ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: 2026

Friday, April 3, 2026

In a partition suit, the plaintiff must establish that the properties are joint family/coparcenary properties through proper pleadings and proof of ancestral nucleus; failing which, and particularly where properties are self-acquired, already alienated, and purchasers are not impleaded, the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

advocatemmmohan

Partition – Burden of proof – Joint family property – No presumption
(Paras 18–19, 31, 34–35)
There is no presumption that property is joint family property merely because a joint Hindu family exists. The party asserting such claim must plead and prove existence of ancestral nucleus and coparcenary. In absence of such pleading and proof, claim for partition fails.

Pleadings – Foundation of case – Evidence beyond pleadings impermissible
(Paras 18, 31)
In absence of specific pleadings regarding nature of property, coparcenary or blending, no amount of evidence can be looked into. Evidence beyond pleadings is inadmissible.

Coparcenary – Essential requirement – Proof of nucleus and inheritance
(Paras 19, 31)
To establish coparcenary property, it must be shown that property was inherited from paternal ancestors or acquired from joint family nucleus. In absence of such evidence, doctrine of blending cannot be invoked.

Relinquishment deed – Validity – Pre-existing right essential
(Paras 21–22, 35)
A relinquishment can operate only where the executant has a pre-existing right. Where no such right exists, the document cannot be treated as relinquishment; it may at best operate as a fresh grant, conferring absolute ownership.

Self-acquired property – Absolute right – Power of alienation
(Paras 22, 35, 47)
Where property is established as self-acquired, the holder has absolute right to deal with it, including alienation, and such alienations cannot be questioned by others claiming partition.

Partition suit – Non-joinder of necessary parties – Fatal defect
(Paras 36, 48)
Where properties are in possession of alienees and such purchasers are not impleaded, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, and decree in their absence would affect their rights.

Partition – Availability of property – Essential condition
(Paras 38, 47, 50–51)
Where entire suit property has already been alienated prior to suit and is in possession of third parties, no property remains available for partition, and suit is liable to be dismissed.

Suppression of material facts – Effect
(Paras 38, 41)
Where plaintiffs suppress material facts regarding alienations and possession of third parties, relief of partition cannot be granted.

Non-examination of party – Adverse inference
(Para 46)
Where a party does not enter the witness box to support his pleadings, an adverse inference arises that the case set up by him is not correct.

Sale deeds – Consideration – Non-payment not ground to invalidate sale
(Para 44)
Mere non-payment or inadequacy of consideration does not invalidate a registered sale deed.

CORE RATIO (CRUCIAL FORMULATION)

Paras 18–19, 35, 47–48

In a partition suit, the plaintiff must establish that the properties are joint family/coparcenary properties through proper pleadings and proof of ancestral nucleus; failing which, and particularly where properties are self-acquired, already alienated, and purchasers are not impleaded, the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

Order VIII Rule 14(3) CPC – Belated production of documents – Scope (Paras 5, 9–10) Though additional documents may be permitted at a later stage of trial, such permission is not automatic. The party must establish relevance, admissibility and necessity. Where documents are neither relevant to the issues nor legally admissible, permission to mark them can be refused even if trial is pending.

advocatemmmohan

Civil Procedure – Order VIII Rule 14(3) CPC – Belated production of documents – Scope
(Paras 5, 9–10)
Though additional documents may be permitted at a later stage of trial, such permission is not automatic. The party must establish relevance, admissibility and necessity. Where documents are neither relevant to the issues nor legally admissible, permission to mark them can be refused even if trial is pending.

Evidence – Relevance – Documents not connected to issues – Rejection justified
(Para 9)
In a suit for permanent injunction, documents relating to alleged quarrels or criminal incidents between parties, having no direct nexus with the civil dispute, are not relevant for adjudication and need not be received in evidence.

Evidence – FIR – Evidentiary value – When declared false
(Paras 4, 9)
Where an FIR is investigated and a final report is filed declaring it as false, and such report is accepted by the competent criminal court, the FIR loses probative value and cannot be relied upon in civil proceedings.

Evidence – Admissibility – Documents declared false – Inadmissible
(Para 9)
Documents which have been found to be false by the competent authority and accepted as such by a court of law are neither valid nor admissible for determination of civil rights.

Civil Trial – Stage of proceedings – Closure stage – Additional evidence
(Para 9)
Where trial has reached closure stage and evidence of one side is completed, belated attempt to introduce additional documents, without sufficient justification and relevance, can be legitimately rejected.

Distinction – Valid documents vs false documents – Belated filing
(Para 10)
Judicial precedents permitting reception of documents at a belated stage apply only to valid and legally admissible documents. Such principles do not extend to documents which are inherently unreliable or declared false.

Supervisory jurisdiction – Article 227 – Interference – Limited scope
(Paras 9–10)
Where the trial court has exercised discretion judiciously in rejecting irrelevant and inadmissible documents, such order does not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

RESULT

Rejection of application to mark certified FIR and CD upheld; Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
(Paras 9–11)

CASE REFERENCE

CRP No.2328 of 2025

CORE RATIO

Para 9

Documents which are irrelevant to the issues and have already been declared false in criminal proceedings are inadmissible in civil trial, and refusal to receive such evidence at a belated stage calls for no interference.

Land Acquisition – National Highways Act – Solatium and interest – Entitlement – Not dependent on financial burden (Paras 7–8, 10) The entitlement of landowners to ‘solatium’, ‘interest’ and ‘interest on solatium’ forms an integral component of just compensation. Such entitlement cannot be denied or diluted on the ground of financial burden upon the acquiring authority. Even a substantial escalation in fiscal liability does not constitute a ground for review or modification of a binding judgment recognising such rights.

advocatemmmohan

Land Acquisition – National Highways Act – Solatium and interest – Entitlement – Not dependent on financial burden
(Paras 7–8, 10)
The entitlement of landowners to ‘solatium’, ‘interest’ and ‘interest on solatium’ forms an integral component of just compensation. Such entitlement cannot be denied or diluted on the ground of financial burden upon the acquiring authority. Even a substantial escalation in fiscal liability does not constitute a ground for review or modification of a binding judgment recognising such rights.

Review jurisdiction – Scope – Error apparent – Financial miscalculation not sufficient
(Paras 6–8)
Correction of a clerical or factual error regarding the quantum of financial liability does not, by itself, amount to an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review, particularly where the underlying legal principle remains unaffected.

