Artificial Intelligence — Judicial use — Human control. Artificial Intelligence may legitimately assist judicial administration and legal research; however, adjudication, legal reasoning and decision-making must remain under complete human supervision. AI is only an aid and cannot substitute judicial application of mind. (Paras 1–6).

 (A) Artificial Intelligence (AI) — Judicial adjudication — Use of AI-generated material — Zero tolerance.

Courts must adopt a policy of zero tolerance towards the production, citation or reliance upon AI-generated fake, non-existent or hallucinated precedents. Any decision founded, even partly, upon such material undermines the integrity of the adjudicatory process and cannot be sustained. (Paras 6–9, 15–17).

(B) Judicial Decision-making — AI-generated fake precedents — Effect.
A judgment or order based upon fake, hallucinated or non-existent judicial precedents is no decision in the eye of law. Such use contaminates the decision-making process, subverts the rule of law and renders the judgment liable to be set aside irrespective of the extent of its influence on the final decision. (Paras 7, 15–18).

(C) Advocates — Professional misconduct — Citation of AI-generated fake precedents.
It constitutes professional misconduct for an advocate to cite AI-generated fake or hallucinated precedents without proper verification. The Bar Council of India was directed to formulate appropriate guidelines and disciplinary norms to prevent such misconduct. (Paras 7–9).

(D) Judges and Tribunals — Reliance on AI-generated material — Duty of verification.
Reliance by a Judge or Tribunal upon fake or hallucinated AI-generated material amounts to a serious judicial lapse. While AI may be used as an aid to research, every precedent and legal proposition must be independently verified before being relied upon in judicial determination. (Paras 1–7, 15–17).

(E) Artificial Intelligence — Judicial use — Human control.
Artificial Intelligence may legitimately assist judicial administration and legal research; however, adjudication, legal reasoning and decision-making must remain under complete human supervision. AI is only an aid and cannot substitute judicial application of mind. (Paras 1–6).

(F) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — S. 7 — Orders of NCLT and NCLAT based on fake precedents — Validity.
Where the National Company Law Tribunal relied upon fake, non-existent and AI-generated precedents and the error escaped scrutiny before the Appellate Tribunal, both orders were vitiated and liable to be set aside. The Section 7 application was restored to the file of the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration on merits uninfluenced by the earlier orders. (Paras 15–20).

(G) Judicial Process — Integrity of adjudication — Paramount consideration.
Maintenance of the purity and integrity of judicial decision-making is paramount. Any contamination of the adjudicatory process by fabricated or hallucinated legal authorities strikes at the root of the rule of law and warrants immediate corrective action by the appellate court. (Paras 6–9, 17–20).

O. VII R. 11(d) — Rejection of plaint — Object and scope. The object of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC is to terminate, at the threshold, civil proceedings which, on a meaningful reading of the plaint itself, are barred by law. The provision is intended to prevent abuse of the judicial process and avoid unnecessary trial in suits which are ex facie not maintainable. (Paras 18–21). (B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. VII R. 11(d) — Limitation — Suit for specific performance — Article 54, Limitation Act, 1963. Where the foundation of the suit is an agreement to sell executed decades earlier and the plaint does not disclose any satisfactory explanation for failure to institute proceedings within the statutory period of three years prescribed under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the suit is barred by limitation and the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. (Paras 22, 25–28).

 (A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. VII R. 11(d) — Rejection of plaint — Object and scope.

The object of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC is to terminate, at the threshold, civil proceedings which, on a meaningful reading of the plaint itself, are barred by law. The provision is intended to prevent abuse of the judicial process and avoid unnecessary trial in suits which are ex facie not maintainable. (Paras 18–21).

(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. VII R. 11(d) — Limitation — Suit for specific performance — Article 54, Limitation Act, 1963.
Where the foundation of the suit is an agreement to sell executed decades earlier and the plaint does not disclose any satisfactory explanation for failure to institute proceedings within the statutory period of three years prescribed under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the suit is barred by limitation and the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. (Paras 22, 25–28).

(C) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. VII R. 11 — Rejection of plaint — Test to be applied.
While deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court must confine itself to the averments contained in the plaint read as a whole. The defence in the written statement or disputed questions of fact are wholly irrelevant. Where clever drafting creates an illusion of a cause of action or conceals a statutory bar, the Court must lift the veil and reject the plaint at the threshold. (Paras 19–21).

(D) Limitation — Specific performance — Right to sue — Accrual.
The period of limitation for a suit for specific performance commences when the right to sue first accrues. A subsequent judicial observation that no civil proceedings have yet been instituted does not create a fresh cause of action or revive a claim already barred by limitation. (Paras 24–25).

(E) Limitation — Delay of several decades — Effect.
A litigant who has remained silent for several decades without instituting proceedings cannot, as an afterthought, seek enforcement of an old agreement by ignoring the law of limitation. Such a suit is barred by law and constitutes an abuse of the process of Court. (Paras 22, 26–28).

(F) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. VII R. 11(d) — Rejection of plaint — Suit barred by limitation — Consequence.
Where the plaint itself discloses that the claim is hopelessly barred by limitation, the orders refusing rejection of the plaint are unsustainable and liable to be set aside, with rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. (Paras 26–28)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ss. 166 and 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income — Income-tax Returns — Governing principles. There is no rigid or universal formula for determining the annual income of a deceased or injured claimant on the basis of Income-tax Returns (ITRs). The paramount consideration under the Motor Vehicles Act is the award of just, fair and reasonable compensation. ITRs constitute an important statutory indicator of income but must be assessed in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case. (Paras 15–20).

 

(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ss. 166 and 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income — Income-tax Returns — Governing principles.

There is no rigid or universal formula for determining the annual income of a deceased or injured claimant on the basis of Income-tax Returns (ITRs). The paramount consideration under the Motor Vehicles Act is the award of just, fair and reasonable compensation. ITRs constitute an important statutory indicator of income but must be assessed in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case. (Paras 15–20).

(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Salaried employees — Assessment of income.

For salaried persons, ordinarily the Income-tax Return of the immediately preceding assessment year constitutes the appropriate basis for determining annual income. Where the deceased or claimant had recently received a promotion and the enhanced income is not reflected in the return, the Court may rely upon the promotion order and other corroborative financial material. (Para 18).

(C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Self-employed persons and business income — Assessment of income.

In the case of self-employed persons or persons carrying on business, annual income should ordinarily be assessed with reference to the average income disclosed in the Income-tax Returns of the preceding three years. The Court must also consider surrounding circumstances including the nature of business, growth pattern, future potential, initial losses, geographical factors and other relevant circumstances affecting earning capacity. (Paras 19–20).

(D) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Income-tax Returns filed after death or injury — Evidentiary value.

