MAT.Appeal No. 188 of 2014 Aboobacker, the appellant in MAT APPEAL No.188 of 2014, challenges the Family Court, Kasaragod’s order dated 02.08.2013 in R.P.I.A. No.369 of 2012, which dismissed the application to set aside an ex parte decree in O.P. No.404 of 2011. The original petition, filed by Ayshath Rajeena under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939 (Sections 2(ii) and 2(viii)(a)), sought divorce on grounds of cruelty and resulted in an ex parte decree dated 31.01.2012. The appellant contends that he was employed abroad (UAE) and returned only in October 2012; he alleges non-service of summons and suppression of material facts by the respondent, and thus sought to set aside the ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and to condone a delay of 243 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appellant also filed an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act and a separate application to condone a delay of 159 days, which was later condoned. The learned court below and the appellate court relied on Katiji and Esha Bhattacharjee to emphasize that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ is elastic but must be balanced with reasonableness, prejudice, and ends of justice. Ultimately, the Division Bench held that there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay and that the ex parte decree should not be set aside, dismissing the appeal.
MACA Nos.1833 & 2045 of 2011 These Motor Accidents Claims Appeals arise from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur, in OP(MV) No. 367 of 2006. The claimant, Dr. Lysbin Mohamed, a 30-year-old Ayurvedic physician, suffered a near-total paralysis following a head-on collision at Varapuzha Bridge on 14 June 2003, when his Tata Indica confronted a Maruti 800 coming from the opposite direction. The Tribunal assessed compensation at Rs. 14,50,850 after deducting 50% for contributory negligence. The claimant contends that this is inadequate and that the 50% contributory negligence finding is erroneous, arguing that the collision primarily resulted from the Maruti driver’s breakneck speed; he asserts the police charge sheet Ext. A23 corroborates the proximate role of the Maruti’s driver and that the claimant’s reflexive action to avoid a collision should be treated with leniency. The insurer/respondents contend that the accident occurred due to the claimant’s negligence and challenge both the quantum and the 50% deduction. The High Court re-reads the evidence, concluding that the Maruti driver bore 80% fault and the claimant 20%, reversing the Tribunal’s allocation. For quantum, it notes the 90% disability (Ext. C1) and applies the Pranay Sethi doctrine, adding 40% future prospects to income, then applying a multiplier of 16. It enhances the compensation to Rs.26,45,345 and awards an additional Rs.11,94,495, directing deposit within two months and no costs. The insurer’s appeal is dismissed and the claimant’s appeal partly allowed.
W.P.(C) Nos.14907 & 15714 of 2022 These writ petitions before the Kerala High Court challenge two education-loan rejections by the State Bank of India. In 14907/2022, Ajith Sajeevan, a 19-year-old student from a scheduled caste family, seeks a ₹4 lakh loan for an ECR Institute of Management Studies course (BBA and Aviation & Hospitality Management) admitted under Mangalore University. The bank rejected the loan alleging an unsatisfactory credit report, a distant-college preference, and non self-attested KYC. In 15714/2022, John Baby, Baby Vatta-kunnel, and Mathew, first-year engineering students, applied for ₹4 lakh loans; the bank refused citing a low coborrower CIBIL score. The respondents contend that education loans, especially under priority-sector lending, require verification of creditworthiness under CICRA 2005 and RBI guidelines, and that civil courts have limited jurisdiction in banking matters. The petitioners argue that parental creditworthiness should not be the sole determinant and that repayment capacity of the student after education is the deciding factor; the scheme is designed to promote education and employment, not to bar deserving candidates. The High Court, citing Pranav S.R. and Kiran David, held that unsatisfactory parental credit scores cannot alone reject a loan if student repayment capacity is sound and the purpose aligns with priority-sector objectives. The petitions are allowed; Ext.P10 and Ext.P2 are set aside, and banks are directed to reconsider the applications without regard to co-obligants’ credit scores within one month.
