in the property.

(Para 18.5)

G. Limitation -- Suit for possession based upon title – There is no limitation for seeking possession on the basis of title.

(Para 18.6)

***

Termination of LIC agency for failure to make proper enquiries -- In absence of fraud or connivance agent entitled to renewal commission and removal of stigma – Termination of agency upheld.

***

Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972, Regulations 8(2)(b), 19 – Agency – Termination – Renewal – Payment of Commission -- Duty of agent to make reasonable enquiries regarding health of insured before recommending proposal – Misstatement in confidential report and failure to discharge duties established – However, no material to show fraud or connivance with insured – Entire blame cannot be placed solely on agent – Termination of agency upheld – In absence of fraud, agent entitled to renewal commission under Regulation 19 – Direction issued for release of arrears – Stigma attached to termination ordered to be removed.

(Paras 6 to 9)

***

Additional evidence (SPA) at appellate stage cannot be permitted in absence of due diligence and explanation for non-production at trial, as it would amount to filling lacunae – Application dismissed.

Registered Sale Deed carries presumption of validity – Allegation of fraud not proved as plaintiff failed to depose – SPA holder cannot depose on behalf of principal on personal facts – Adverse inference drawn – Appeal dismissed.

***

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27(1), (1)(aa) – SPA in additional evidence at appellate stage – Permissible only on proof of due diligence and inability to produce evidence at trial despite best efforts –Applicant has not exercised due diligence and cannot be permitted at this stage to improve his case or fill up lacunae in his case by leading additional evidence -- Application dismissed.

(Para 1)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 3 Rules 1 and 2, Section 100 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 54 -- Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17, 60(2) -- Registered Sale Deed – Presumption of validity – Allegation of fraud – Burden of proof – Power of Attorney (SPA) – Scope of deposition – Second Appeal – Registered Sale Deed bearing thumb impression and photograph carries presumption of truth and validity – Allegation of fraud not proved as plaintiff failed to step into witness box and led no evidence – SPA holder cannot depose on behalf of plaintiff regarding facts within personal knowledge of principal – Non-examination of plaintiff warrants adverse inference – Contradictory pleas regarding sale consideration – NOC supports case of defendants – High Court in second appeal has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the Courts below – Appeal dismissed.

(Paras 15 to 32)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 473, 482 -- Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Section 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33 -- Insecticide Rules, 1971, Rule 27(5) -- Summoning order – Condonation of delay -- Non-speaking order – No satisfaction regarding prima facie case and no discussion of material on record – Limitation to be reckoned from date of receipt of report of Public Analyst – Complaint filed after considerable delay of several years – No application of mind to question of limitation or condonation of delay – Impugned order not sustainable – Matter remanded for fresh consideration with direction to pass speaking order after considering limitation and material on record.

(Paras 7 to 10)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 -- Regularisation of Part-time Sweeper since 1999 -- Retired on 31.12.2025 – Petitioner, being a part-time Sweeper and not working against any sanctioned post, is not entitled to regularization – High Court cannot issue directions for creation of posts or framing of a regularization policy – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 4, 5)

A. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12, 101 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Bail to child in conflict with law – Nomenclature of petition not decisive – Petition u/s 483 BNSS file instead u/s 101 of JJ Act -- Petition treated as appeal under Section 101 against order declining bail.

(Para 8)

B. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 351(3) – POCSO -- Bail to child in conflict with law – Grant of bail is rule and denial is exception – Exceptions under proviso to Section 12 to be founded on reasonable grounds supported by material on record – Bail declined by trial Court on gravity of allegations, non-examination of witnesses and apprehension of association with criminals – Findings general in nature and mere reproduction of proviso – The statute does not contemplate denial of bail merely on the seriousness of the offence alleged, unless the case squarely falls within the exceptions provided in the proviso – The trial Court failed to record any cogent reasoning or refer to any specific material to show as to how release of the petitioner would defeat the ends of justice in the facts of the case -- No material pointed out to indicate that the petitioner is likely to come into association with any known criminal, nor to suggest that his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger -- Observation that release of the petitioner would defeat the ends of justice is not supported by any substantive reasoning -- Such conclusions, in the absence of supporting material, cannot be sustained in law – Appeal allowed, petitioner/child in conflict with law is ordered to be released on bail.

