This is a Division Bench appeal from the Union of India challenging a 2016 writ court order in W.P.(C) No.14385 of 2011. The writ petitioner was the widow of Naramban Koaran, who participated in the Kavumbai freedom struggle and endured imprisonment from 22 February 1947 to 2 November 1947, with convictions under IPC sections 147 and 323. The petitioner claimed Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension (SSSP) for her husband; the State Government verified jail records, but the Central Government rejected the claim citing lack of acceptable primary evidence. The writ court allowed the petition and directed the Union to sanction SSS Pension with arrears within three months, on the basis of the evidence already produced (including jail certificates and extracts) and consistent with the SSSP Scheme’s objectives. The Union of India challenged, arguing that Exts. P1 and P2 should not suffice and that the evidence requires corroboration per prior decisions such as Sainaba. In its judgment, the Kerala High Court emphasized a liberal, probabilistic approach to relief under the Scheme, citing Gurdial Singh and Kamalbai Sinkar to underscore that the purpose is to honour and mitigate sufferings, not to apply strict technical proof. It held that the evidence on record, in conjunction with the State’s verification, suffices to grant the pension, and set aside Ext.P6. The court concluded that Ext.P6 cannot justify denial and that the writ petition should be decided in the applicant’s favor. The division bench ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the writ court’s order granting SSS Pension.
This MACA (Motor Accident Claims Appeal) No. 2371 of 2013 arises from an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, dated 29 December 2012 in OP(MV) 535 of 2010, concerning the death of Sareesh (age 31) in a road accident on 29 December 2009. The appellants—Nisha Sareesh and her family members—claimed Rs 6,00,000 as compensation for the death. The insurer admitted coverage but opposed liability, contending that the 2nd respondent lacked a valid driving license. The Tribunal awarded Rs 5,95,500 with 7.5% interest and directed recovery from the first and second respondents, since the 2nd respondent allegedly rode without a valid license. The appellants contended that the Tribunal fixed the deceased’s monthly income at a notional Rs 4,000, which undervalued dependency losses, and urged enhancement: Rs 16,500 funeral expenses; Rs 16,500 loss of estate; Rs 44,000 each for loss of consortium; and that future prospects (40%) should be added in light of Pranay Sethi. They also cited Ramachandrappa to justify higher notional income (Rs 6,500) for a self-employed person and argued for a deduction of 1/4 from income for personal expenses. The respondents urged the Tribunal’s approach was correct given the evidence. The High Court ultimately reassessed dependency, increased the monthly income, and modified the award accordingly, directing payment of Rs 9,25,400 as additional compensation and applying post-judgment directives, including Circular No.03/2019 for disbursal.
CRL.M.C. No. 2679 of 2023 This is a criminal miscellaneous case under section 482 CrPC filed by eight accused challenging the proceeding in CC No.1161/2019 arising from Malappuram Crime No.320/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram. The petitioners, represented by Adv. Sunil N. Shenoi, seek to quash the ongoing prosecution on the ground that the disputes between the parties have been settled and that continuing the criminal process would be unjust in view of the private nature of the dispute. The defacto complainant/victim supports the settlement and has filed an affidavit; however, the Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement though he concedes the dispute is settled. The judge undertakes a careful examination of the settled dispute and turns to established Supreme Court doctrine on the use of the extraordinary power under section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences in private, civil or family disputes when the parties have resolved all issues amicably. Relying on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others and the accompanying lines of Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, the court emphasizes that such quashing is permissible when the offences are private and non‑serious, and the accused’s antecedents and conduct are considered. Finding the case to be private in nature and the settlement genuine, the court allows the Crl.M.C. and quashes all further proceedings in CC 1161/2019.
This Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Cr. M.C. No. 7571 of 2022) arises from a challenge under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to a JFCM-I, Muvattupuzha order (Annexure F) issuing summons to four witnesses in ST No. 4592/2014, which concerns cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act. The petitioner, a chit funds company, contends the first witness was examined and the remaining summons for witnesses 2–4 are unwarranted, harassing, and unnecessary for proving the alleged transaction that led to the cheque. The core dispute centers on whether the issuing court properly exercised its power under Section 254(2) Cr.P.C. to call witnesses and produce documents. The petitioner emphasizes that summons should be strictly relevant to resolve the matter in controversy, not to harass the complainant or introduce irrelevant documents. The respondents argue that witnesses 2–4 are necessary to show the accused’s lack of liability and to disprove the complainant’s case, and that some documents are requisite to establish the denial of liability. The High Court, after considering arguments and relevant precedents (Muthulekshmi Amma v. Prabhakaran P.K. and Prabhakar Xembhu v. Surendra V. Pai), finds that summons to witnesses 2–4 were not properly justified and could lead to harassment. It allows the petition in part, setting aside the summons to witnesses 2–4, and directs expedited trial within two months, while permitting continued examination of PW1.
This writ appeal challenges a Kerala High Court judgment (WP(C) No.6649 of 2022) concerning recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 initiated against a residential property. The appellants sought permission to repay the overdue amount in convenient monthly instalments after deducting penal interest and hidden charges, arguing a temporary breathing space would enable regularisation of the loan. The writ petition, however, was disposed of with a direction to the bank to accept repayment of Rs.12,47,232/- in 12 equated monthly instalments, with instalments starting on a specified date, and to keep coercive steps in abeyance while the loan was regularised. The petitioners later moved for review, which modified the term “overdue” to “outstanding” and retained the 12-installment framework, effectively clarifying that the outstanding amount was to be repaid. The High Court then clarified, citing a Supreme Court decision (Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C., 2018) that writ petitions challenging SARFAESI proceedings are generally not maintainable. Refusing to entertain the appeal, the court reiterated that the writ petition lies outside Article 226 where a statutory remedy exists under Section 17 of SARFAESI, and emphasized adherence to settled law and public-money principles. The appeal was ultimately dismissed with directions that any coercive action remain open if defaults occur. The decision underscores the permissibility of financial institutions pursuing SARFAESI remedies, while discouraging belated judicial intervention in contractual banking matters.
The petitioner, Sheela Rani, seeks restoration of A.S. No. 386 of 2015 filed before the II Additional District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which had dismissed for default. The underlying suit O.S. No. 220 of 2005, filed by the first respondent for recovery of Rs. 9,04,000, was decreed with recovery and interest. The appellant challenged the decree and filed an appeal, which was valued at Rs. 13,76,000 and for which partial court-fee was paid; the balance was paid later. The appeal was dismissed for default on 28.05.2018 due to lack of representation. The petitioner then filed an application for restoration with condonation of delay of 1180 days; Exhibits show the District Court’s view that it lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, since the suit valued over the pre-2013 limit of Rs. 2 lakhs. The 2013 amendment raised the limit to Rs. 20 lakhs. The High Court discusses the relevant CPC provisions (Sections 6, 96(1), 107, Order VII Rule 10, and S.151) and the actus curiae neminem gravabit maxim, to contend that the appellate court has jurisdictional limits and that restoration should be decided by returning the memorandum to the proper court. It cites Kunnappadi Kalliani and K.P. Chandrasekharan Pillai to justify its approach, ultimately directing the II AD Court to return the memorandum for presentation before the proper forum.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case under section 482 CrPC seeking to quash a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, lodged in C.C. No.2430/2016 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 3: M/S Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd., represented by its authorized signatory Mrs. Sheeja Sunny, and Mrs. Sheeja Sunny personally. The respondents are State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor and Asianet Satellite Communication Ltd. The complaint alleges a channel carriage agreement in which the first accused, through the Jeevan channel, owed money for services rendered; three cheques for Rs.3,63,375 each were issued by the accused signatories and dishonoured. The petition contends that the second petitioner is an employee with no control over day-to-day affairs, and that, even if a debt existed, payments totaling Rs.40 lakh were made by RTGS on 14.07.2017, erasing the substratum of the case. It further argues that continuing the prosecution would amount to abuse of process. The State did not file a counter statement, but the second respondent denied that the cheques were discharged by the payments. The High Court, applying Nagawwa principles and subsequent cases, held that quashing is a drastic, exceptional measure and is not warranted here, since the complaint, viewed as a whole, discloses an offence and the matter requires trial evidence. Consequently, the petition is dismissed and the proceedings continue.
