Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950—Section 50-B—Mandatory Prior Sanction for Transfer—Any transfer (including sale) of land purchased by a protected tenant under the Act requires prior sanction of the Collector under Section 50-B(1); such sanction cannot be granted post facto—A transfer executed without such prior approval is invalid under Section 50-B(2), and permitting post facto sanction would render the statutory mandate nugatory—Revenue authorities under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, including the Additional Commissioner, have no jurisdiction to regularize such an invalid transfer, which must be dealt with under the Tenancy Act alone—Natural Justice—Mutation Entry Challenge—Mutation holders are necessary parties in appeals/revisions challenging the entry; deci...

Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947—Section 32(1)—Variation of Consolidation Scheme—Limitation and Jurisdiction—An application for variation of a finalized consolidation scheme must be made within a “reasonable period,” generally understood as three years from the scheme’s enforcement, barring exceptional cases with valid explanation—Entertaining variation applications after inordinate delays (35–37 years) constitutes a clear jurisdictional error—Further, under Section 36 of the Act, orders passed under Chapter IV (including Section 32) are immune from appeal or revision except as permitted under the Act itself—Invoking the appellate or revisional jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (e.g., Sections 247 or 257) in such ...

The jurisdiction of the Cooperative Court is barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act once a secured creditor initiates proceedings regarding secured assets—Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act grants it an overriding effect over inconsistent provisions in other laws, including the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960—Therefore, disputes filed in the Cooperative Court concerning assets already under SARFAESI proceedings, particularly after possession is taken by the secured creditor, are non-maintainable—Additionally, in disputes where third parties (e.g., depositors) file cases concerning assets involved in SARFAESI proceedings, the secured creditor and any subsequent purchaser must be impleaded as necessary parties—A judgment passed without their inclusion is invalid for non-joinder—Furthermore, a decr...

Hyderabad Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950—Section 19—The surrender of tenancy under Section 19 requires adherence to a mandatory procedure, including a written surrender, verification before the Tahsildar, and confirmation of the tenant’s voluntary consent—Mere refusal to take possession does not constitute a valid surrender—Regarding the purchase of land by a protected tenant under Section 38-E, non-payment of price installments does not automatically invalidate the purchase unless the tenant defaults and the Government fails to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue—A statutory declaration of ownership under Section 38-E is not appealable under Section 90, as it arises by operation of law—An ‘eksala lavni’ holder lacks locus standi to challenge the protected tenancy...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 114—This review application challenges the judgment passed by this Court on 10.02.2023 in Writ Petition No. 5750 of 2021, which granted compassionate pension to the respondents, the wife and son of late Magan Damare, a dismissed employee—The applicants (employers) argue that the decision was legally erroneous, relying on Rule 41 of the Central Pension Rules (1972) and the Supreme Court judgment in Mahinder Dutt Sharma, contending that dismissed employees are not eligible for compassionate pension—The respondents' dismissal was due to absenteeism, without moral turpitude, and they claim the punishment was harsh—The Court, however, found no patent illegality or grave error in the judgment, observing that the authorities failed to exercise their discretion under Rule 101 of...

Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section 58(c)—This case deals with the interpretation of a document dated 23.11.1978, which was analyzed under Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to determine whether it represented a mortgage by conditional sale or a sale with a repurchase condition—The Court emphasized that the intention of the parties, as reflected in the document, is paramount—The document’s title, recitals of borrowing, and the reconveyance clause indicated that it was a mortgage by conditional sale, not an outright sale—The Court also addressed the validity of a time-limit clause that restricted the mortgagor’s right to redeem the mortgage, deeming it an invalid clog on redemption under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act—Even if it were construed as a sale with a...

Specific Relief Act, 1963—Section 10—Contract & Evidence Law—Specific Performance—Spouse as Witness—Fraud Allegations—Scope of Second Appeal: Under Section 120 of the Evidence Act, a spouse is a competent witness for their partner in civil proceedings—When also acting as a power of attorney holder with personal knowledge of the transaction, their testimony is admissible—The mere non-examination of the party-spouse does not warrant adverse inference—[Paras 9–13] Verbal negotiations culminating in a written sale deed reflect natural contractual progression; referring to the prelude as an “oral agreement” is not perverse—[Paras 14–17] Minor inconsistencies or standard sale deed recitals (e.g., possession) do not defeat the transaction, especially wh...

Criminal Law—Quashing of Proceedings—Private Conversation—Sanction—Abuse of Process: The High Court quashed proceedings against the applicant under Sections 298, 505, 505(2), 506, 507 IPC and Sections 3(1)(u), 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST Act, 1989, observing multiple legal infirmities—As per Section 196(1A)(a) CrPC, cognizance of offences under Section 505(2) IPC requires prior sanction from the Central/State Government or District Magistrate—absent in this case—A mere intimation to the Collector does not satisfy the statutory requirement—[Para 7] The alleged offensive remarks were made in a private phone call heard only by the informant, not published or circulated, failing to meet the essential ingredients of Sections 505(2), 298 IPC and the SC/ST Act provisions—[Paras 8–11] ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 7 Rule 11—The petitioners, defendants in a partition suit, challenged the trial court’s order rejecting their application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint—The plaintiffs filed RCS No. 78 of 2023, claiming partition and possession of certain properties originally owned by Motilal Saraf—The defendants contended that the suit was barred by limitation and lacked cause of action, citing mutation entries that transferred ownership of the suit property over time—The trial court held that the issues of limitation and cause of action involved mixed questions of law and fact, necessitating trial—The petitioners argued that the suit was based on fictitious claims and should be dismissed, but the court rejected the application—The court...

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 13—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 100—Dissolution of marriage—Mental cruelty—Decreed in favour of the husband—Appeal against the same by wife—The husband has not only made allegation that wife used to threaten him and his family to send them to jail by committing suicide but in fact that attempt was made—The husband substantiated allegations of cruelty through cogent testimony of multiple witnesses—The wife made unsubstantiated allegations against the husband's father without filing any police complaint—Such conduct constitutes mental cruelty sufficient to warrant dissolution of marriage under matrimonial law—No perversity in the trial court's findings of fact regarding cruel treatment, dismissed the appeal and upheld the d...