Where Income-tax Returns are filed after the death or injury of the claimant, the Court must scrutinise them with greater care. If supported by balance sheets and other financial records, such returns may be relied upon; otherwise, surrounding business circumstances become decisive in assessing true income. (Para 20).

(E) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Determination of business income — Judicial discretion.

Assessment of business income cannot rest upon a mechanical average of Income-tax Returns alone. The Court is empowered to determine a realistic annual income after considering the nature and potential of the business so as to ensure award of just compensation. (Paras 21–23).

(F) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Insurance Agent — Assessment of income.

In the case of an Insurance Agent whose income is performance-oriented, averaging Income-tax Returns beyond the previous three years is unjustified. Income should be assessed keeping in view the fluctuating nature of commission-based earnings and the average of the immediately preceding three years. (Paras 9–12 of Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 3088 of 2025).

(G) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Self-employed trader — Income-tax Returns filed after death.

Where recent Income-tax Returns were filed after the death of the deceased and supporting financial records were unavailable, remand was considered inappropriate. Having regard to the available Income-tax Returns and the nature of the wholesale grocery business, the Court determined a reasonable annual income to ensure just compensation. (Paras 10–14 of Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 7735 of 2025). 

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Ss. 200, 209 and 244 — Complaint case exclusively triable by Court of Session — Recording of evidence by Magistrate before commitment — Not required. In a complaint case involving offences exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the Magistrate is not required to record prosecution evidence under Section 244 CrPC before committing the case under Section 209 CrPC. The duty of the Magistrate is confined to complying with the statutory requirements of commitment. (Paras 6–13).

 (A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Ss. 200, 209 and 244 — Complaint case exclusively triable by Court of Session — Recording of evidence by Magistrate before commitment — Not required.

In a complaint case involving offences exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the Magistrate is not required to record prosecution evidence under Section 244 CrPC before committing the case under Section 209 CrPC. The duty of the Magistrate is confined to complying with the statutory requirements of commitment. (Paras 6–13).

(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — S. 209 — Commitment proceedings — Scope of Magistrate's jurisdiction.
At the stage of commitment under Section 209 CrPC, the Magistrate performs a limited statutory function. The Magistrate is not required to examine the merits of the prosecution case or evaluate the sufficiency of evidence, but only to ascertain whether the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session and thereafter commit the case in accordance with law. (Paras 7.2, 10–12).

(C) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — S. 244 — Applicability.
Section 244 CrPC applies to warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report which are triable by a Magistrate. The provision has no application where the complaint relates to offences exclusively triable by the Court of Session. (Paras 7.3, 8.1–8.3, 13).

(D) Criminal Procedure — Commitment proceedings — Legislative object.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deliberately abolished the elaborate pre-committal inquiry under the old Code of 1898 with the object of expeditious disposal of criminal cases. Requiring recording of prosecution evidence before commitment would defeat the legislative intent and revive a procedure consciously omitted by Parliament. (Paras 11–12.2).

(E) Criminal Procedure — Commitment — Duplication of evidence — Impermissibility.
Acceptance of the view that prosecution evidence under Section 244 CrPC must be recorded before commitment in Sessions triable complaint cases would compel witnesses to depose twice on the same facts without statutory sanction and would unnecessarily delay criminal trials. (Para 9).

(F) Criminal Procedure — Sessions triable complaint case — High Court — Remand to Magistrate for recording evidence under S. 244 CrPC — Legality.
The High Court erred in remanding the complaint to the Magistrate for compliance with Section 244 CrPC. Such remand being contrary to the scheme of the Code was liable to be set aside. The High Court was directed to decide the pending criminal revisions afresh on merits. (Paras 13–14). 

(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XXIII R. 3 — Compromise decree — Essential requirements. After the 1976 amendment to the Code, a lawful compromise can be recorded only if it is in writing and signed by the parties or by a duly authorised representative. Compliance with the mandatory requirements of Order XXIII Rule 3 is a condition precedent for passing a valid compromise decree. (Paras 5.1–5.2). (B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XXIII R. 3 — Compromise by Advocate — Authority to compromise. An advocate has no implied authority to surrender or conclude the substantive rights of the client by entering into a compromise unless expressly authorised or justified by exigent circumstances. In the absence of express authorisation or proof of necessity, a compromise signed or accepted on behalf of the client is invalid. (Paras 5.2(f), 5.3–5.6). (C) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XXIII R. 3 — Compromise decree — Duty of Court. While recording a compromise, the Court is not a mere recording authority. It must apply its judicial mind to satisfy itself that the compromise is lawful, voluntary and in conformity with the requirements of Order XXIII Rule 3 before affixing its seal of approval. (Paras 5.2(e), (g), 5.6). (D) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XXIII R. 3 — Voluntary consent — Absence of signature of party. Where the compromise petition does not bear the signature of the concerned party and there is no material establishing express authorisation to counsel, the voluntary consent contemplated by Order XXIII Rule 3 is absent and the compromise decree is contrary to law. (Paras 5.3–5.6). (E) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — S. 151 — Compromise decree obtained by fraud — Recall — Delay. The inherent power under Section 151 CPC may be exercised to recall a compromise decree alleged to have been obtained by fraud. Mere delay, however long, cannot be permitted to perpetuate an illegal or fraudulent decree where substantive rights are affected. (Paras 6.1–6.7). (F) Limitation — Fraud — Delay of 25 years — Effect. Though limitation is an important principle of law, it cannot be employed to defeat substantive rights or perpetuate an illegality. Where fraud is alleged, the compromise is prima facie contrary to law, and foundational facts remain seriously disputed, extraordinary delay may, in the facts of the case, be condoned. Such indulgence is not to be treated as a general rule but depends upon the facts of each case. (Paras 6.3–6.7). (G) Partition Suit — Compromise decree set aside — Consequence. Where the compromise decree is found to be invalid for non-compliance with Order XXIII Rule 3 and material factual disputes remain unresolved, the proper course is to set aside the compromise decree and direct adjudication of the partition suit by a full-fledged trial on evidence. (Para 6.7).

 (A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XXIII R. 3 — Compromise decree — Essential requirements.

After the 1976 amendment to the Code, a lawful compromise can be recorded only if it is in writing and signed by the parties or by a duly authorised representative. Compliance with the mandatory requirements of Order XXIII Rule 3 is a condition precedent for passing a valid compromise decree. (Paras 5.1–5.2).

(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XXIII R. 3 — Compromise by Advocate — Authority to compromise.
An advocate has no implied authority to surrender or conclude the substantive rights of the client by entering into a compromise unless expressly authorised or justified by exigent circumstances. In the absence of express authorisation or proof of necessity, a compromise signed or accepted on behalf of the client is invalid. (Paras 5.2(f), 5.3–5.6).