This Kerala High Court criminal appeal arises from a conviction for sexual offences against a four-year-old girl in the Athirapally plantation colony. The trial court held the accused guilty under IPC Section 375(a) read with 376(2)(i) and under the POCSO Act, sections 3(a), 5(m), 6 and 9(m) read with section 10, sentencing him to life imprisonment and fines with default terms. On appeal, the defence argued inconsistencies in the First Information Statement and witness testimonies, lack of injuries on the child, absence of corroboration from hostile witnesses, and questions regarding the date of birth proof (Ext.P4). The defence also relied on Santosh Prasad v. State of Bihar to contend that the prosecutrix did not pass the sterling-witness test. The State contended that the child and mother testified consistently, that the accused’s presence in the locality connected him to the incident, and that the medical record corroborated the allegations despite minor contradictions. The Kerala High Court found the prosecutrix credible, held minor inconsistencies immaterial given the child’s tender age, and affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that the evidence—proximate complaint, maternal corroboration, and medical testimony—sufficiently established guilt. The appeal was dismissed, with conviction and sentence upheld.
WP(C) No.16419/2022 (and connected cases: 10819/2022, 25569/2022, 26231/2022, 30593/2022) The Kerala High Court, in a consolidated hearing of multiple writ petitions, addressed whether candidates who completed degrees via distance education from Annamalai University and Madras University could obtain Equivalency Certificates from Kerala universities and thereby participate in recruitment and promotion processes. While acknowledging that UGC had previously prohibited distance education beyond territorial limits, the Court noted stay orders issued by the Madras High Court, which allowed those offshore programmes to continue in some cases. The judge emphasized that a definitive resolution of whether offshore/distance education degrees can be recognized in Kerala hinges on the Madras High Court’s final decision, and therefore granted provisional protections to petitioners, preserving their status in ongoing studies and employment proceedings. The Court also clarified that even if Madras High Court ultimately upholds offshore education, Kerala universities may grant recognition only after evaluating all applicable regulations. Consequently, the Court allowed the petitions, confirmed interim orders in several linked matters, and issued conditional directions: petitioners in 16419/2022 may apply for selection and appear in interviews using their Annamalai credentials without an upfront Kerala equivalency, pending Madras High Court’s ruling; other petitions’ interim orders were affirmed with provisional/subject-to-final-order modifications. The judgment preserves the petitions’ rights while deferring final adjudication to the Madras High Court.
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenges the suo motu registration of crime 431/2016 and the subsequent charge sheet in C.C. 1629/2016, arising from an incident on 5 August 2016 in front of Parappur Juma Masjid, Tirur. Two Sunni factions, led by EK Aboobacker Musaliyar and AP Aboobacker Musaliyar, were said to clash on a public road, resulting in allegations of breach of peace and the offences of affray and related acts (Sections 160, 341, 323, 324 IPC). Petitioners (Accused 1–4) contend that the charge does not clearly allege breach of peace and tranquility and rely on Podan v. State of Kerala and other authorities to distinguish the required elements of affray. They further pressed that a private inter se settlement among co-accused should stop prosecution, and argued that statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be employed to quash under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court, after hearing counsel for the petitioners and the Senior Public Prosecutor, held that while the IPC ingredients and the admissibility of 161 statements were not overstated, the settlement cannot terminate the criminal proceedings. The court noted the suo motu genesis, the sharing of blame between two groups, and observed that the public fight on a broad daylight public road suffices to constitute disturbance of public peace, hence there is no merit in quashing. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
C.E.Appeal Nos.1/2021, 2/2021, 3/2021, 4/2021, 5/2021 The Kerala High Court, in a batch of central excise appeals filed by the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise, Kochi, challenges a common Tribunal order dated 23.09.2020 (South Zonal Bench, Bangalore) concerning CENVAT credit for service tax paid on deposits insurance premiums to the Deposit Insurance & Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC). The core issue is whether the DICGC insurance service to banks constitutes an input service enabling credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, in relation to banking and other financial services rendered by banks. The Tribunal, following the Larger Bench in South Indian Bank, Calicut, held that DICGC’s insurance service to banks is an input service and credit for the service tax paid on the premium is admissible; Revenue appeals to this Court contend that deposits are money activities outside service tax and that the extended interpretation of input services and the inclusion of mandatory banking-related services would distort the statutory scheme and negate the negative list under 66D. The judgment analyses pre- and post-2011 definitions of input service, the main vs inclusive parts, and the effect of Rule 6(3B) reversals. It ultimately upholds the Tribunal’s view that banks are entitled to CENVAT credit for insurance service, and dismisses the Revenue’s appeals, aligning with the larger South Indian Bank line of authority.