MACA Nos. 509/2009 and 551/2009 These two Motor Accident Claims Appeals arise from a common award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, in O.P.(M.V) Nos. 1717/2003 and 1719/2003. The appellants, being the registered and defacto owners of a motorcycle, challenged the Tribunal’s direction to recover the compensation from them and the driver on the ground that three persons rode the two-wheeler when it was meant for two. The respondents claimed breach of policy conditions since the policy (covering two wheelers) was violated by having more than two riders, and relied upon policy terms and related case law, including Ammini Amma. The appellants relied on Supreme Court authority in Mohammed Siddique (2020), which held that a mere violation of law or policy by itself does not automatically render the claimant contributorily negligent or exonerate the insurer; the breach must be fundamental and causally connected to the accident. The High Court, applying Mohammed Siddique, held that the mere fact of three riders on a bike cannot by itself prove contributory negligence or a fundamental breach of the policy, and that the Tribunal’s directive to recover the amount cannot be sustained. The common award remains in place in other respects.
This Regular Second Appeal (RSA No. 733 of 2018) before the Kerala High Court, heard on admission and disposed of on 3 October 2023, concerns a family partition dispute over the plaint B schedule property, allegedly belonging to Krishnan, husband of the 9th plaintiff and father of the other plaintiffs and defendants. The trial court decreed partition only to the extent of 1/3rd right allegedly conferred by Ext.A3 (kanam-based transfer) and held that Ext.A3 did not convey absolute title to Krishnan; the appellate court agreed. The appellants challenge the decrees and seek full partition among plaintiffs and defendants, claiming that the natural guardian’s actions (Ext.A3, executed by the mother for two minors) should be valid and binding in law. The respondents contend Ext.A3 is void ab initio, arguing that a mother acting as natural guardian could not validly convey rights for minors without court sanction, and that the release/assignment cannot bind the minors. The court engages with Githa Hariharan and Akella Lalitha to interpret Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, clarifying that a mother may act as natural guardian during the father’s lifetime where the welfare of the minor justifies such action. Ultimately, the High Court allows the appeal and orders a final partition by 11 equal shares (1/11th to each party) with costs to the estate and sine die final decree. The judgment analyzes substantive law on guardianship, voidable/void transfers, and historical tenancy statutes in light of constitutional principles.
This is a Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court concerning tax liability on contract carriage vehicles where seats were changed from pushback to ordinary seating without reducing seating capacity. The respondent- writ petitioner Deepu C Jose owned two contract carriages (KL-67-A-4517 and KL-67-A-4549) with more than 20 seats. Following the Kerala Finance Act, 2014, tax per pushback seat was Rs. 1,000 while per ordinary seat was Rs. 750. The transport authorities declined to reduce tax, maintaining the liability at the rate applicable at first registration. The learned Single Judge upheld the petitioner’s grievance, relying on Kelvinator of India Ltd. v. State of Haryana and earlier Kerala decisions (Gopalakrishnan, Musthaffa K.K., Vishwanath Menon), to hold that mere change from pushback to fixed seats, if seating capacity remains constant, cannot justify a higher tax; the liability should be based on seating capacity as per permit. The Division Bench, however, clarifies that the seating capacity has not been altered and that the alteration is only in seat type, not number, thus falling within the ordinary contract carriage framework. It directs fixation of tax at Rs. 750 per passenger for ordinary contract carriages with more than 20 seats and quashes Ext.P5 to the limited extent of maintaining the higher rate. The case cites multiple precedents and aligns with subsequent Division Bench rulings (Shaiju T.C.; Vishwanath Menon).