(C) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XXIII R. 3 — Compromise decree — Duty of Court.
While recording a compromise, the Court is not a mere recording authority. It must apply its judicial mind to satisfy itself that the compromise is lawful, voluntary and in conformity with the requirements of Order XXIII Rule 3 before affixing its seal of approval. (Paras 5.2(e), (g), 5.6).

(D) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XXIII R. 3 — Voluntary consent — Absence of signature of party.
Where the compromise petition does not bear the signature of the concerned party and there is no material establishing express authorisation to counsel, the voluntary consent contemplated by Order XXIII Rule 3 is absent and the compromise decree is contrary to law. (Paras 5.3–5.6).

(E) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — S. 151 — Compromise decree obtained by fraud — Recall — Delay.
The inherent power under Section 151 CPC may be exercised to recall a compromise decree alleged to have been obtained by fraud. Mere delay, however long, cannot be permitted to perpetuate an illegal or fraudulent decree where substantive rights are affected. (Paras 6.1–6.7).

(F) Limitation — Fraud — Delay of 25 years — Effect.
Though limitation is an important principle of law, it cannot be employed to defeat substantive rights or perpetuate an illegality. Where fraud is alleged, the compromise is prima facie contrary to law, and foundational facts remain seriously disputed, extraordinary delay may, in the facts of the case, be condoned. Such indulgence is not to be treated as a general rule but depends upon the facts of each case. (Paras 6.3–6.7).

(G) Partition Suit — Compromise decree set aside — Consequence.
Where the compromise decree is found to be invalid for non-compliance with Order XXIII Rule 3 and material factual disputes remain unresolved, the proper course is to set aside the compromise decree and direct adjudication of the partition suit by a full-fledged trial on evidence. (Para 6.7).

(E) Precedent — Larger Bench decision — Binding effect. A Bench of lesser or co-equal strength cannot disregard the ratio of an earlier larger Bench. Where an earlier three-Judge Bench has authoritatively declared the source of power under a remission policy, a later inconsistent decision of a smaller Bench is liable to be treated as per incuriam. (Paras 14–15).

(A) Constitution of India — Art. 161 — Remission — Haryana Remission Policy, 2002 — Nature of power — Constitutional power of Governor.
The Haryana Remission Policy dated 12-04-2002 is an exercise of the Governor's constitutional power under Article 161. A subsequent statutory remission policy issued under Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot override, supersede or curtail the constitutional power exercisable under Article 161. (Paras 9–13, 16).

(B) Constitution of India — Art. 161 — CrPC, 1973 — Ss. 432, 433 — Remission — Constitutional and statutory powers — Distinction.
The power of remission under Article 161 is distinct, independent and superior to the statutory powers under Sections 432 and 433 CrPC. A statutory policy framed under the Code cannot abrogate or supersede a remission policy operating under Article 161 of the Constitution. (Paras 9–10, 12–13, 16).

(C) Remission — Applicable Policy — Beneficial policy — Life convict.
Where the earlier remission policy is constitutional in character under Article 161, its operation is not displaced by a later statutory policy. The convict is entitled to consideration under the more beneficial constitutional policy. (Paras 10, 12–13, 16).

(D) Precedent — Per incuriam — Principles governing.
A judgment is per incuriam where its ratio is irreconcilable with an earlier decision rendered by a Bench of equal or larger strength, or where a binding statutory provision or binding precedent has not been noticed. The doctrine is an exception to stare decisis and must be invoked sparingly. Judicial discipline requires adherence to decisions of larger Benches. (Paras 14–15).

(E) Precedent — Larger Bench decision — Binding effect.
A Bench of lesser or co-equal strength cannot disregard the ratio of an earlier larger Bench. Where an earlier three-Judge Bench has authoritatively declared the source of power under a remission policy, a later inconsistent decision of a smaller Bench is liable to be treated as per incuriam. (Paras 14–15).

(F) Remission — Haryana Remission Policies, 2002 and 2008 — Applicability.
The observation in the 2008 statutory policy that it supersedes the 2002 Policy is ineffective insofar as the 2002 Policy derives its authority from Article 161 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the appellant's remission application is required to be considered under the 2002 Policy. (Paras 16–18).

(G) Prospective operation — Remission.
The declaration of law shall operate prospectively and shall not reopen remission applications already decided. The State may thereafter maintain separate constitutional and statutory remission policies. (Para 17). 

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION — Right to Fai...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION — Right to Fai...: advocatemmmohan LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION — Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re...

LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION — Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — Challenge to Award passed after directions of High Court — Delay, knowledge of award, statutory remedy and validity of acquisition — Consideration.

Where landowners challenged awards passed under the Act, 2013 alleging non-service of notices, inadequate compensation, incorrect application of multiplier, non-grant of Rehabilitation and Resettlement benefits and violation of statutory procedure, while the State contended that notices were duly served, awards were passed pursuant to earlier High Court directions, compensation was deposited, petitioners had prior knowledge of the awards and had an effective statutory remedy before the LARR Authority, the Court examined the rival contentions in the light of the provisions of the Act, 2013 and the Rules.
(Paras 2 to 7)

---

LAND ACQUISITION — Notice to interested persons — Compliance with Sections 21 and 22 of the Act, 2013 — Burden of proof.

Petitioners contended that mandatory notices under Sections 21 and 22 of the Act, 2013 were never served before passing of the awards and that absence of claims recorded in the awards itself established non-compliance, whereas respondents asserted that notices were duly published and individually served and award enquiry was conducted in accordance with law.
(Paras 3(g), 4(c), 4(d), 7)

---

LAND ACQUISITION — Compensation — Market value — Multiplier factor — Applicability of Central Notification and State Rules.

Petitioners contended that market value was mechanically fixed at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre and multiplier factor of 1.25 was illegally adopted instead of factor 2.00 applicable to rural areas under the Central Notification and Rule 17 of the 2015 Rules, resulting in denial of fair compensation.
(Paras 3(h), 3(i))

---

LAND ACQUISITION — Rehabilitation and Resettlement — Mandatory benefits — Non-grant — Effect.

Failure to prepare Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award and to extend statutory rehabilitation benefits, if established, would amount to violation of the mandatory provisions contained in Sections 31 and 32 of the Act, 2013.
(Para 3(l))

---

LAND ACQUISITION — Consent compensation under Government Order — Whether bars statutory entitlement.

Government approval fixing compensation at Rs.20,00,000/- per acre for consent awards cannot, by itself, conclude the issue where landowners dispute the legality of consent, market value or compliance with statutory safeguards under the Act, 2013.
(Paras 3(j), 3(k), 4(c))

---

WRIT JURISDICTION — Land acquisition matters — Delay and laches — Prior litigation — Knowledge of award — Effect.