Finality of litigation – Reopening of concluded cases – Impermissibility
(Paras 11–12)
Where compensation proceedings have attained finality and are no longer subject to challenge before any forum, a subsequent change or clarification in law does not entitle parties to reopen such concluded cases. The doctrine of finality mandates that settled claims cannot be revived for additional benefits.

Land acquisition – Delayed claims – Balancing of equities
(Paras 11–13)
While landowners may be entitled in principle to solatium and interest, claims raised after inordinate delay must be subjected to equitable balancing. Courts may deny interest for the period of delay, thereby preserving both the statutory entitlement and the principle against stale claims.

Prospective application – Clarification – Pending proceedings distinguished from concluded cases
(Paras 9–10, 14)
Entitlement to solatium and interest extends to cases where compensation proceedings were pending as on the relevant cut-off date, but does not extend to cases already concluded. The distinction between pending and finally decided matters is determinative of entitlement.

Cut-off date – Relevance – 28.03.2008
(Para 14)
The date corresponding to the judgment in Golden Iron and Steel serves as the benchmark for determining entitlement. Claims alive on or after 28.03.2008 are eligible for consideration, whereas claims concluded prior thereto are not liable to be reopened.

Interest – Denial for delayed assertion of claim
(Para 14(ii))
Where landowners assert claims for solatium or interest belatedly, they are disentitled to interest for the period of delay, and such benefits accrue only from the date of assertion of claim.

Remand – Recalculation of compensation components
(Para 16)
Matters requiring computation of solatium, interest and interest on solatium are liable to be remanded to appropriate courts for recalculation strictly in accordance with the principles laid down.

Recovery – Bar against refund of amounts already paid
(Para 17)
Amounts already disbursed towards solatium or interest shall not be recovered, even if subsequent clarification limits entitlement.

RESULT

Review Petition disposed of with clarifications; entitlement to solatium and interest upheld subject to limitations relating to delay and finality; matters remanded for recalculation; recovery of amounts already paid prohibited.
(Paras 14–17)

Jurisdiction – Subordinate authority – Cannot sit in appeal over Supreme Court (Paras 8, 11) A statutory authority, including the Rent Authority, cannot entertain proceedings or pass orders which have the effect of rendering findings confirmed up to the Supreme Court a nullity. Any such exercise amounts to acting in excess of jurisdiction and is legally unsustainable.

advocatemmmohan

Finality of proceedings – Binding effect of Supreme Court orders – Impermissibility of indirect challenge
(Paras 3–4, 8, 11)
Where eviction proceedings culminating in confirmation by the Rent Authority, Appellate Authority, High Court and dismissal of Special Leave Petition, review petition and miscellaneous application by the Supreme Court attain finality, the directions issued therein, including delivery of possession, become binding and operative. Any subsequent attempt to reopen or dilute such directions through collateral proceedings before subordinate authorities is impermissible and amounts to indirectly nullifying binding judicial orders.

Undertaking to Court – Breach – Abuse of process and overreaching
(Paras 3, 10–11)
Where a party, having obtained time from the Supreme Court to vacate premises on the basis of an undertaking, initiates further proceedings to avoid compliance, such conduct constitutes overreaching the Court and amounts to gross abuse of the process of law.

Jurisdiction – Subordinate authority – Cannot sit in appeal over Supreme Court
(Paras 8, 11)
A statutory authority, including the Rent Authority, cannot entertain proceedings or pass orders which have the effect of rendering findings confirmed up to the Supreme Court a nullity. Any such exercise amounts to acting in excess of jurisdiction and is legally unsustainable.

Statutory tribunal – Nature of jurisdiction – Strictly confined to statute
(Paras 7, 11, 16)
The Rent Authority, being a creature of statute, exercises limited jurisdiction confined to matters expressly provided under the governing enactment. It cannot travel beyond such limits to adjudicate questions of title or override binding judicial determinations.

Order without jurisdiction – Nullity
(Para 12)
An order passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction is a nullity in law and void ab initio, and such invalidity can be declared whenever and wherever it is sought to be relied upon.

Dual capacity – Administrative and quasi-judicial roles – Impermissible overlap
(Para 11)
Where an अधिकारी acting in an administrative capacity records findings on issues such as title, and thereafter, in a quasi-judicial capacity as Rent Authority, relies upon such findings to decide proceedings, such exercise is impermissible, as it violates the statutory scheme and the requirement of independent adjudication.

Rent proceedings – Challenge to title – Not maintainable
(Paras 9–10)
In proceedings under rent control legislation, the scope of inquiry is confined to existence of landlord–tenant relationship. Any dispute regarding title of the landlord must be adjudicated by a competent civil court and cannot be raised as a collateral issue before the Rent Authority.

Judicial discipline – Binding precedent – Constitutional necessity
(Para 13)
Adherence to decisions of superior courts is a fundamental principle of judicial discipline. Non-compliance or deviation by subordinate authorities undermines the rule of law, creates uncertainty in administration of justice and erodes institutional integrity.

Contempt – Undermining authority of courts – Foundation
(Paras 10–13)
Conduct which tends to defeat, circumvent or disregard binding judicial orders, particularly of superior courts, strikes at the authority of the judicial system and may justify initiation of contempt proceedings.

Costs – Imposition – Deterrent against abuse of process
(Para 12)
Imposition of substantial costs in cases of abuse of judicial process serves a deterrent purpose, ensuring that litigants do not misuse procedural remedies to defeat final adjudication.

Apology – Acceptance – Effect on proceedings
(Para 15)
Tendering of an unconditional apology by an अधिकारी may be accepted by the Court, and proceedings may be concluded on that basis; however, such acceptance does not dilute the legal principles laid down or the findings recorded.

RESULT

The proceedings initiated by the tenant were held to be an abuse of process; the order of the Rent Authority was declared void for want of jurisdiction; costs were imposed; and the appeal stood disposed of accordingly.
(Paras 11–16)

EVIDENCE – Examination-in-chief by affidavit – Validity – Witness disowning affidavit Paras 11–14 Where an attesting witness admits that: the examination-in-chief affidavit was not prepared on his instructions, and he does not know its contents, Held, such affidavit loses evidentiary sanctity, and the witness’s testimony becomes unreliable for proving execution of the Will.

advocatemmmohan

EVIDENCE – Examination-in-chief by affidavit – Validity – Witness disowning affidavit

Paras 11–14

Where an attesting witness admits that:

the examination-in-chief affidavit was not prepared on his instructions, and
he does not know its contents,

Held, such affidavit loses evidentiary sanctity, and the witness’s testimony becomes unreliable for proving execution of the Will.