MAT.APPEAL NO.577 OF 2022; MAT.APPEAL NO.582 OF 2022; MAT.APPEAL NO.610 OF 2022; MAT.APPEAL NO.611 OF 2022 These connected matrimonial appeals, heard together by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, arise from four Family Court orders (Thiruvananthapuram) dated 31 March 2022 dealing with guardianship, maintenance, restitution of conjugal rights, and dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellants, Arun Subramoniam (husband) and, in one appeal, Jaya Lekshmi V., challenged orders in O.P.(G&W) No.336 of 2017, O.P.(HMA) No.462 of 2017, and related proceedings, invoking Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Across proceedings, the wife Kalaivani contested the reliefs and maintenance claims. On 20 December 2022, these appeals were heard together and the court noted that the parties had settled their disputes through mediation at Ernakulam Mediation Centre, culminating in a Memorandum of Settlement dated 16 December 2022. In light of the mediation, the court disposed of the matters by a common judgment, waiving the statutory six-month cooling period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act in appropriate cases, following Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur. Consequently, Mat.Appellant No.582 was allowed to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent under Section 13B, and Mat.Appellant No.610’s counter-claim and attachment were resolved accordingly. The court directed communications to the Sub-Registrar and Village Officer, recording that the disputes have been resolved by mutual consent, and made the memorandum part of the judgment. The result is a unified disposition of all four appeals.
WP(C) Nos. 19750/2013; 20708/2013; 21640/2013; 33511/2017 This is a common judgment disposing four writ petitions challenging Government Order dated 09.07.2013 (G.O. No. 1439/2013/H.Edn) which sought to implement a promotion framework for non-teaching staff in private aided engineering colleges. The petitions trace a long history of disputes over the method of promoting tradesmen and instructors within institutions, culminating in a 2013 common judgment directing staff-pattern considerations and seniority to be reckoned in a manner aligned with statutory provisions and university statutes. The impugned GO attempted to apply a uniform institution-wise seniority (1:4:4 staff pattern) across all trades, rather than department-wise seniority, in contravention of established statutes and prior orders. The court examines prior orders, including 1:4:4 formulations, and statutory schemes under Calicut University Statute 66 (1979), Mahatma Gandhi University Statute 69 (1997), and the Kerala Technical Education Subordinate Service Rules (2012/2002), noting inconsistencies and non-compliance. Observing a lack of clear adherence to statutory provisions and procedures, the court holds the impugned order as a volte-face without adequate justification and quashes it. It directs the Government to reconsider the issue after giving all affected parties a hearing, within six months, while keeping the interim status quo in place. The matter is resolved with W.P.(C).33511/2017 dismissed and other petitions allowed.