Where petitioners had earlier participated in connected proceedings arising out of the same acquisition and respondents established that awards had already been passed and were within the knowledge of several petitioners, the plea of lack of knowledge assumes significance while considering maintainability and delay.
(Paras 4(a), 4(g))

---

LAND ACQUISITION — Statutory remedy — Reference before LARR Authority — Writ petition.

Disputes relating to adequacy of compensation and allied claims are ordinarily to be pursued before the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority under Section 64 of the Act, 2013, unless exceptional grounds justifying exercise of writ jurisdiction are established.
(Paras 4(f), 7)

---

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA — Article 226 — Land acquisition — Public purpose — Interference by Court.

In matters of land acquisition undertaken for public purpose, Courts are required to balance private rights with public interest and exercise writ jurisdiction with restraint, particularly where statutory remedies are available.
(Paras 5, 6)

Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 — Registration of second marriage of Muslim husband — Notice to first wife — Necessity. Where a Muslim man seeks registration of his second marriage while the first marriage subsists and the first wife is alive, the Registrar shall issue notice and afford an opportunity of hearing to the first wife before registering the second marriage. Such hearing is a requirement of the principles of natural justice and constitutional equality. (Paras 10, 11)

MUHAMMAD SHAREEF C. v. STATE OF KERALA

2025 KER 82441 (Ker.)

(A) Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 — Registration of second marriage of Muslim husband — Notice to first wife — Necessity.

Where a Muslim man seeks registration of his second marriage while the first marriage subsists and the first wife is alive, the Registrar shall issue notice and afford an opportunity of hearing to the first wife before registering the second marriage. Such hearing is a requirement of the principles of natural justice and constitutional equality. (Paras 10, 11)

---

(B) Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 — Registrar — Scope of enquiry.

The Registrar has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the validity of a marriage. His enquiry under Rule 11 is summary and confined to prima facie verification of the memorandum and the factum of solemnization of marriage. (Paras 7–10)

---

(C) Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 — Objection by first wife — Effect.

If, after notice, the first wife objects to the registration of the second marriage on the ground that it is invalid, the Registrar shall refrain from registering the marriage and direct the parties to approach the competent civil court for determination of its validity. (Para 10)

---

(D) Muslim Personal Law — Polygamy — Nature of right.

Muslim Personal Law permits a second marriage only in limited circumstances. The Holy Qur'an emphasizes justice, fairness and equal treatment among wives, making monogamy the norm and polygamy only an exception. (Paras 5, 6)

---

(E) Constitution of India — Arts. 14 and 15 — Equality and natural justice — Marriage registration.

While personal law may permit a second marriage, registration under a statutory law must conform to constitutional principles of equality, fairness and natural justice. Constitutional rights prevail in matters governed by statutory procedure. (Para 10)

---

(F) Registration of Marriage — Previous marital status.

Form I prescribed under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 requires disclosure of previous marital status and whether any spouse is living. These particulars enable the Registrar to ascertain whether the marriage presented for registration is a second marriage. (Paras 8–9)

---

(G) Writ Jurisdiction — Necessary party.

A writ petition seeking registration of a second marriage is liable to be dismissed where the first wife, whose rights are directly affected by the proposed registration, is not impleaded as a party. (Para 10)

---

(H) Directions.

Petition dismissed. Petitioners granted liberty to apply afresh for registration. Upon such application, the Registrar shall issue notice to the first wife and proceed in accordance with law; if validity of the second marriage is disputed, parties shall be relegated to the competent civil court. (Para 10)

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act...: advocatemmmohan ROUSANARA BEGUM v. S.K. SALAHUDDIN @ SK SALAUDDIN & ANR. 2025 INSC 1375 (SC) (A) Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on D...

ROUSANARA BEGUM v. S.K. SALAHUDDIN @ SK SALAUDDIN & ANR.

2025 INSC 1375 (SC)

(A) Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 — S. 3(1)(d) — Return of property — Property given at marriage — Beneficial interpretation.

Property given to a Muslim woman before, at or after marriage by her relatives, husband or their relatives is recoverable under Section 3(1)(d) of the 1986 Act. The provision is a beneficial legislation enacted to secure the dignity, financial security and autonomy of a divorced Muslim woman and must receive a purposive and liberal construction. (Paras 7, 9)

---

(B) Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 — S. 3(1)(d) — Gold ornaments and money given at marriage — Entry in marriage register — Return of articles.

Where the marriage register and surrounding circumstances establish that money and gold ornaments formed part of the marriage transaction, the divorced wife is entitled to their return. A mere recital describing the articles as having been handed over to the bridegroom cannot defeat the statutory protection intended for the divorced woman. (Paras 7–10)

---

(C) Evidence — Marriage Register — Kazi/Marriage Registrar — Evidentiary value.

The testimony of the Marriage Registrar explaining an inadvertent entry in the marriage register cannot be discarded merely because overwriting exists. Once the Registrar produces the original register and satisfactorily explains the discrepancy, his evidence deserves due weight. Mere suspicion is not a substitute for proof. (Para 8)

---

(D) Evidence — Appreciation of evidence — Previous criminal proceedings — Limited evidentiary value.

A statement made by the bride's father in proceedings under Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act cannot automatically prevail over the evidence of the Marriage Registrar, particularly when those criminal proceedings culminated in acquittal which attained finality. (Para 8)

---

(E) Constitution of India — Art. 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction — Interference.

Though the High Court possesses wide supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to prevent abuse of process, interference is not justified where the subordinate courts have correctly appreciated the evidence and adopted the statutory object of a beneficial legislation. (Paras 5, 9, 10)

---

(F) Constitution of India — Art. 21 — Social justice adjudication — Rights of divorced Muslim women.

While construing the 1986 Act, Courts must adopt an interpretation advancing equality, dignity and autonomy of women. Judicial interpretation must remain sensitive to the lived realities of women and the constitutional commitment to social justice under Article 21. (Para 9)

---

(G) Supreme Court — Art. 136 — Two possible views — Exception.

Ordinarily, the Supreme Court does not interfere merely because two views are possible. However, interference is warranted where the High Court ignores the purposive construction of a welfare statute and approaches the dispute as a purely civil controversy, thereby frustrating the legislative object. (Para 9)

---

(H) Result.

Appeal allowed. Judgment of the High Court set aside. Respondent directed to remit the amount directly to the appellant, furnish compliance affidavit within six weeks, failing which interest at 9% per annum shall be payable. (Para 10)

In cases of permanent disability, compensation must be based upon functional disability affecting earning capacity and not merely upon the percentage of physical disability certified by medical experts. Where the injury completely disables a person from pursuing his established vocation, the functional disability may be assessed at 100% notwithstanding a lower percentage of physical disability.