WILL – Proof – Requirement of “credible attesting witness” – Not mere formal compliance

Paras 14–15

Although law requires examination of at least one attesting witness, mere formal examination is insufficient.

Held, the attesting witness must:

credibly depose, and
inspire confidence regarding execution and attestation.

If credibility is doubtful, proof of Will fails notwithstanding formal compliance.

EVIDENCE – Cross-examination – Cannot cure foundational defect

Para 13

Where the examination-in-chief itself is disowned, reliance on statements in cross-examination cannot cure the foundational defect, particularly when the witness:

expresses ignorance about the Will itself.

WILL – Knowledge of contents – Relevance for attesting witness

Para 14

Though it is not mandatory that an attesting witness know the contents of the Will,

Held, where the witness:

disowns his affidavit, and
shows lack of awareness even about execution,

such circumstances create serious doubt about genuineness of attestation.

EVIDENCE – Principle – Testimony must be read as a whole

Para 13

Held, evidence cannot be dissected in parts; it must be appreciated as a whole.
If, on holistic reading, testimony does not inspire confidence, it must be rejected.

SUCCESSION – Burden of proof – On propounder of Will

Paras 11, 15

Held, the propounder carries strict burden to prove:

due execution, and
valid attestation of the Will.

Failure to discharge this burden results in rejection of claim to represent estate.

IMPORTANT DOCTRINAL TAKEAWAY (CORE RATIO CLARIFIED)

Paras 13–15

Proof of a Will is not a ritualistic compliance of examining one attesting witness; it requires credible, trustworthy, and legally reliable testimony, failing which the Will must be rejected.

Thursday, April 2, 2026

SERVICE LAW — Recruitment — Select List — No indefeasible right to appointment Para 9, 10, 17 Inclusion in select list — Whether confers right to appointment — Held, No — Select list only confers eligibility — Appointment must be strictly in accordance with statutory rules — No vested or enforceable right arises unless rules so provide.

advocatemmmohan

SERVICE LAW — Recruitment — Select List — No indefeasible right to appointment

Para 9, 10, 17
Inclusion in select list — Whether confers right to appointment — Held, No — Select list only confers eligibility — Appointment must be strictly in accordance with statutory rules — No vested or enforceable right arises unless rules so provide.

RECRUITMENT RULES — Operation of select list — Scope and limitation

Para 7, 8, 19
Select list prepared equal to notified vacancies — Not an open-ended reservoir — Cannot be operated beyond notified vacancies — Absence of provision for waiting list/reserve list bars further operation of list.

VACANCY — Non-joining of selected candidate — Effect

Para 10, 12, 15, 19
Non-joining or failure to complete pre-appointment formalities — Does not entitle next candidate to automatic appointment — In absence of enabling provision, vacancy to be treated as fresh vacancy.

RECRUITMENT — Preference system — Effect on selection

Para 6, 13, 16
Selection based on service-wise preference — Allocation not linear — Cannot shift candidate to another post after process concludes — Post facto adjustment impermissible.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Mandamus — When not grantable

Para 14
Where entitlement is uncertain or dependent on interpretation of rules — Mandamus cannot be issued — Court cannot create right not contemplated by statute.

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION — Recruitment Rules — Strict adherence

Para 6, 8, 19
Recruitment must strictly conform to governing rules — Courts cannot expand scope of rules to create additional rights — Absence of provision is decisive.

VALIDATION ACT — Finality of selection process

Para 18
Legislative validation of selection — Indicates intent to give finality to recruitment — Reopening process contrary to statutory scheme impermissible.

RESULT

Para 20–22
Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Tribunal order restored — Respondent not entitled to appointment.

INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016 — Section 14 — Moratorium — Scope — Adjustment of dues Para 3, 4, 20, 25 Moratorium under Section 14 — Effect — Adjustment/appropriation of amounts after insolvency commencement date — Impermissible insofar as pre-CIRP dues — Any recovery or adjustment of pre-CIRP dues after commencement violates moratorium — Only post-CIRP dues permissible for adjustment.

advocatemmmohan

INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016 — Section 14 — Moratorium — Scope — Adjustment of dues

Para 3, 4, 20, 25
Moratorium under Section 14 — Effect — Adjustment/appropriation of amounts after insolvency commencement date — Impermissible insofar as pre-CIRP dues — Any recovery or adjustment of pre-CIRP dues after commencement violates moratorium — Only post-CIRP dues permissible for adjustment.

SET-OFF — Applicability under IBC — CIRP stage

Para 15, 16, 17, 24
Set-off — Not generally permissible during CIRP — Insolvency set-off not recognised under IBC — Only limited contractual set-off permissible prior to commencement of CIRP — Post-CIRP adjustment of pre-CIRP dues barred — Set-off contrary to pari passu principle.

SECURITY DEPOSIT — Nature — Whether security interest

Para 4, 22
Security deposit made in lieu of Letter of Credit — Remains property of Corporate Debtor till valid appropriation — Not equivalent to bank guarantee or independent security contract — Cannot be treated as secured interest permitting enforcement during moratorium.

OPERATIONAL CREDITOR — Rights during CIRP

Para 3, 22, 24
Operational creditor — Entitled to submit claim before Resolution Professional — Cannot unilaterally recover dues outside CIRP framework — Recovery must follow statutory mechanism under IBC.

MORATORIUM — Effect on contractual rights

Para 20, 22
Even contractual rights (including security enforcement) stand restricted post commencement of CIRP — Moratorium overrides contractual stipulations — No enforcement or appropriation of pre-CIRP dues permissible.

IBC — Scheme — Priority and pari passu principle

Para 24
IBC envisages collective resolution and equitable distribution — Allowing set-off or unilateral adjustment would defeat pari passu principle and statutory scheme.

RESOLUTION PLAN — Finality — Binding nature

Para 23, 24
Resolution plan approved and implemented — Claims stand crystallised — Assets (including deposits) form part of insolvency estate — Cannot be altered subsequently by unilateral action of creditor.