This Public Interest Litigation challenges the Kerala government’s 2020 order that authorizes the killing of wild boars through licensed gun holders and contemplates seeking Central Government permission to declare the wild boar vermin. The petitioner, a physician and environmental activist, contends that declaring the wild boar as vermin for the purpose of mass culling would drastically impair biodiversity and ecosystem balance, and that the state acted without adequate legal sanction or prior central approval. The petition traces a sequence of Government Orders since 2011 culminating in G.O. 111/2020/F&WLD, under which private individuals with licenses could shoot crop-damaging boars, and asserts these measures have been progressively expanded and misused for tusks and meat. The petitioner argues for non-lethal wildlife-management measures such as electric fences, reliable water sources in forests, habitat improvement, and (where necessary) capturing, relocating or sterilizing boars, asserting that the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 already provides adequate mechanisms—Sections 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(b)—to address human–wildlife conflict, with power to delegate under Section 5(2). The respondents defend the orders as a carefully considered public-interest policy with safeguards (no lactating animals, no shooting inside forests, burial of carcasses, reporting) and note that Central Government declined vermin status, preferring alternative approaches. The court, after examining the record, concludes that the government acted within its legal powers and in the larger public interest, and dismisses the petition as not maintainable. The decision underscores policy-driven balancing of farmers’ livelihoods, wildlife protection, and public safety in a developing ecological context.
Mat.Appeal Nos.1038 & 1041 of 2014 These matrimonial appeals arise from a common judgment in O.P. No.518 of 2012 and O.P. No.1211 of 2009 on the files of the Family Court, Thrissur. The husband, appellant in both appeals, sought a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and recovery of gold ornaments. The wife, respondent, opposed both petitions, claiming cruelty by the husband and his family, but also that she had to stay at her paternal home due to the husband’s prolonged absences and lack of support, and that no valid entrustment of ornaments had been proved. The Family Court dismissed both petitions. The High Court, in a common judgment, agrees that the husband failed to prove cruelty or entitlement to the ornaments and confirms the dismissal. The narrative shows marriage in 1997 with two children, the husband’s Gulf employment, and repeated periods when the wife stayed with her parents. The court evaluates whether prolonged non-cohabitation or acts of the wife constitute grounds for divorce and notes the husband’s long silences and minimal visits post-separation. It also scrutinizes the alleged ornaments, concluding no cogent evidence of entrustment. A cited principle from Dr. Uthara v. Sivapriyan is invoked to emphasize that prolonged, deliberate non-cohabitation does not automatically dissolve a marriage where statutory grounds are lacking. Ultimately, both appeals are dismissed, upholding the impugned judgment without costs.
This is a Kerala High Court judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 2017 arising from a murder case tried by the Additional Sessions Court, Kollam. The sole accused, Vinod, was convicted under sections 302 and 324 IPC for stabbing Sibin Sabu (the deceased) after a verbal spat, and for stabbing PW3 (an injured eye-witness) on his thigh. The lower court sentenced Vinod to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,00,000 for murder with a default, and two years’ rigorous imprisonment with Rs. 50,000 fine for the knife injury, the two sentences running consecutively. The prosecution relied on eye-witness testimony (notably PW3, the injured witness) and other corroborative evidence including the dying declaration to PW1 (the father-in-law of the deceased), ocular witnesses PW1 and PW4, and recovery of the MO1 knife under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Vinod’s counsel challenged the judgment on multiple fronts: discrepancy between FIS and Final Report on motive, failure to send MO2/MO3 for forensic examination, alleged delayed FIR receipt, lack of light at the scene, and the admissibility and basis of the Section 27 recovery (confessional statement not recorded at the police station). The High Court analyzed the evidence, emphasized the special reliability of injured-witness testimony, and concluded that the core prosecution case remained credible. It affirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal, upholding life imprisonment and the financial penalties.
WP.(C) No.14342 of 2019 & con.cases This batch of writ petitions concerns the Thiruvabharana Patha, the sacred route from Pandalam Palace to Sabarimala, through which the ornaments of Lord Ayyappa are transported during Makara Sankranti. The petitioner, Thiruvabharana Patha Samrakshana Samithi (and allied petitioners in connected matters), seeks preservation and protection of the path by removing encroachments along the Tiruvabharana Patha and restoring it to its sanctioned width, including measurement and delimitation by a survey team under advocate commissioner supervision with police protection during evictions. The petitions trace back to 2009 Ext. P1 resolutions and subsequent land-conservancy and encroachment actions, relying on information obtained under RTI to reveal encroachments across multiple villages and taluks. Respondents contend that encroachments are being addressed under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and Kerala Panchayat Raj laws, with panchayats empowered to evict encroachers and provide procedures under Rule 5(1)/(2). The High Court, after considering the record and interim orders, held that individual notices lacked mahazar markings and directed fresh mahazar-based notices with proper show-cause, hearings, and time-bound eviction, ensuring due process. The decision directs expeditious compliance, laying down a time-frame for complete enforcement and reiterating the need to balance religious rights, public land management, and due legal process.