 APEX COURT 

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Injury claim — Amputation above knee — Functional disability.

(A) Permanent disability — Physical disability and functional disability — Distinction.

For determining compensation in injury cases, the relevant consideration is not merely the percentage of physical disability certified by the medical expert, but the effect of such disability upon the earning capacity of the injured. Physical disability and functional disability are distinct concepts. (Paras 20 to 22)

Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, followed.

---

(B) Functional disability — Mason suffering above-knee amputation — 100% loss of earning capacity.

Where the claimant was employed as a mason and suffered amputation of the right leg above the knee, rendering him incapable of performing manual and physical labour constituting his sole avocation, the functional disability was liable to be assessed at 100%, notwithstanding physical disability being certified at 70%. (Paras 23 to 26)

---

(C) Loss of earning capacity.

The percentage of physical disability cannot mechanically be adopted as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal must ascertain the effect of the injury upon the actual vocation of the injured. (Paras 21 and 22)

---

(D) Manual labourer — Amputation.

A mason necessarily depends upon continuous use and support of both lower limbs. Amputation of a leg above the knee effectively destroys his capacity to continue such avocation and may justify assessment of total functional disability. (Paras 23 to 25)

---

Motor Vehicles Act — Compensation.

(E) Future prospects — Injured claimant.

Where the injured claimant was aged about 30 years and self-employed, addition of 40% towards future prospects was rightly granted. (Paras 9 and 26)

---

(F) Assessment of income.

In the absence of documentary proof supporting the claimed income of Rs.20,000/- per month, the High Court was justified in assessing the claimant's monthly income at Rs.12,000/-. (Para 18)

---

(G) Future medical expenses — Artificial limb.

Where the claimant suffered above-knee amputation and would require repeated replacement, maintenance and rehabilitation in relation to artificial limbs throughout his lifetime, compensation towards future medical expenses deserved enhancement. (Para 27)

---

(H) Prosthesis and rehabilitation.

Compensation in amputation cases must adequately account for continuing medical expenses, prosthetic replacement, rehabilitation and long-term assistance necessitated by the permanent disability. (Para 27)

---

Principles.

(I) Loss of future earnings.

The Tribunal must undertake three distinct inquiries:

1. Nature and extent of permanent disability.
2. Occupation and avocation of the claimant.
3. Actual impact of the disability on earning capacity.

The economic loss may in appropriate cases be greater than the medical percentage of disability. (Paras 21 and 22)

---

Held

The Courts below erred in mechanically equating 70% physical disability with 70% loss of earning capacity. Since the appellant was a mason whose livelihood depended entirely upon physical labour and he had suffered amputation of his right leg above the knee, the functional disability was liable to be assessed at 100%.

Further, the amount awarded towards future medical expenses for prosthesis required enhancement from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-.

Accordingly, compensation was enhanced from Rs.29,01,570/- to Rs.40,29,730/- with interest at the rate awarded by the High Court. (Paras 26 to 31)

---

Ratio Decidendi

In cases of permanent disability, compensation must be based upon functional disability affecting earning capacity and not merely upon the percentage of physical disability certified by medical experts. Where the injury completely disables a person from pursuing his established vocation, the functional disability may be assessed at 100% notwithstanding a lower percentage of physical disability.

---

Cases Referred

1. Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar

---

Compensation Reassessed

Heads	Tribunal	High Court	Supreme Court
Monthly Income	Rs. 6,000	Rs. 12,000	Rs. 12,000
Functional Disability	70%	70%	100%
Loss of Earning Capacity	Rs. 8,56,800	Rs. 17,13,600	Rs. 24,48,000
Future Prospects	Nil	Rs. 6,85,440	Rs. 9,79,200
Pain and Suffering	Rs. 50,000	Rs. 1,00,000	Rs. 1,00,000
Transportation	Rs. 5,000	Rs. 25,000	Rs. 25,000
Nutrition	Rs. 10,000	Rs. 10,000	Rs. 10,000
Clothing and Ornaments	Rs. 5,000	Rs. 5,000	Rs. 5,000
Medical Expenses	Rs. 1,57,530	Rs. 1,57,530	Rs. 1,57,530
Attendant Charges	Nil	Rs. 30,000	Rs. 30,000
Loss of Amenities	Nil	Rs. 75,000	Rs. 75,000
Future Medical Expenses	Nil	Rs. 1,00,000	Rs. 2,00,000
Total Compensation	Rs.10,84,330	Rs.29,01,570	Rs.40,29,730

---

Result

Appeal partly allowed.

The judgment of the High Court was modified.

Compensation enhanced from Rs.29,01,570/- to Rs.40,29,730/- together with interest at the rate awarded by the High Court.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks. (Paras 30 and 31)

A stationary vehicle left on a public road during nighttime without adequate warning signals constitutes actionable negligence. Rear-end collision by itself does not establish contributory negligence. Compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be determined solely through mathematical formulae and must account for the human element underlying the loss. Parents of an unmarried deceased are entitled to filial consortium. Even where the methodology adopted by the Tribunal may disclose technical overlap, the Supreme Court may decline to reduce compensation if the overall award satisfies the test of "just compensation."

 APEX COURT 

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 140 and 173 — Motor accident claim — Stationary truck without warning signals — Negligence.

(A) Motor accident — Truck parked on road at night without indicators, parking lights or reflectors — Negligence.

Where a truck was stationed on the road at about 3.00 a.m. without parking lights, indicators, reflectors or warning signs, thereby rendering it virtually invisible to road users, the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the truck driver. (Paras 14 to 16)

---

(B) Contributory negligence — Rear-end collision — Presumption.

Merely because a moving vehicle collides with a stationary vehicle from behind does not automatically establish negligence on the part of the driver of the moving vehicle. The issue must be examined in the totality of the surrounding circumstances. (Para 16)

---

(C) Adverse inference.

Where the driver and owner of the offending truck failed to enter the witness box to substantiate their defence that the vehicle had been parked on the extreme left side due to puncture, the Tribunal was justified in drawing an adverse inference against them. (Para 15)

---

(D) Concurrent findings of fact.

The Supreme Court ordinarily does not interfere under Article 136 with concurrent findings of fact unless such findings are perverse, manifestly erroneous or based on no evidence. (Para 18)

---

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Just compensation.

(E) Assessment of income — Professional student.

Where the deceased was a young student pursuing Chartered Accountancy (Final) and undergoing articleship, the Tribunal was justified in considering his educational advancement, professional trajectory and likely earning potential while assessing his income. (Paras 19 and 23)

---

(F) Future prospects — Double addition — Refusal to reduce compensation.