RESULT

Para 26
Appeals dismissed — Orders of NCLT and NCLAT affirmed — Adjustment of pre-CIRP dues held illegal — Direction for re-adjustment in accordance with IBC upheld.

Though dismissal for default does not operate as res judicata, a party who abandons earlier proceedings cannot re-agitate the same issues in subsequent or execution proceedings, as such conduct constitutes abuse of process and disentitles equitable relief.

advocatemmmohan

Res Judicata — Dismissal for default — Not applicable
(Para 29, 30)
Dismissal of a suit for default does not amount to a matter “heard and finally decided” under Section 11 CPC and therefore does not operate as res judicata.

Abandonment of proceedings — Bar on re-agitation — Public policy principle
(Para 33, 34, 45, 49)
Even where res judicata is not strictly applicable, a party who had the opportunity to pursue a claim but abandoned it cannot subsequently re-agitate the same issue. This principle is grounded in public policy and the maxim nemo debet bis vexari.

Abuse of process of court — Re-litigation impermissible
(Para 45, 47)
Re-agitating issues which were earlier raised or could have been pursued amounts to abuse of process, even if strict res judicata does not apply. Courts are empowered to prevent such misuse.

Conduct of party — Equitable relief — Disentitlement
(Para 32, 40, 48)
Relief such as specific performance being equitable in nature, the conduct of the party is crucial. A party who acts negligently, suppresses facts, or adopts inconsistent stands is disentitled to equitable relief.

Order IX Rule 9 CPC — Effect of dismissal for default
(Para 39)
Where a suit is dismissed for default, the plaintiff is barred from instituting a fresh suit on the same cause of action, and the only remedy is restoration of the original suit.

Execution proceedings — Cannot reopen abandoned issues
(Para 45, 50, 52)
A party cannot bypass earlier abandonment of substantive claims and seek to indirectly achieve the same result through execution proceedings.

Finality of litigation — Judicial policy
(Para 46, 49)
Courts must uphold finality of litigation and prevent repeated or vexatious proceedings, in line with public policy and judicial efficiency.

Core Ratio (One-Line Proposition)

Though dismissal for default does not operate as res judicata, a party who abandons earlier proceedings cannot re-agitate the same issues in subsequent or execution proceedings, as such conduct constitutes abuse of process and disentitles equitable relief.

Quashing of FIR — Vague and omnibus allegations — Impermissibility of prosecution (Para 21, 22, 26, 27) Criminal proceedings against relatives of the husband cannot be sustained on the basis of vague, omnibus and unsubstantiated allegations. Mere general assertions without specific details or supporting material do not constitute a prima facie offence.

advocatemmmohan

Quashing of FIR — Vague and omnibus allegations — Impermissibility of prosecution
(Para 21, 22, 26, 27)
Criminal proceedings against relatives of the husband cannot be sustained on the basis of vague, omnibus and unsubstantiated allegations. Mere general assertions without specific details or supporting material do not constitute a prima facie offence.

Delay in lodging FIR — Effect on prosecution
(Para 21, 24)
Unexplained and inordinate delay (here, more than six years) in lodging FIR casts serious doubt on the veracity of allegations, particularly in matrimonial disputes, and may render prosecution unsustainable.

Requirement of specific material evidence — Essential for criminal prosecution
(Para 21, 23, 25, 26)
Allegations must be supported by cogent material evidence. Bald statements without medical, documentary, or corroborative evidence are insufficient to proceed with criminal prosecution.

Misuse of Section 498A IPC — Judicial caution
(Para 22)
Courts must guard against misuse of Section 498A IPC, especially where entire family members are implicated without specific allegations. Generalised accusations should be scrutinized to prevent abuse of criminal process.

Ingredients of offence must be satisfied — Otherwise quashing justified
(Para 20, 27, 28)
If allegations, even when taken at face value, do not satisfy essential ingredients of offences alleged, continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process and is liable to be quashed.

Application of Bhajan Lal principles — Quashing justified
(Para 27, 28)
Where allegations are inherently improbable, unsupported, mala fide, or do not disclose any offence, the case falls within the categories laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, justifying exercise of inherent powers to quash proceedings.

Role of accused relatives — Separate consideration
(Para 21, 28)
Liability of in-laws and relatives must be assessed independently; absence of specific role or involvement disentitles prosecution against them.

Core Ratio (One-Line Proposition)

Criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes against in-laws cannot be sustained on vague, delayed, and unsubstantiated allegations lacking specific material evidence, and are liable to be quashed under Bhajan Lal principles to prevent abuse of process.

Cancellation of Bail — Violation of specific conditions — Governing principle (Para 40, 17, 18) Bail granted subject to specific conditions can be cancelled where such conditions are not complied with in letter and spirit. Post-bail conduct of the accused, including failure to adhere to imposed obligations, is a valid ground for cancellation of bail.

advocatemmmohan

Cancellation of Bail — Violation of specific conditions — Governing principle
(Para 40, 17, 18)
Bail granted subject to specific conditions can be cancelled where such conditions are not complied with in letter and spirit. Post-bail conduct of the accused, including failure to adhere to imposed obligations, is a valid ground for cancellation of bail.

Conditional Bail — Settlement obligation — Non-compliance as ground for cancellation
(Para 3, 14, 16, 17)
Where bail is granted on the express condition that the accused shall make genuine efforts to settle claims of victims/allottees, failure to make bona fide efforts or deliberate non-compliance constitutes a breach warranting cancellation of bail.

Bonafide compliance — Requirement — Mere assertion insufficient
(Para 13, 14, 16)
The accused must demonstrate genuine, effective, and complete compliance with settlement conditions. Mere claims of partial settlements or efforts, without actual resolution of claims, are insufficient to satisfy bail conditions.

Abuse of liberty of bail — Conduct of accused
(Para 15, 16)
Where the accused, after grant of bail, engages in conduct such as deflecting responsibility, delaying settlement, or failing to cooperate with authorities, such conduct amounts to abuse of the liberty granted by the Court.

Deposit condition — Compliance must be lawful and bonafide
(Para 46–52)
Where deposit of money is a pre-condition for grant of bail, such deposit must be made in compliance with law and bonafide manner. Use of company funds in violation of statutory provisions to secure personal bail amounts to breach of the condition.