(Paras 9 to 13)

***

Striking off defence -- Non-filing of written statement -- Despite more than four opportunities and lapse of about eleven months defence was struck off, however, as no witness had been examined, one final opportunity granted to file written statement subject to payment of Rs. 20,000/- as costs.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, Code, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 1, 10 -- Striking off defence -- Non-filing of written statement -- Grant of final opportunity -- Defence struck off by trial Court as petitioners/defendants failed to file written statement despite more than four opportunities and lapse of about eleven months from first appearance -- Though issues framed, no witness examined -- In facts and circumstances, one final opportunity granted to file written statement subject to payment of Rs. 20,000/- as costs.

(Para 1-3)

***

S. 319 Cr.P.C. -- Summoning as additional accused -- Petitioner named from inception with specific role of causing injuries on head with danda, duly corroborated by medical evidence -- Trial Court rightly exercised power u/s 319 -- Revision dismissed.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 -- Summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C. – Challenge to -- Petitioner and his brother have been named from the very beginning -- It has been alleged that brother was carrying a knife, while petitioner and 2/3 other boys came with sticks, batons etc. -- Even a specific role has been assigned to the petitioner that the petitioner was armed with danda (stick) in his hand and they all had attacked the deceased -- Even, the petitioner gave injuries on the head and face of the deceased with a danda (stick) and the said fact also finds corroboration from the medical evidence in the case -- Trial Court rightly ordered the summoning of the petitioner as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C – Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 7, 8)

***

Panchayat (Haryana) -- Election petition -- All contesting candidates should have been impleaded as parties and the impleading of only the returned candidate was not sufficient.

***

Handwriting expert – Report -- It is of advisory value and the science of examination of handwriting is not a perfect science.

***

A. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 163, 176 – Election petition – Necessary party -- All contesting candidates -- In terms of the provisions of Section 176 of the 1994 Act, all contesting candidates should have been impleaded as parties and the impleading of only the returned candidate was not sufficient.

(Para 19)

B. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 163, 176 – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023), Section 39 -- Election petition – Report of the handwriting expert – It is of advisory value and the science of examination of handwriting is not a perfect science.

(Para 19)

C. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 163, 176 – Election petition – An election cannot be set aside on the mere asking of another contesting party.

(Para 20)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 – Live-in relationship – Police Protection -- Marriage is not a must for providing protection to a couple in a “Live-in Relationship” -- State is obligated to protect their life and liberty -- Senior Superintendent of Police directed to look into the representation and if any threat perception is found, to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Joint possession -- Plaintiffs having lost their battle for title over the estate, cannot claim joint possession over the suit property.

(Para 15)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 – Regular Second appeal -- Substantial question of law -- Misreading of evidence and going beyond pleadings breeds perversity constitutes substantial question of law -- Judgment & decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court reversed.

(Para 17)

A. Property – Title – Entry in property register of Municipal Corporation -- Proof of title – Except for a random entry in its property register, the MCD never asserted title over the plots in question before any forum – A mere entry in the list of properties maintained by the MCD cannot, by itself, constitute a valid proof of title over the subject land.

(Para 24, 27)

B. Property – Layout plan – Land earmarked for public purpose – De-reservation – Effect – Land originally earmarked for a High School – Competent authority de-reserved the land admeasuring 1600 sq. yards – No material on record to show that notwithstanding such de-reservation, land would continue to retain character of being reserved for a public purpose – Finding that land required to be retained for public purpose held unsustainable on the face of the record.

(Para 28)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47 – Power of Executing Court -- Executing Court is empowered to decide questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and has no jurisdiction to go beyond the decree sought to be executed -- It has to execute the decree as it is without changing the same -- Jurisdiction of Executing Court is limited to give effect to the decree as passed and not to assume the role of a trial court so as to substitute its own view in place of that expressed under the decree.

(Para 24)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47 – Power of Executing Court -- Executing Court has to strictly conform to the decree under execution and if the decree provides for reciprocal obligations, it must ensure compliance of those conditions by both the parties in pith and substance, unless the decree is a nullity.

(Para 27)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47 – Power of Executing Court -- Compromise decree describes the portions of land falling into the shares of the parties -- Executing Court has to ensure that both the parties fulfil their obligations and exchange the land as per the decree and to see that the sale deed is executed as directed -- Merely for the reasons that exchange of some portions of the land may not be practicable for the reason that constructions on it are not as per the sanctioned map or that part of it has been sold off, are all immaterial.