This writ petition challenges the implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in the context of appointments in CSI schools managed by the petitioner (Malabar and Wayanad). The petitioner asserts that a 4% reservation for persons with disabilities has been applied in accordance with Exts. P1–P2 and that posts have been earmarked for differently-abled candidates (as per Exts. P3–P9). While the Employment Exchange is processing posts covered by Exts. P3–P9, numerous regular management posts remain pending approval because of the perceived need for physical induction of qualified differently-abled hands. The petitioner points to an order obtained in the NSS Management matter (Ext. P10/P11) and subsequent government directions (Ext. P11) and argues that the benefits flowing from Exts. P10 and P11 should extend to the petitioner’s management appointments, which are similarly situated. The respondents submit that extending Exts. P10 and P11 is a legal question to be resolved in due course. The court cites Central Finance and Investments v. Secretary, Kothamangalam Municipality (2021 (6) KHC 59) and Somukuttan Nair v. State of Kerala (1997 KHC 114) to emphasize the binding nature of judgments on administrative authorities and the entitlement to benefits already recognized by higher courts. The petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to consider Ext. P15 representation and decide within four months, taking into account Exts. P3–P14 and the relevant jurisprudence.
CRL.REV.PET NO.221 OF 2006; CRL.REV.PET NO.222 OF 2006 The Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, heard CRL.R.P Nos.221 & 222 of 2006, challenging concurrent convictions of two accused (Devarajan @ Babu and Natarajan) for an offence under Section 324 IPC by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Neyyattinkara, and affirmed on appeal by the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The incident occurred on 13 May 1998 around 4:30 p.m., when the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, restrained PW1 on the elder brother’s landed property; the first accused stabbed PW1 on the head with a knife, while the second accused allegedly inflicted blows on the chest and upper back, resulting in contusions. Six prosecution witnesses testified; six documents were marked; the accused were convicted under Sec.324 IPC and sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment and Rs.2,500 fine; charges under Secs.341 and 323 IPC were acquitted. The Sessions Court dismissed the appeals. The revision petition argued that PW1’s testimony, being the sole eyewitness, should not sustain guilt; the non-recovery of the weapon undermines the case; The High Court rejected these arguments as effectively re-appreciation of evidence is not the function of a revisional court unless there is gross miscarriage of justice. The court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence: imprisonment till the rising of the court and compensation of Rs.10,000 to PW1 or his legal heirs under Sec.357(3) Cr.P.C., with a default provision of six months if compensation is not paid. The petitioners must appear before Neyyattinkara JMFC by 30.12.2023 for sentence and deposit.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5259 OF 2025 This is a bail petition filed in the Kerala High Court by Muhammed Rameez, a 19-year-old petitioner, seeking bail in Crime No.1141/2024 of Nemom Police Station registered for offences under sections 109, 126(1), 296(a) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The prosecution alleges that on 28.07.2024, six accused attacked the defacto complainant and his friend with a sword, resulting in injuries to the complainant, the friend who attempted to intervene, and another eye-witness. The petitioner, the third accused, was arrested in another case on 10.03.2025 and his arrest in this case was recorded on 27.03.2025. He contends that, though the offences are serious, he is ready to comply with stringent conditions and that he should be granted bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the application, citing the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s involvement in another case. The court weighed the gravity of the allegations against the detention period and concluded that bail can be granted with stringent conditions, invoking established bail jurisprudence that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. It relied on Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala to justify granting bail with conditions. The court granted bail on specific terms, including a Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties, appearance before the investigating officer, restriction on leaving India, no commission of a similar offense, and continued circumstances for bail only. The observations and directions are limited to the bail determination.
This High Court appeal, MACA 66/13, arises from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha awarding Rs.1,16,271 for injuries sustained by late Vijayan in a road accident on 15 November 2001 when his jeep collided with an offending vehicle. The appellant died during the pendency, and his legal heirs (the appellants 2 to 5) were brought on record as additional appellants. The matter was not admitted initially; both sides consented to admit and final disposal based on undisputed evidence. The appellants argued that the Tribunal incorrectly computed the notional income for loss of earnings and disability, concluding a monthly income of Rs.1,500 despite their claim of Rs.2,500 for a casual labourer. They contended that the medical evidence showed extensive injuries: a comminuted Grade II fracture of both bones of the left leg, prolonged hospitalization, and a 16% disability as per Ext. A17, though the Tribunal rejected part of this certificate for not giving a split-up. Drawing on Ramchandrappa v. Manager (2011) 13 SCC 236, the High Court agreed that, in the absence of proof of earnings, the notional income should be higher, namely Rs.3,000 per month, and proceeded to enhance the compensation in several heads. It found that pain, suffering, and loss of amenities were under-compensated and adopted higher sums under those heads, while maintaining other Tribunal findings. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed, with enhanced compensation payable by the Insurance Company, plus interest at 8% and costs on enhanced amount.