Cognizance of surrounding circumstances — Wider factual matrix relevant
(Para 29)
While considering cancellation of bail, the Court can examine the broader factual context, including insolvency proceedings, financial conduct, and role of statutory authorities (such as IRP), where such facts are intrinsically linked to the alleged breach.

Protection of victims/allottees — Paramount consideration
(Para 20, 21)
In cases involving large number of victims (such as homebuyers/allottees), the Court must prioritize their interests and ensure effective resolution of their claims while considering continuation or cancellation of bail.

Forfeiture of deposit — Consequence of breach
(Para 18)
Upon breach of bail conditions, the Court is empowered to order forfeiture (wholly or partially) of amounts deposited as a condition for grant of bail.

Core Ratio (One-Line Proposition)

Where bail is granted subject to conditions requiring bona fide settlement and lawful compliance, failure to fulfill such conditions—coupled with improper conduct and misuse of funds—constitutes abuse of bail and justifies its cancellation along with consequential forfeiture.

In disciplinary proceedings, where charges are denied, failure to conduct an oral enquiry by examining witnesses and affording opportunity of cross-examination vitiates the enquiry and renders the punishment unsustainable in law.

advocatemmmohan

Departmental Enquiry — Mandatory requirement of oral enquiry where charges are denied
(Para 14, 17, 18)
Where charges in a disciplinary proceeding are denied, it is mandatory for the employer to conduct a proper enquiry by leading evidence. Failure to examine witnesses and to hold oral enquiry renders the entire disciplinary proceeding vitiated.

Burden of proof in disciplinary proceedings
(Para 14, 17)
In a departmental enquiry, unless the delinquent employee admits the charges in clear terms, the burden lies on the employer/department to prove the charges by adducing evidence. An evasive or general denial cannot be treated as admission of guilt.

Right to cross-examination and defence — Principles of natural justice
(Para 15, 17)
The delinquent employee must be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and to produce evidence in defence. Even where reliance is placed on documents, such documents must be proved through witnesses unless expressly admitted.

No enquiry worth the name — Effect
(Para 16, 18)
An enquiry conducted without examining witnesses and without affording opportunity of cross-examination is no enquiry in the eye of law and violates principles of natural justice as well as statutory service rules.

Consequential punishment — Unsustainable
(Para 18)
Where the enquiry is vitiated, the order of punishment (dismissal and recovery) cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

Relief — De novo enquiry permissible
(Para 18)
Upon setting aside the punishment on account of defective enquiry, the employer is at liberty to conduct a de novo enquiry in accordance with law within a stipulated time. Failure to do so entitles the employee to reinstatement with consequential benefits.

Core Ratio (One-Line Proposition)

In disciplinary proceedings, where charges are denied, failure to conduct an oral enquiry by examining witnesses and affording opportunity of cross-examination vitiates the enquiry and renders the punishment unsustainable in law.

Protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is determined at the stage of cognizance and applies only to those public servants who are removable only with Government sanction; such protection cannot be extended retrospectively nor claimed by co-accused unless independently satisfied.

advocatemmmohan

Section 197 Cr.P.C. — Requirement of sanction — Determinative test
(Para 7, 9, 10)
Protection under Section 197(1) Cr.P.C. is available only to such public servants who are not removable from office save by or with the sanction of the Government. Subordinate rank police officers, who can be removed by authorities other than the Government, do not fall within this protected category; hence, no prior sanction is required for their prosecution.

Benefit of co-accused judgment — Not automatic
(Para 7, 10)
Where proceedings against a co-accused are quashed for want of sanction, such benefit does not automatically extend to other accused unless they independently satisfy the statutory requirement of Section 197 Cr.P.C. The applicability depends on the status and service conditions of each accused.

Stage of applicability of Section 197 — Cognizance stage decisive
(Para 14, 15)
The bar under Section 197 Cr.P.C. operates at the stage of taking cognizance. If, on the date of cognizance, no sanction is required, subsequent events (such as later notifications extending protection) do not invalidate the proceedings. A valid cognizance cannot be nullified retrospectively.

Effect of subsequent Government notification under Section 197(3)
(Para 11–14)
Notifications issued under Section 197(3) Cr.P.C. extending protection to additional categories (e.g., subordinate police officers) operate prospectively and do not affect proceedings where cognizance was already validly taken prior to such notification.

Post-cognizance sanction — Ineffective
(Para 14)
A sanction obtained after cognizance does not cure the defect where sanction was required at the initial stage; conversely, where no sanction was required at cognizance, later requirement or protection is irrelevant.

Core Ratio (One-Line Proposition)

Protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is determined at the stage of cognizance and applies only to those public servants who are removable only with Government sanction; such protection cannot be extended retrospectively nor claimed by co-accused unless independently satisfied.

Application of Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC to Section 11 proceedings (Para 15, 19) The principles underlying Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC apply to proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. Where a party withdraws or abandons earlier proceedings without liberty, a fresh proceeding on the same cause of action is barred. This bar is founded on public policy to prevent multiplicity and abuse of process.

advocatemmmohan

Section 11 Arbitration Act — Limited scope — Res judicata not to be examined
(Para 15)
The jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is confined to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement. Issues such as res judicata are not to be adjudicated at this stage and are to be left to the arbitral tribunal.

Application of Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC to Section 11 proceedings
(Para 15, 19)
The principles underlying Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC apply to proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. Where a party withdraws or abandons earlier proceedings without liberty, a fresh proceeding on the same cause of action is barred. This bar is founded on public policy to prevent multiplicity and abuse of process.

Abandonment of arbitration proceedings — Test
(Para 16, 17)
Abandonment of proceedings is not to be lightly inferred; however, where conduct of a party clearly indicates unwillingness to pursue the claim (such as refusal to participate and communication declining authority of arbitrator), abandonment can be conclusively established.

Fresh Section 11 application — Maintainability — Same cause of action
(Para 17, 19)
Where a party had earlier invoked arbitration, participated initially, and thereafter abandoned proceedings, a subsequent application under Section 11 based on the same agreements and disputes is not maintainable, in the absence of liberty to re-initiate proceedings.

Fresh cause of action — Determination
(Para 18, 19)
A subsequent judicial decision in separate proceedings (relating to different subject matter) does not give rise to a fresh cause of action for arbitration between parties when the underlying disputes already existed and had been earlier invoked.