(Para 30)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 109(1), 111(2)(b), 111(5), 121(1), 132, 221 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25(1-B)a, 29, 54 – Regular bail – Attempt to murder – Criminal history -- Alleged encounter with police – Petitioner named only in disclosure statement of co-accused and recovery of weapon effected on basis of disclosure statement – Petitioner involved in two other cases under the Arms Act, third for the offence of theft, fourth under the Excise Act and last one is of cheating and fraud -- All these five cases are triable by the Court of Magistrate and the petitioner is on bail in all cases except one FIR -- Till date the petitioner has not been convicted in any of the cases registered against him – Petitioner in custody for more than one year and only 3 out of 33 prosecution witnesses examined – Role yet to be established and no injury caused to police officials – Bail allowed.

(Para 3-9)

***

Eviction proceedings -- A co-owner landlord can maintain the petition alone and the tenant cannot compel impleadment of other co-owners.

***

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 – Eviction petition – Impleadment of co-owners at instance of tenant – In eviction proceedings only landlord and tenant are necessary parties and a co-owner landlord can maintain eviction petition without impleading all other co-owners – Tenant cannot compel impleadment of other alleged co-owners and eviction proceedings cannot be converted into inter se title dispute between co-owners – Order allowing impleadment set aside.

(Paras 6-10)

***

Amendment of plaint – Amendment seeking existence of Will w.r.t. suit property -- Validity of transfer deed is subject matter of suit property – Amendment allowed by trial court, interference in revisional jurisdiction is to be kept to the minimum.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Constitution of India, Article 227 – Amendment of plaint – Revisional jurisdiction -- Validity of transfer deed is under challenge in the suit – Amendment sought to plead existence of 30 year old unregistered Will with respect to suit property -- Application moved at initial stage when no witness had been examined – Once both the issues are considered and decided, the ownership and rights of the plaintiff and defendants in the residential house would be finally and properly adjudicated -- Amendment allowed by the Trial Court -- High Court in exercise of power under Article 227 cannot act as a court of appeal and interference is to be kept to the minimum – Impugned order allowing amendment upheld and revision petition dismissed.

(Paras 2–10)

***

Sanction for prosecution – Even if a public servant has exceeded his powers while discharging his official duties, Section 197 CrPC would come into play.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 197 – Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, Sections 342, 330, 34 – Sanction for prosecution of public servant – Police excess/ illegal custody – Complainant alleged that police officers including petitioner-SDPO kept him in illegal custody from 10.05.2005 to 01.06.2005 at different police stations and subjected him to third-degree torture causing serious injuries – Not only the acts which have been done by the public servant in exercise of his official duty but even the acts, which a public servant has done in purported exercise of official duty, would be covered under the protective umbrella of Section 197 CrPC, therefore, the test is whether there is a reasonable nexus between act done by public servant and his official duties -- Even if a public servant has exceeded his powers while discharging his official duties, Section 197 CrPC would come into play -- Section 197 CrPC, is a shield to the public servants, who cannot be removed from their services, without the sanction of the Govt. from their false and unwarranted prosecution, without a formal sanction to prosecute -- The idea is to protect them from any kind of harassment, at the hands of unscrupulous elements.

(Paras 15–21)

***

Approver – Bail – Detention of an approver till conclusion of trial is not an absolute bar, and High Court in exercise of inherent powers can release the approver on bail in once he has made full disclosure and been examined as a witness.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 306(4)(b), 482 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 343(4)(b), 528 – Approver – Release on bail pending trial – Provisions of Section 306(4)(b) Cr.P.C. requiring that an approver “shall, unless he is already on bail, be detained in custody until the termination of the trial” do not operate as a blanket ban on his release – Provision is intended not to punish the approver but to protect him from possible indignation, rage and resentment of his associates and to prevent temptation of retracting from disclosure – Once an accused is tendered pardon and makes a full and true disclosure, he ceases to be an accused and becomes a witness for the prosecution – Custody of an approver is co-terminus with fulfilment of conditions of pardon – Section 306(4)(b) of the Code appears to be directory and not mandatory -- Such a person cannot invoke the provisions of Section 439 of the Code corresponding to Section 483 of BNSS -- Continued detention despite compliance with conditions of pardon may violate right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution – High Court in exercise of inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS) can enlarge an approver on bail even before culmination of trial where exceptional and reasonable circumstances exist – Where approver has been examined as prosecution witness, stood by his earlier disclosure without contradiction and seeks enlargement voluntarily, he deserves to be released on bail subject to reasonable conditions – Impugned order set aside and petitioner-approver admitted to bail.

(Paras 12–21, 26, 27)