Although the Tribunal had already adopted a forward-looking assessment of the deceased's likely professional income and further added 50% towards future prospects, the Supreme Court declined to reduce the compensation considering:

(i) the beneficial nature of the legislation;

(ii) the long passage of time;

(iii) the loss of a young life with substantial professional potential; and

(iv) the requirement of awarding just compensation.

(Paras 20 and 21)

---

(G) Just compensation — Human element.

Determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is not an exercise in strict mathematical precision. The concept of "just compensation" seeks to provide a measure of solace to the dependants of the deceased within the limitations of monetary compensation. (Paras 20 and 21)

---

(H) Future earning potential — Limits.

Compensation cannot be founded upon speculation that a student would certainly succeed professionally or attain a particular level of earnings. Salary benchmarks of successful professionals cannot automatically be applied in every case. (Paras 22 and 23)

---

Conventional heads — Consortium.

(I) Filial consortium — Parents of unmarried deceased.

Parents of an unmarried deceased are entitled to compensation under the head of filial consortium. Failure to award compensation under this conventional head requires correction by the appellate court. (Paras 24 to 26)

---

(J) Beneficial legislation.

The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and the Court has a duty to ensure award of just compensation even where the Tribunal or the High Court omitted a legitimate conventional head of compensation. (Para 25)

---

Ratio Decidendi

1. A stationary vehicle left on a public road during nighttime without adequate warning signals constitutes actionable negligence.
2. Rear-end collision by itself does not establish contributory negligence.
3. Compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be determined solely through mathematical formulae and must account for the human element underlying the loss.
4. Parents of an unmarried deceased are entitled to filial consortium.
5. Even where the methodology adopted by the Tribunal may disclose technical overlap, the Supreme Court may decline to reduce compensation if the overall award satisfies the test of "just compensation."

---

Held

The findings of negligence recorded by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court were upheld. The compensation awarded towards loss of dependency was not interfered with. However, the claimants, being parents of the deceased bachelor, were held entitled to filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each.

Accordingly, compensation was enhanced by Rs.80,000/- together with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. (Paras 24 to 30)

---

Cases Referred

1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
2. Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram

---

Compensation Reassessed

Head	Tribunal	Supreme Court
Loss of Dependency	Rs. 80,91,900	Confirmed
Loss of Estate	Rs. 15,000	Confirmed
Funeral Expenses	Rs. 15,000	Confirmed
Filial Consortium	Nil	Rs. 80,000
Total Compensation	Rs. 81,21,900	Rs. 82,01,900

---

Result

Insurer's appeal dismissed.

Claimants' appeal partly allowed.

Compensation enhanced from Rs.81,21,900/- to Rs.82,01,900/- with interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within four weeks. (Paras 27 to 30)

Where an appeal is confined only to the question of sentence, the Court may reduce the substantive sentence to the period already undergone if the long passage of time, absence of criminal antecedents, substantial incarceration, and other mitigating circumstances render further imprisonment disproportionate to the overall facts of the case.

 APEX COURT 

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 — Forged revenue document produced in Court — Sentence.

(A) IPC — Ss.420, 467, 468 and 471 — Conviction affirmed — Appeal confined to quantum of sentence.

Where leave was granted only on the question of sentence, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court was not open for reconsideration. The scope of the appeal remained confined to examining the proportionality of the sentence. (Paras 3, 13 and 22)

---

(B) Sentencing — Principle of proportionality.

Sentencing requires balancing the gravity of the offence with the attendant circumstances of the offender, the period of incarceration, passage of time, absence of criminal antecedents, and other mitigating factors. The principle of proportionality is central to sentencing jurisprudence. (Paras 18 and 22)

---

(C) Forgery of documents used in judicial proceedings — Seriousness of offence.

Offences involving forgery and use of forged documents before courts strike at the purity and sanctity of the administration of justice. Such offences cannot be viewed lightly. (Para 17)

---

(D) Reduction of sentence — Mitigating circumstances.

Where:

(i) the occurrence took place more than ten years earlier;

(ii) the accused had undergone prolonged criminal proceedings;

(iii) no criminal antecedents were shown;

(iv) the accused was not a habitual offender;

(v) no subsequent criminal conduct was brought on record; and

(vi) substantial incarceration had already been undergone,

the substantive sentence may be reduced while maintaining conviction. (Paras 19, 23 to 26)

---

(E) Long pendency of criminal proceedings — Relevant consideration.

The fact that the accused remained under the shadow of criminal proceedings for more than a decade constitutes a relevant mitigating circumstance while considering the question of sentence. (Paras 19 and 23)

---

(F) Forged document detected at threshold stage.

Where the forged document was detected during scrutiny at the initial stage itself and no irreversible pecuniary or proprietary loss resulted, such circumstance, though not diminishing the seriousness of the offence, remains relevant while assessing proportionality of sentence. (Para 20)

---

(G) Sentencing discretion.

Sentencing cannot be reduced to a purely retributive exercise. Courts must consider the overall factual matrix, degree of criminality, nature of the offence, and circumstances of the offender while determining the appropriate punishment. (Paras 18 and 21)

---

Criminal Law — Reduction of sentence while maintaining conviction.

This Court may, in appropriate cases, maintain the conviction while reducing the sentence already undergone where the interests of justice so demand and mitigating circumstances substantially outweigh the need for further incarceration. (Paras 23 to 26)

---

Held

Although offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC involving use of forged documents before a Court are serious in nature, the present case warranted reduction of sentence considering:

• the occurrence of the year 2014;
• more than ten years of criminal proceedings;
• absence of criminal antecedents;
• no subsequent criminal conduct;
• custody already undergone for more than two years; and
• the overall proportionality of punishment.

Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction, the substantive sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the Trial Court was maintained. (Paras 25 and 26)

---

Ratio Decidendi

Where an appeal is confined only to the question of sentence, the Court may reduce the substantive sentence to the period already undergone if the long passage of time, absence of criminal antecedents, substantial incarceration, and other mitigating circumstances render further imprisonment disproportionate to the overall facts of the case.

---

Cases Referred

1. Padum Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh

---

Result

Appeal Partly Allowed.

Conviction under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC maintained.

Substantive sentence reduced to the period already undergone.

Fine imposed by the Trial Court left undisturbed.

The appellant was directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to payment of the fine amount. (Paras 26 and 27)

A transfer made by a bhumidhar in contravention of Section 154, prior to the 1981 amendment, was merely voidable and not void. The amendments to Sections 166 and 167 introduced by U.P. Act No.20 of 1982 are substantive and prospective and cannot retrospectively invalidate earlier transfers. Consolidation Authorities may disregard only void documents. They cannot ignore a voidable document which has not been cancelled by a competent Civil Court. A registered sale deed carries a strong presumption of genuineness, and insignificant discrepancies concerning attesting witnesses do not destroy its evidentiary value.