Abuse of process — Re-initiation of proceedings
(Para 19)
Filing a fresh application under Section 11 on the same cause of action after abandonment of earlier arbitration proceedings constitutes abuse of process of Court and is impermissible in law.

Core Ratio (One-Line Proposition)

A party who abandons earlier arbitration proceedings without liberty cannot invoke Section 11 of the Arbitration Act afresh on the same cause of action, as such re-initiation is barred by the principles of Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC and constitutes abuse of process.

Scope of Order IX Rule 13 CPC — Independent and wider remedy (Para 7, 9) The Supreme Court held that proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC are distinct from an appeal under Section 96 CPC. Even where an appeal against the original order has been dismissed, an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is maintainable if the applicant establishes non-service of summons or sufficient cause for non-appearance. The jurisdiction under Order IX Rule 13 is wider in enabling the Court to set aside an ex parte decree upon such satisfaction.

advocatemmmohan

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — Order IX Rule 13 — Scope and applicability — Distinction from appeal under Section 96 CPC

Para 7, 8, 9

Order IX Rule 13 CPC provides an independent and wider remedy enabling a party to seek setting aside of an ex parte decree upon establishing (i) non-service of summons or (ii) sufficient cause preventing appearance — Held, remedy under Order IX Rule 13 is distinct from appellate remedy under Section 96 CPC — Even after dismissal of appeal, application under Order IX Rule 13 is maintainable if sufficient cause is shown — Courts below erred in rejecting application solely on ground of prior participation in appeal.

SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE — Sections 372 & 383, Indian Succession Act, 1925 — Suppression/misstatement of material facts — Effect

Para 8

Where application for succession certificate contains material discrepancies or suppression of relevant facts, such certificate is liable to be revoked under Section 383 — Misdescription of parties and incorrect particulars affecting identity of legal heirs vitiate proceedings — Held, factual matrix justified invocation of Section 383.

MINOR — Non-impleadment — Legal incapacity — Effect on proceedings

Para 8, 9

Non-impleadment of minor legal heir in succession proceedings — Minor incapable of responding to public notice or asserting rights independently — Failure to appoint lawful guardian despite knowledge of minor’s existence — Held, proceedings suffer from serious legal infirmity — Minor entitled to challenge proceedings upon attaining majority.

EX PARTE DECREE — Setting aside — “Sufficient cause” — Consideration

Para 7, 8

Primary considerations under Order IX Rule 13 are due service of summons and existence of sufficient cause for non-appearance — Where party is minor and not properly represented, absence constitutes sufficient cause — Public notice not clearly indicating nature of proceedings further vitiates service.

PARTIES — Necessary party — Determination

Para 6, 9

High Court erred in holding that appellant was not a necessary party — Legal heir having potential claim in estate is a necessary party — Non-impleadment results in denial of opportunity and prejudice — Such finding held unsustainable.

JUDGMENT — Interference — When warranted

Para 9, 10

Concurrent findings of courts below liable to be interfered with where conclusions suffer from perversity and legal infirmity — Failure to appreciate rights of minor and statutory scheme under Succession Act and CPC — Impugned orders set aside.

RESULT

Para 10, 11

Appeal allowed — Impugned orders set aside — Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC allowed — Ex parte succession certificate quashed — Matter restored to trial court for fresh adjudication — Direction for expeditious disposal within one year.

Friday, March 20, 2026

One World, But No Cry 🎵 By Muralimohan M.

advocatemmmohan

One World, But No Cry 🎵
By Muralimohan M.

Verse 1
In this world, like a small village,
Every voice can find its way,
Only whispers, no more cries,
Only dreams will never die.

From desert fumes to my next door,
We indulge ourselves in mighty wars,
Not just theirs and not just ours,
Pain runs deeply through our veins.

🎵 Chorus 🎵
One world dream is rising strong,
“One for all” will carry on,
From the ashes we restore—
A world worth living for.

Verse 2
Voices rise, and hearts can hear,
Truth is stronger than our fear,
Far away, no mother cries,
Hope is shining in her eyes.

Stories guide us from the past,
Teaching peace that’s meant to last,
Different paths but one same aim,
We can rise above the pain.

🎵 Bridge (Call for Peace) 🎵
Don’t be mad—be leaders wise,
Rule with peace, our civil prize,
Bury egos, end the wars,
Open hearts and healing doors.

Groom the world with love and grace,
Let peace shine in every place,
Guide us forward, strong and true,
A better world begins with you.

🎵 Final Chorus 🎵
One world dream is rising strong,
“One for all” will carry on,
From the ashes we restore—
A world worth living for.

🎵 Outro 🎵
If we listen, we will hear,
Peace is stronger than our fear…

Thursday, March 12, 2026

Petroleum Retail Dealership – Draw of lots selection – Provisional selection – Requirement to submit security deposit and supporting documents – Rectifiable deficiencies pointed out – Candidate failing to rectify within stipulated time – Consequence of rejection or movement to Group-3 applicants justified. (Paras 7–10, 13)

advocatemmmohan

Administrative Law – Retail Outlet Dealership – Selection Guidelines – Rectifiable deficiencies in documents – Failure to rectify within stipulated period – Effect – Held, as per Guidelines governing selection of dealers for Retail Outlets, failure to submit rectified documents within 21 days results in rejection of candidature or movement to Group-3 category – Action of respondent corporation valid.

(Paras 11–13)

Writ Jurisdiction – Article 226 – Interference with administrative action – Selection process governed by specific guidelines – Where action of authorities is strictly in accordance with the governing guidelines and no statutory or legal right is violated, writ petition not maintainable.

(Paras 13, 17)

Petroleum Retail Dealership – Draw of lots selection – Provisional selection – Requirement to submit security deposit and supporting documents – Rectifiable deficiencies pointed out – Candidate failing to rectify within stipulated time – Consequence of rejection or movement to Group-3 applicants justified.

(Paras 7–10, 13)

Selection Guidelines – Binding nature – Guidelines governing selection of dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets through Draw of Lots/Bidding Process – Binding on all Oil Marketing Companies – Authorities have no discretion to relax or extend prescribed time for rectification of deficiencies.

(Paras 11–13)

Procedural fairness – Communication through registered e-mail – Candidate having previously responded to communications sent to registered e-mail – Intimation regarding deficiencies sent to same e-mail cannot be faulted.