This High Court of Kerala matter concerns an Original Petition (Family Court) filed for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869. The petition, originally under Article 227 of the Constitution, was heard after directions by this Court. On 01.09.2022, the parties filed a joint petition with an agreed settlement covering mutual divorce, child custody, visitation rights, and maintenance, with a full waiver of all further claims. The terms provide that the wife (Neethu Thomas) shall have absolute custody of the child, with a structured visitation schedule for the husband (Jibin K. Jaison) at specific ages: limited visits for early years, then weekend custody for later years, and equal sharing during school vacations. The husband agrees to pay staged child maintenance (Rs. 3,000 from ages 2–5, Rs. 5,000 from 6–10, Rs. 10,000 from 11–15, and Rs. 12,000 from 16–18), and to bear some portion of wedding expenses; the wife waives alimony. The petition contends that all prior monetary claims are settled, and no further claims will be raised. The Court relies on Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur to waive the statutory six‑month cooling period, finds the marriage irretrievably broken, and grants the divorce by mutual consent with custody and maintenance as agreed. The judgment is by Justices Anil K. Narendran and P. G. Ajithkumar.
The Kerala High Court, in a Division Bench, reviews Cr. A. No. 628 of 2017, challenging the conviction in SC No. 427/2013 of the Pathanamthitta Sessions Court convicting Shiju P. Sam for offences under IPC sections 449, 302, 392, 380 and 461. The prosecution’s case, based on the First Information Statement and investigation, holds that the accused, in enmity with the deceased Sulochana after a prior trespass complaint, entered her house by removing roof tiles, murdered her by throttling and smothering, and robbed jewelry before absconding. Postmortem Ext.P12 records multiple injuries, including bite-like marks, with the cause of death attributed to the combined effect of throttling and smothering. The prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence: PW2’s testimony that she last saw the deceased with the accused, witnesses near the scene (PW13, PW2, PW3, PW4), call records (Ext.P9) allegedly linking the accused to the victim, and recovered ornaments (MO.1–MO.4). Foregoing, Ext.P41–P46 establish prior enmity from other crimes. DNA (Ext.P37) and fingerprint (Ext.P22) analyses, along with other circumstantial links, further support guilt, while the defense challenges PW2’s reliability, the absence of voice samples for purported extra-judicial confessions, and the reliability of dog-based evidence and interpolations in Ext.P8. The High Court nonetheless upholds the conviction, criticizes trial irregularities (untimely MO marking, interpolation), and dismisses the appeal as lacking merit, while urging stricter adherence to trial protocols.
This Regular Second Appeal before the Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, challenges the concurrent decrees of the Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor (O.S. No. 331 of 2013) and the Subordinate Judge, Perumbavoor (A.S. No. 19 of 2019) in a title-and-boundary dispute. The plaintiff, Haneesh, represented by his power of attorney Pareed, purchased A-schedule property (Ext A2) and claimed encroachment by the first defendant, Khader, who allegedly constructed a staircase into the C-schedule area and encroached 34 square metres of the plaintiff’s land (A-schedule) by 20.05.2012. Defendants denied encroachment, asserting that boundaries had been clearly demarcated via boundary stones and natural grade differences; they argued that the staircase existed long before and that the plaintiff’s title was not made out, even claiming possible adverse possession over the encroached area. The trial court decreed relief in favour of the plaintiff, fixing the western boundary (Ext. C2(a)) and ordering demolition of encroached structures. The Appellate Court affirmed. The High Court, however, dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, holding no substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC and emphasizing the mandatory formulation of substantial questions of law and strict adherence to Order XLII Rules 1-2. The decree hence stands confirmed, with the plan Ext. C2(a) forming part of the decree.
