Search Judgments

(Probate of Will)

This case concerns an appeal against the grant of probate for the Will of G.Sarojini, dated 09.02.1996. The executor, Rama Mohana Rao, sought probate, which was challenged by G.Premkumar, one of the testatrix's sons. The Will bequeathed property to the second son, G.Jawahar, citing his care for the testatrix while other sons were abroad.

The appellant alleged "suspicious circumstances" including non-self-acquired property, minor factual errors (age, sons' earnings), lack of signature on the first page, and improper attestation, arguing undue influence by the second son.

(Partition Suit and Validity of Wills)

The Indian Evidence Act, Section 68; The Indian Succession Act, Section 63; The Code of Civil Procedure, Order 41 Rule 31 - The second appeal arose from a partition suit where the plaintiff sought a 4/5th share based on Kamalathammal's Will (Ex.A2), while defendants 2, 4, and 9 claimed absolute ownership via Kamalathammal's Will (Ex.B1) in favor of the 2nd defendant. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding Ex.A2 unproven and Ex.B1 proven. The First Appellate Court, while concurring on Ex.A2, controversially held Ex.B1 unproven and surrounded by unpleaded suspicious circumstances, then apportioned shares by inheritance law.

The High Court in the second appeal examined if the First Appellate Court correctly disregarded Ex.B1, especially when 'suspicious circumstances' were not pleaded or evidenced. It noted the First Appellate Court's finding contradicted the rule of pleadings, as no factual basis for suspicion was laid or brought out during cross-examination.

(Hindu Succession and Will Validity)

Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63(c) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended by Act 39 of 2005) - Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17 - This case involved an appeal against a trial court's preliminary decree for partition, granting the plaintiff (daughter) a one-half share in the ancestral property and a permanent injunction. The plaintiff and the first defendant (her brother) were children of Subbiah Gounder from his first wife. Subbiah Gounder later married Thangammal, who had no children. Subbiah Gounder died before 1956 (disputed year 1945/1946).

(Eviction from Government Leasehold Land)

The Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975, specifically Sections 2(d), 2(e), 2(g), and 4 - The petitioners occupied land granted by the Government to Gopal Naicker and sons in 1888 as a lease for an indefinite period. They asserted ownership based on partition deeds and prior compensation for an acquired portion, arguing the land was not "public premises" and the Act should not apply retrospectively to a disputed title, which they claimed violated Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

The State contended that the land fell squarely within the definitions of "premises" and "public premises" under the Act and that the petitioners' occupation became "unauthorised" after the lease was terminated due to public purpose requirements and lease condition violations. The State argued that the petitioners were estopped (Section 115, Indian Evidence Act, 1872) from denying government title, having previously admitted their status as lessees and having been bound by a Division Bench order in pending Writ Appeals which explicitly permitted proceedings under the PP Act.

(Community Certificate Validity and Judicial Finality)

The case concerns the cancellation of a Hindu Kattunayakan (Scheduled Tribe) community certificate, primarily involving the administrative powers of the State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) under Government of Tamil Nadu G.O.s (1989 regarding RDO competency and 2012 for Vigilance Cell) versus the finality of judicial pronouncements. The petitioner's father held a valid community certificate, which remained unchallenged until his demise. The petitioner, after facing issues with a revised format, obtained a civil court decree in 1994 directing the RDO to issue the certificate. This decree was upheld through appellate stages, including dismissal of the State's Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court in 2004, attaining finality.

Appointment and Retrospective Notional Benefits for Wrongful Exclusion

This case revolves around principles of fair selection, administrative justice, and the consequences of governmental inaction. The petitioner, D. Kumar, challenged an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that denied him retrospective service benefits despite the Tribunal having earlier directed his appointment to the post of Senior Scientific Officer Gr.II (Explosives).

The petitioner applied for the said post advertised in 2013 by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).

(Rejection of Plaint - Benami Transaction & Limitation)

This judgment addresses two Second Appeals arising from the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The core legal issues revolved around the applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (pre-2016 amendment) and the Limitation Act, 1963, specifically Article 58.

The plaintiffs (respondents) sued for a declaration of title, a declaration that a 1974 sale deed in favour of the first defendant (appellant, their brother's wife) was sham and nominal, and a permanent injunction. They asserted that the property's consideration was paid by them, but the deed was executed in the first defendant's name for the family's benefit, on their elder brother's advice.

The first defendant sought plaint rejection, alleging no cause of action, a limitation bar, and the suit being barred by the Benami Act.

The Constitution of India Article 22(1) ; The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) Section 50; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483 – The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – specifically Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 25, 27A, 28, 29(1) – Petitioners sought bail primarily contending the non-furnishing of “grounds of arrest,” a safeguard under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) [equivalent to Section 47 of BNSS 2023]. They relied on judgments such as Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India ((2024) 7 SCC 576).

The Court noted the plea was raised significantly late, often in subsequent bail applications, and previous applications hadn’t raised this issue.

(Prevention of Money Laundering Act – Restoration of Attached Property)

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA): Sections 4, 8(5), 8(7), 8(8) and its Second Proviso - The Prevention of Money Laundering (Restoration of Confiscated Property) Rules, 2016: Rules 2(b), 3A (as amended in 2019) - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC); Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) Act - This criminal revision petition challenged a Special Court’s order that allowed a bank (second respondent) to restore and sell properties attached under the PMLA. The petitioner’s properties were provisionally attached by the Directorate of Enforcement (first respondent) under the PMLA. The second respondent, a bank, had secured a recovery certificate from the DRT against the petitioner (as guarantor) and a third party (borrower).

The petitioner argued that the Special Court’s order was premature and legally flawed.

Constitution of India – Article 311(2) proviso (b) and (3); Delhi Police Act, 1978 – Sections 21, 22; Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 – This appeal challenged the Delhi High Court’s affirmation of a police constable’s dismissal without a departmental inquiry. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) invoked Article 311(2) proviso (b) of the Constitution of India, citing a preliminary inquiry report which stated it was “not reasonably practicable” to hold an inquiry due to a perceived threat of intimidation, inducement to victims and witnesses, and potential tampering with evidence. This dismissal was upheld by the Appellate Authority, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), and the High Court.

The Supreme Court, referring to Union of India v.