(Para 14)

Ground of illness – Failure to rectify deficiencies – Plea of illness unsupported by satisfactory medical evidence – Not sufficient to invalidate administrative action taken in accordance with prescribed guidelines.

(Para 14)

Retail Outlet Dealership – SC-PH category candidate – Failure to rectify land-related and category-specific documents – Corporation justified in placing candidature under Group-3 category as per guidelines.

(Paras 15–16)

Result:

Writ Petition dismissed; action of respondent authorities upheld.
(Paras 17–18)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dismissal of complaint for want of prosecution – Resultant discharge of accused – Remedy available to complainant/victim – Appeal maintainable before Sessions Court under proviso to Section 372 CrPC.

advocatemmmohan

Criminal Procedure – Appeal against acquittal in cheque dishonour case – Complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act dismissed for want of prosecution – Complainant filing appeal before High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC – Maintainability – Held, where complainant is also a “victim”, appeal lies before Sessions Court under proviso to Section 372 CrPC – Appeal before High Court not maintainable.

(Paras 3–5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dismissal of complaint for want of prosecution – Resultant discharge of accused – Remedy available to complainant/victim – Appeal maintainable before Sessions Court under proviso to Section 372 CrPC.

(Paras 2–5)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 372 Proviso – Right of victim to file appeal – Applicability to cheque dishonour cases – Complainant treated as “victim” – Appeal lies before Sessions Court.

(Paras 4–5)

Precedent – Supreme Court decision – M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 666) – Principle reiterated – Complainant who is also a victim in cheque dishonour case may prefer appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC.

(Para 4)

Procedure – Appeal filed in wrong forum – High Court directing return of original bundle – Liberty granted to represent appeal before competent Sessions Court within specified time – Sessions Court directed to consider appeal and delay condonation petition in accordance with law.

(Para 6)

Result:

Appeal returned to appellant for presentation before the concerned Sessions Court within four weeks.
(Para 7)

Criminal Law – Meaning of “honourable acquittal” – Concept explained – Expression not found in CrPC or IPC – Judicially evolved term – Distinguished from acquittal based on benefit of doubt – Honourable acquittal occurs where court conclusively finds accused did not commit offence – Acquittal due to lack of evidence or benefit of doubt cannot be treated as honourable acquittal. (Paras 5.2–5.2.3)

advocatemmmohan

Service Law – Recruitment to police force – Character verification – Candidate involved in criminal case for serious offences including kidnapping and rape – Acquittal on benefit of doubt – Screening Committee rejecting candidature – Validity – Held, screening committee competent to assess antecedents and suitability – Candidate acquitted only on benefit of doubt cannot claim appointment as of right – High Court Division Bench erred in directing reconsideration treating acquittal as honourable acquittal – Order set aside.

(Paras 3, 5–5.3, 7–9, 9.1–9.2)

Criminal Law – Meaning of “honourable acquittal” – Concept explained – Expression not found in CrPC or IPC – Judicially evolved term – Distinguished from acquittal based on benefit of doubt – Honourable acquittal occurs where court conclusively finds accused did not commit offence – Acquittal due to lack of evidence or benefit of doubt cannot be treated as honourable acquittal.

(Paras 5.2–5.2.3)

Police service – Nature of disciplined force – Requirement of impeccable character and integrity – Persons with criminal antecedents or involvement in offences involving moral turpitude may be excluded from recruitment even if acquitted.

(Paras 2, 5.3.3, 5.5.3, 7, 7.1)

Service Law – Recruitment – Effect of acquittal in criminal case – Acquittal not conclusive proof of suitability for appointment – Employer entitled to consider nature of allegations, antecedents and circumstances of acquittal while deciding suitability of candidate.

(Paras 5.5.2(a)–(c), 5.6, 7)

Service Law – Role of Screening Committee – Power to assess antecedents and suitability of candidates – Wide discretion vested in employer – Courts should not substitute their own assessment unless decision is arbitrary, mala fide or perverse.

(Paras 7.1–7.3, 8, 9)

Judicial Review – Limited scope in matters of recruitment suitability – Courts cannot override employer’s assessment regarding antecedents and character unless decision suffers from arbitrariness, mala fides or irrationality.

(Paras 9–9.1)

High Court – Writ Appeal – Interference with employer’s decision regarding suitability of candidate for police service – Impermissible when Screening Committee exercised discretion based on relevant considerations.

(Paras 9.2–10)

Result:

Judgment of Division Bench of High Court dated 20.07.2023 set aside – order of Screening Committee rejecting candidature restored – appeal allowed.
(Paras 10–11)

Persons with Disabilities – Recruitment to Government service – Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2018 – Post of Auditor – Candidate suffering from “mental illness” (55% disability) recommended by SSC – Dossier returned by CAG on ground that post not suitable for such disability – Legality – Subsequent Government Notification dated 04.01.2021 identifying posts suitable for benchmark disabilities – Effect – Held, in view of said notification and affidavit of CAG expressing willingness to accommodate candidates in suitable Group ‘C’ posts, there remained no impediment to consider them for appointment – SSC directed to forward dossiers – Appointment to be made accordingly.

advocatemmmohan

Persons with Disabilities – Recruitment to Government service – Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2018 – Post of Auditor – Candidate suffering from “mental illness” (55% disability) recommended by SSC – Dossier returned by CAG on ground that post not suitable for such disability – Legality – Subsequent Government Notification dated 04.01.2021 identifying posts suitable for benchmark disabilities – Effect – Held, in view of said notification and affidavit of CAG expressing willingness to accommodate candidates in suitable Group ‘C’ posts, there remained no impediment to consider them for appointment – SSC directed to forward dossiers – Appointment to be made accordingly.

(Paras 5–9, 11, 17–21)

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Identification of posts suitable for benchmark disabilities – Government notification dated 04.01.2021 – Inclusion of new disability categories such as autism, specific learning disability and mental illness – Supersession of earlier list of 2013 – Effect on recruitment process.

(Paras 11, 17)

Service Law – Recruitment process – Candidate recommended by Staff Selection Commission – Rejection of candidature by cadre controlling authority – Challenge before Central Administrative Tribunal – Tribunal directing constitution of Medical Board and possible appointment – High Court setting aside Tribunal order – Matter before Supreme Court – Resolution through administrative accommodation following policy change.