 

U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Sections 154, 163, 166 and 167 — Transfer in excess of ceiling limit — Nature of invalidity.

(A) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Ss.154 and 163 (as existing prior to 03.06.1981) — Transfer in excess of ceiling limit — Effect — Transfer not void but only voidable.

Prior to omission of Section 163 by U.P. Act No.20 of 1982, a transfer made by a bhumidhar in contravention of Section 154 was not void. Such transfer merely exposed the transferee to ejectment at the instance of the Gaon Sabha and only to the extent of the contravention. The transfer remained operative until appropriate proceedings were taken under Section 163. (Paras 27 to 34)

Kripashanker v. Director of Consolidation, (1979) 4 SCC 199, followed.

---

(B) Ceiling restriction — Aggregate holdings.

Section 154 does not prohibit every transfer. The restriction applies only where the transferee, together with existing holdings of himself or his family, exceeds the prescribed ceiling. Mere execution of a sale deed does not automatically attract the statutory prohibition. (Paras 24 to 26)

---

(C) Retrospective operation of amended statute — Not permissible.

The amendments introduced by U.P. Act No.20 of 1982 enlarging Sections 166 and 167 and omitting Section 163 are substantive in nature. Such amendments cannot retrospectively invalidate transfers executed prior to the amendment or divest accrued rights in the absence of express or necessarily implied legislative intent. (Paras 35 to 42)

---

(D) Statutory interpretation — Substantive amendment.

An amendment which changes the legal consequences of an existing transaction and creates new liabilities or disabilities is presumed to operate prospectively unless the legislature clearly indicates otherwise. (Paras 36 to 42)

---

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 — Jurisdiction of Consolidation Authorities.

(E) Consolidation proceedings — Jurisdiction — Registered sale deed — Void and voidable documents — Distinction.

Consolidation Authorities may disregard a document which is void ab initio. However, where the document is merely voidable and requires cancellation by a competent Civil Court, the Consolidation Authorities cannot ignore such document so long as it remains uncancelled. (Paras 46 to 49)

Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh, (1973) 2 SCC 535; Khursheed v. Shaqoor, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2929, followed.

---

(F) Void and voidable transactions — Difference.

A voidable transaction remains valid and operative until avoided by a competent court. Rights created thereunder continue to subsist unless the instrument is cancelled. (Paras 47 to 49)

---

Evidence Act, 1872 — Registered documents.

(G) Registered sale deed — Presumption of genuineness — Certified copy.

A registered sale deed carries a strong presumption of validity and due execution. A certified copy of such registered instrument also enjoys a statutory presumption of genuineness under Section 79 of the Evidence Act. The burden to dislodge such presumption lies heavily on the person challenging the document. (Paras 51 to 53)

---

(H) Sale deed — Attestation — Requirement.

Attestation is not an essential requirement for validity of a sale deed. Consequently, minor discrepancies relating to the identity or residence of an attesting witness cannot invalidate an otherwise genuine registered conveyance. (Paras 53 to 56)

---

(I) Appreciation of evidence — Witness examined after several decades.

Where an attesting witness was examined nearly 38 years after execution of the document, minor discrepancies regarding village particulars or personal details cannot constitute material contradictions sufficient to disbelieve the transaction. (Paras 54 to 56)

---

(J) Fraud, forgery or impersonation — Pleading absent.

Where there is no plea of forgery, fraud, impersonation, coercion, or misrepresentation, a registered sale deed cannot be discarded merely on account of insignificant discrepancies in proof. (Paras 57 and 58)

---

Ratio Decidendi

1. A transfer made by a bhumidhar in contravention of Section 154, prior to the 1981 amendment, was merely voidable and not void.
2. The amendments to Sections 166 and 167 introduced by U.P. Act No.20 of 1982 are substantive and prospective and cannot retrospectively invalidate earlier transfers.
3. Consolidation Authorities may disregard only void documents. They cannot ignore a voidable document which has not been cancelled by a competent Civil Court.
4. A registered sale deed carries a strong presumption of genuineness, and insignificant discrepancies concerning attesting witnesses do not destroy its evidentiary value.

---

Held

The sale deed dated 04.06.1957 could not have been treated as void either under Section 154 or under the amended provisions of Sections 166 and 167. The Consolidation Authorities and the High Court committed manifest error in disregarding the registered sale deed based upon inconsequential discrepancies regarding the attesting witness. The impugned orders were therefore set aside and the names of the appellants were directed to be recorded in the revenue records. (Paras 59 and 60)

---

Cases Referred

1. Kripashanker v. Director of Consolidation
2. Zile Singh v. State of Haryana
3. Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar
4. Thakoor Hurdeo Bux v. Thakoor Jowahir Singh
5. State of Kerala v. Philomina
6. Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh
7. Ningawwa v. Byrappa Shiddappa Hireknrabar
8. Khursheed v. Shaqoor
9. Hemalatha v. Tukaram

---

Result

Civil Appeal Allowed.

The judgment of the High Court and the concurrent orders of the Consolidation Authorities were set aside. The appellants were held entitled to have their names recorded in the revenue records on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 04.06.1957. No order as to costs. (Paras 60 and 61)

A plaintiff seeking specific performance must establish continuous readiness and willingness from the date of agreement until decree. Financial capacity must exist at the relevant point of time and not be demonstrated by subsequent acquisition of funds. Further, a suit filed at the end of the limitation period, coupled with lack of diligence and absence of prompt action, may disentitle the plaintiff to the equitable relief of specific performance.

 APEX COURT

Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 16(c) (prior to 2018 amendment) — Specific performance — Readiness and willingness — Continuous obligation.

(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.16(c) — Specific performance — Readiness and willingness — Continuous requirement — Mandatory condition precedent.

A plaintiff seeking specific performance must both plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract from the date of agreement till the date of decree. Failure to establish either financial readiness or conduct indicating willingness disentitles the plaintiff from obtaining the equitable relief of specific performance. (Paras 29 to 34)

---

(B) Specific performance — Readiness — Meaning of.

“Readiness” refers to the financial capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract, whereas “willingness” relates to the conduct, intention and bona fide desire to complete the transaction. Both requirements must coexist and are to be examined cumulatively. (Para 30)

---

(C) Specific performance — Financial capacity — Fixed Deposit Receipts created long after institution of suit — Evidentiary value.

FDRs created several years after institution of the suit cannot establish the plaintiff’s financial readiness during the relevant period, namely from the date of agreement till filing of the suit. Availability of funds must be proved with reference to the period during which contractual obligations were required to be performed. (Paras 35 to 37)

---

(D) Specific performance — Plaintiff not possessing balance consideration at relevant time — Effect.

