Search Judgments

(Revocation of Probate for Will Obtained by Concealment and Non-Citation of Interested Parties)

The Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Sections 263, 276, 283, 294), Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 68), and Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Section 3) - The appellants challenged a High Court order that restored a probate of an unregistered Will dated 09.01.1976, which the District Court had initially revoked. The Will was propounded by Respondent 1, daughter of the testator, Eswaramurthy Gounder, 26 years after his death, claiming the suit properties.

Crucially, the testator had sold the properties in 1976, shortly after the alleged Will, and the appellants acquired them from these transferees in 1997, before the probate petition in 2009. Respondent 1 failed to implead her two brothers/their legal heirs and the appellants as parties in the probate proceedings and concealed the prior sale of the properties by the testator.

(Rights of Prisoners with Disabilities)

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act, 2016), particularly Section 89, and constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality, and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India .The Supreme Court noted prior extensive directions in L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (2025) for safeguarding the rights of such prisoners, covering accessible infrastructure, healthcare, assistive devices, and staff sensitisation. Further directions were issued on December 2, 2025, extending these to all States and Union Territories, establishing grievance redressal mechanisms, ensuring inclusive education, applying Section 89 of the RPwD Act, and mandating provisions for assistive devices and enhanced visitation rights for those with benchmark disabilities.

(Criminal Appeal against Acquittal for Murder and Assault)

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 341, 323, and 302 read with 34 - The prosecution alleged that on August 29, 2016, the deceased Gopinath and his father (PW1, the injured complainant) were waylaid and attacked by the accused (A1-A3) using wooden logs (MO1) and stones (MO2). PW1 sustained injuries, while A1 allegedly threw a large stone at the deceased's head, leading to his death on August 31, 2016, due to severe head injuries.

The prosecution presented multiple eyewitnesses (PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW7) who consistently described the assault and the specific roles of the accused. Medical evidence from PW17 (treating doctor), PW19 (neurologist), and PW18 (autopsy doctor), along with Accident Registers (Ex.P6, Ex.P7), Postmortem Report (Ex.P8), and Death Report (Ex.P10), corroborated the injuries sustained by PW1 and the deceased, confirming the cause of death.

(Declaration of Title and Permanent Injunction against a Temple)

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, Section 109 - The appellants (plaintiffs) filed a suit seeking a declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondent temple concerning a suit property. They asserted ownership through a chain of transactions culminating in a 1978 compromise decree (Ex.A3), which allotted the property to the first plaintiff.

The respondent temple contended that the suit property's site (Survey No. 9/8) belonged to it, supported by revenue records, and argued it was not bound by the plaintiffs' previous transactions.

A critical aspect of the case was the plaintiffs' own title document, Ex.A3, which explicitly stated that the superstructure stood on "leasehold land owned by Sri Pachaiamman Devasthanam," thereby acknowledging the temple's ownership of the land.

(Maintenance for Child and DNA Paternity Dispute)

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 112 (now Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) - Mother's challenge against the High Court's denial of maintenance for her daughter from the alleged father. The legal issue revolves around the interplay between which establishes a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage, and the scientific accuracy of a DNA test report.

The appellant, a domestic worker, married the respondent, and a child was born shortly after. Matrimonial issues arose, leading to a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking interim maintenance for herself and her child.

(Challenge to Arbitral Award by Legal Heirs)

Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Sections 2(1)(g), 34, 35, 40); Constitution of India (Article 227); Code of Civil Procedure (Section 115) - This appeal challenged a High Court order concerning the appropriate remedy for legal heirs to contest an arbitral award. The dispute originated from an agreement for sale entered into by Appu John, who subsequently passed away. An arbitral award was later passed, directing an alleged legal representative to execute the sale deed.

The appellant, claiming to be Appu John's actual legal heir and holding a prior preliminary decree for a share in the property, was not a party to the arbitration proceedings.

(Specific Performance of Sale Agreement)

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Section 96, Order XLI Rule 1); The Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Section 15); The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Section 23); The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Section 53A) - The plaintiff appealed against a judgment denying specific performance of a sale agreement. The original defendant had executed two agreements for the same property on the same day: a registered agreement (Ex-A.1) for a lower price and an unregistered one (Ex-A.2) for a higher, actual price.

The plaintiff, as an assignee, sought to enforce Ex-A.2, claiming total advance payments of Rs. 17,00,000/-, evidenced by an admitted Rs.

(Land Allotment for Public Park)

The Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The petitioners challenged the District Collector, Chennai's order (25.03.2024) which held that Plot Nos. 5, 6, & 7 in Anjugam Nagar layout were earmarked for a public park, rendering the petitioners’ sale deeds invalid.

The matter arose from a complaint by the Anjugamnagar Residents Welfare Association, leading to a Division Bench directive for the Collector to investigate encroachments on public utility land.

The Collector's enquiry established that the 1973 approved layout (Ma.Paa.Ma.Na No.170/73) designated these plots for a park.

(Motor Accident Compensation - Negligence and Contributory Negligence (Non-wearing of Helmet)

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, concerning a fatal motor accident. The appellant, a Transport Corporation, contested the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's findings on negligence and the quantum of compensation awarded. The accident involved a collision between the appellant's bus and a two-wheeler, resulting in the death of the rider. The Tribunal attributed 93% negligence to the bus driver and 7% contributory negligence to the deceased for not wearing a helmet. It fixed the deceased's monthly income at Rs.

(Entitlement to Back Wages and Regularisation)

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 10 and the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, this appeal addresses the High Court's decision to set aside a Labour Court order granting back wages to an employee. The appellant, a daily wager cleaner since April 1993, was orally terminated in May 1994. An initial Labour Court order for reinstatement and back wages was partially complied with.

In 2007, the Industrial Court, finding unfair labour practices, directed the respondent to regularise the appellant's services from the date of completing 180 days, as per Clause 19(1) of the Settlement, 1985.