(Paras 10–13, 15–21)

Persons with Disabilities – Reservation in public employment – Candidate with benchmark disability and another similarly situated candidate – Court ensuring accommodation in suitable posts – Direction to authorities to forward dossiers and consider appointment – If notified posts already filled, supernumerary posts to be created to accommodate candidates.

(Paras 19–21)

Administrative law – Subsequent policy development during pendency of litigation – Government authority expressing readiness to implement revised policy – Court disposing appeal by issuing directions for implementation rather than adjudicating earlier dispute.

(Paras 18–21)

Directions issued – SSC to forward dossiers of appellant and respondent candidate within two weeks – CAG to consider appointment to identified Group ‘C’ posts suitable for their disabilities – If original vacancies filled, supernumerary posts to be created – Appointment to take effect from date of joining.

(Para 21)

Result: Civil Appeal disposed of with directions. (Para 22)

Wednesday, March 11, 2026

Electronic Evidence — Call Detail Records — Mandatory Certificate — Section 65-B Evidence Act / Section 63 BSA Electronic evidence in the form of call detail records is inadmissible unless accompanied by the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act. (Paras 49-52)

advocatemmmohan

Criminal Law — Circumstantial Evidence — Requirement of Complete Chain of Circumstances — Failure of Prosecution Case — Acquittal

Penal Code / Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — Sections 302/34 IPC [103(1)/3(5) BNS] — Section 201 IPC [Section 238 BNS] — Murder — Conviction based on circumstantial evidence — Sustainability.

Held, where prosecution case rests solely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon must be fully established, conclusive in nature, and must form a complete chain excluding every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused — Failure to prove any link in the chain is fatal to prosecution. The governing principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reiterated. (Paras 27, 53)

Where the alleged circumstances relied upon by prosecution, namely recovery of currency notes, recovery of blood-stained shirt, and call detail records, were found unreliable and inadmissible, conviction cannot be sustained. (Paras 26, 53-55)

Conviction and sentence set aside — Accused acquitted. (Paras 55-56)

Recovery Evidence — Section 27 Evidence Act — Currency Notes — Doubtful Recovery — No Nexus with Crime

Recovery of currency notes allegedly received by accused for committing murder held not reliable where discrepancy existed regarding the exact amount recovered (₹46,000 in seizure memo but ₹46,145 counted in court). (Paras 29-32)

Further held, mere recovery of currency notes without proof of nexus with the crime cannot constitute an incriminating circumstance in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence. (Para 33)

Such recovery wrongly treated as incriminating by trial court. (Para 33)

Recovery of Blood-Stained Article — FSL Report — Chain of Custody — Failure of Link Evidence

Recovery of a blood-stained shirt allegedly worn by accused at the time of the incident held highly doubtful where the circumstances of concealment appeared improbable and unnatural. (Paras 34-35)

Forensic evidence becomes admissible only when prosecution establishes complete chain of custody of seized articles from the time of seizure till examination at FSL. (Para 36)

Where material discrepancies existed in malkhana records and testimony of witnesses regarding date of dispatch and handling of samples, chain of custody stood broken, rendering FSL report unreliable. (Paras 37-42)

Held, breach in chain of custody renders FSL report a worthless piece of evidence. (Para 44)

Even otherwise, mere matching of blood group on recovered article with that of deceased is insufficient to establish guilt in absence of other corroborative circumstances. (Paras 45-46)

Electronic Evidence — Call Detail Records — Mandatory Certificate — Section 65-B Evidence Act / Section 63 BSA

Electronic evidence in the form of call detail records is inadmissible unless accompanied by the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act. (Paras 49-52)

Requirement of such certificate is mandatory and a condition precedent for admissibility, as reiterated in:

Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal. (Paras 50-51)

In absence of the mandatory certificate, call detail records cannot be relied upon even if service provider employees were examined. (Para 52)

Circumstantial Evidence — Failure to Establish Unbroken Chain — Benefit of Doubt

Where all three alleged circumstances (recovery of money, recovery of shirt, and CDRs) were either unreliable or inadmissible, prosecution failed to establish a complete and coherent chain of circumstances pointing towards guilt. (Paras 53-54)

Consequently, conviction recorded by trial court and affirmed by High Court cannot stand. (Paras 54-55)

Result

Appeal allowed — Conviction and sentence set aside — Appellant acquitted and directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. (Paras 55-56)

Family arrangement / Panchayat partition – Plea of – Burden of proof A party pleading prior partition or family arrangement must prove the same by reliable evidence. Mere assertion that a Panchayat was held and a muchalika was executed is insufficient unless the document itself or other convincing evidence of such arrangement is produced. (Paras 6–7) Family arrangement – Non-production of document – Adverse inference Where the defendant relies on a written family arrangement (muchalika) but fails to produce the document before the Court, and no documentary proof of payment or settlement is produced, the Court is justified in rejecting the plea of earlier partition. (Paras 6–7) Evidence – Oral testimony without documentary support Oral testimony of witnesses regarding payment of money or execution of family arrangement cannot be accepted in the absence of supporting documentary evidence when such documents are expected to exist. (Para 7)

advocatemmmohan

Partition – Daughter claiming share in father’s property – Absence of will

Where properties were purchased by the father and no testamentary disposition was executed by him, on his death the children succeed equally and each heir becomes entitled to an equal share in the property. (Para 6)

Family arrangement / Panchayat partition – Plea of – Burden of proof

A party pleading prior partition or family arrangement must prove the same by reliable evidence. Mere assertion that a Panchayat was held and a muchalika was executed is insufficient unless the document itself or other convincing evidence of such arrangement is produced. (Paras 6–7)

Family arrangement – Non-production of document – Adverse inference

Where the defendant relies on a written family arrangement (muchalika) but fails to produce the document before the Court, and no documentary proof of payment or settlement is produced, the Court is justified in rejecting the plea of earlier partition. (Paras 6–7)

Evidence – Oral testimony without documentary support

Oral testimony of witnesses regarding payment of money or execution of family arrangement cannot be accepted in the absence of supporting documentary evidence when such documents are expected to exist. (Para 7)

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Interference with findings of fact

Under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100, the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless a substantial question of law arises. When the First Appellate Court properly appreciated evidence and concluded that the alleged family arrangement was not proved, no substantial question of law arises. (Para 7)

Result

Second Appeal dismissed; judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court granting 1/3rd share to the plaintiff confirmed. (Para 8)