Though actual deposit of sale consideration in Court is unnecessary, the plaintiff must adduce reliable evidence showing possession of sufficient funds at the relevant time. Absence of such evidence is fatal to a claim for specific performance. (Paras 36 and 37)

---

(E) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 — Permission required from both parties — Failure of purchaser to cooperate — Effect.

Where statutory permission under ULCRA was required to be obtained by both vendor and purchaser, failure of the purchaser to furnish necessary affidavits and forms and his passive conduct amounted to failure to establish continuous readiness and willingness. (Para 38)

---

(F) Specific performance — Delay in filing suit — Limitation and equitable considerations — Distinction.

Mere institution of a suit within the prescribed period of limitation does not automatically entitle a plaintiff to specific performance. The Court may consider whether the plaintiff approached the Court with reasonable promptitude and diligence. Delay, though within limitation, may disentitle the plaintiff to the equitable relief of specific performance. (Paras 39 to 42)

---

(G) Equitable relief — Conduct of plaintiff — Importance.

Specific performance being a discretionary and equitable remedy, the conduct of the plaintiff must be beyond reproach. Delay in seeking relief, lack of financial readiness, failure to take contractual steps, and passive conduct are relevant circumstances in refusing relief. (Paras 40 to 43)

---

Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 16(c) — Twin requirements.

The statutory requirements of “readiness” and “willingness” constitute twin mandates under Section 16(c). A plaintiff must establish:

1. Financial ability to perform the contract.
2. Continuous conduct demonstrating intention to perform.

Absence of either condition is sufficient to deny the relief of specific performance. (Paras 30, 34 and 43)

---

Delay — Suit filed at the fag end of limitation.

Although the suit was instituted within the limitation period, the plaintiff waited nearly two years and nine months after the defendant's refusal to perform the contract. Such unexplained delay reflected absence of continuous readiness and willingness and disentitled the plaintiff from obtaining equitable relief. (Paras 41 and 42)

---

Held:

The appellants failed to establish continuous readiness and willingness to perform their obligations under the agreement. The FDRs relied upon were created long after institution of the suit and did not establish financial readiness at the relevant time. The plaintiff also failed to cooperate in obtaining statutory permission and approached the Court after considerable delay. Consequently, the discretionary relief of specific performance was rightly refused by the High Court. (Paras 35 to 43)

---

Ratio Decidendi

A plaintiff seeking specific performance must establish continuous readiness and willingness from the date of agreement until decree. Financial capacity must exist at the relevant point of time and not be demonstrated by subsequent acquisition of funds. Further, a suit filed at the end of the limitation period, coupled with lack of diligence and absence of prompt action, may disentitle the plaintiff to the equitable relief of specific performance.

---

Cases Referred

1. N.P. Thirugnanam (Dead) by LRs. v. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao
2. His Holiness Acharya Swami Ganesh Dassji v. Sita Ram Thapar
3. Umabai v. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan
4. Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha
5. Rajesh Kumar v. Anand Kumar
6. K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan
7. Azhar Sultana v. B. Rajamani
8. Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi
9. Atma Ram v. Charanjit Singh

---

Result

Appeal Dismissed.

The judgment of the High Court setting aside the decree for specific performance was affirmed. The plaintiffs were held not entitled to the equitable and discretionary relief of specific performance owing to failure to prove continuous readiness and willingness and because of their delayed approach to the Court. (Para 44)

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: The six months' cooling-off period prescribed unde...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: The six months' cooling-off period prescribed unde...: advocatemmmohan AP HIGH COURT  Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13-B(2) — Mutual consent divorce — Cooling-off period — Waiver. (A) Hindu...

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13-B(2) — Mutual consent divorce — Cooling-off period — Waiver.

(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13-B(2) — Divorce by mutual consent — Six months' cooling-off period — Nature of provision — Directory and not mandatory.

The period of six months prescribed under Section 13-B(2) is not mandatory but directory. The Family Court possesses discretion to waive the said period where the parties have been living separately for a considerable period, have settled all their disputes, and there is no possibility of reconciliation. (Paras 9 to 12)

Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, AIR 2017 SC 4417; Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal, (2023) 17 SCC 648, followed.

---

(B) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — S.13-B — Waiver of cooling-off period — Complete settlement between parties — Permanent alimony — Child welfare — Property settlement — Criminal proceedings — Effect.

Where husband and wife amicably settled all inter se disputes including permanent alimony, welfare of minor child, distribution of properties and withdrawal of criminal proceedings, and consciously decided to part ways, insistence upon completion of the statutory period would serve no useful purpose and would merely prolong the agony of the parties. (Paras 10 to 12)

---

(C) Family Courts — Mutual consent divorce — Advancement petition — Rejection by Family Court — Legality.

Family Court dismissed application for advancement of hearing solely on the ground that six months' cooling-off period had not expired and that mediation before expiry of such period would defeat the object of the statute. Held, the approach was erroneous in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court that the period is directory and can be waived in appropriate cases. (Paras 4, 9 to 12)

---

(D) Constitution of India — Article 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction — Interference with interlocutory order of Family Court.

High Court, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, can interfere where the subordinate Court refuses to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or ignores binding precedents governing the exercise of discretion. Order dismissing application for advancement was liable to be set aside. (Paras 9 to 13)

---

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13-B(2) — Waiver of cooling-off period — Conditions.

The object of Section 13-B(2) is to provide an opportunity for reconciliation and reconsideration. Once the parties have remained separately for a substantial period, all disputes stand settled and the marriage has irretrievably broken down with no possibility of reunion, continuation of the waiting period becomes an empty formality. (Paras 11 and 12)

---

B. Matrimonial Law — Mutual consent divorce — Irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

Law does not insist upon preservation of a dead marriage where the matrimonial relationship has completely broken down and the parties voluntarily seek dissolution after settling all ancillary disputes. (Para 11)

---

Held:

The impugned docket order passed by the Family Court refusing advancement of the matter solely on the ground of non-completion of six months' period was set aside. The Family Court was directed to take up the petition and pass appropriate orders for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent in accordance with law expeditiously. (Para 13)

---

Cases Referred:

1. Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal
2. Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur

---

Ratio Decidendi:

The six months' cooling-off period prescribed under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is directory and not mandatory. Where parties have genuinely settled all disputes and there exists no possibility of reconciliation, the Family Court possesses discretion to waive the period, and refusal to exercise such discretion contrary to settled law warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

---

Relief:

Civil Revision Petition Allowed.
Impugned order set aside.
Family Court directed to advance the matter and dispose of the mutual consent divorce petition expeditiously.