This criminal miscellaneous case challenges the Sub Divisional Magistrate’s (SDM) orders under Sections 107 and 111 of the CrPC issued in Crime No. 543/2022 of Nenmara Police Station, Palakkad. The petitioners contend that Annexures A1 and A2, which are show-cause notices issued under Section 111 CrPC upon information under Section 107 CrPC, do not disclose the substance of the information received and thus fail the statutory mandate. The petition relies on Kerala High Court precedents (Girish P. and others v. State of Kerala and another; Santhosh M.V. and others v. State of Kerala and others; Bejoy K.V v. State of Kerala and Another) to urge that a Section 111 order must state the exact information and the grounds of satisfaction, including the substance of the information, the bond amount, the term, and the security details, so as to enable the accused to defend himself. The court notes that Annexures A1 & A2 merely mention that a report was received and the crime number, without disclosing the information on which the satisfaction was based. Following the cited decisions and the principle that the spirit of S.107 CrPC is preservation of peace and public tranquillity, the court concludes that the notices are defective. Consequently, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings based on Annexures A1 & A2 are quashed.
Idea Mobile Communications Ltd., the petitioner, operated cellular services under a licence granted by the Department of Telecommunications and had installed numerous mobile towers with diesel generator sets to ensure uninterrupted coverage. The petitioner contends that these DG sets and towers do not fall within the purview of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 or the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and that Rule 133(3) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 permits DG set installation when they are housed in insulated soundproof cabins. The petitioner had already obtained No Objection Certificates from Panchayats, the Central Pollution Control Board, and Municipalities, and argues that the electromagnetic waves from cellular towers are non-ionising and not hazardous to health, supported by judgments such as Kapil Choudhary v. Union of India and Mohalla Sudhar Committee v. State of Punjab. The Kerala State Pollution Control Board issued Ext.P11 on 19.05.2006 demanding information about towers, generators, and consent fees, suggesting that radiation from towers could create health concerns. The respondents maintained the communication was merely a request for information and that consent charges could follow after assessment. After hearing, the Court held there is no scientific data showing health hazards from mobile towers, quashed the impugned communication, allowed the petition, and directed the Board to issue a fresh, law-compliant notice while enabling continued operation and public reassurance.
This Bail Application (BA No.5171 of 2025) concerns Devendran, accused in Crime No.190/2025 of Meenakshipuram Police Station, Palakkad, charged under Sections 55(a) and 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act for possession of 4.5 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The petitioner has been in custody since 29.03.2025. The petition is grounded on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and that indefinite incarceration is unwarranted given the circumstances. The petitioner’s counsel submitted readiness to comply with stringent conditions and cooperation with investigation. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail on the ground that the accused is involved in another case with the same facts. The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the alleged offence but invoked established bail jurisprudence: the rule that bail is the norm, with exceptions; the need to balance individual liberty with public interest; and the guidance from decisions like Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, as well as the principle from Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala. On this basis, the Court granted bail with conditions, including Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties, appearance before the IO, travel restrictions, and a requirement to refrain from offences; and stated that non-compliance may lead to cancellation of bail. The order emphasizes that the observations are limited to the bail petition and relies on the cited jurisprudence to justify relief under BNSS 2023.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is decided under Section 482 CrPC by a single judge of the Kerala High Court. Petitioners Abdul Hameed, Harshad, Abdul Rasheed, Naveen Kumar, and Santosh G M seek to quash C.C.No.950/2018 (Crime No.302/2018) of the Badiadka Police Station, Kasaragod, arising from offences under Sections 143, 147, 447, 427 and 153 read with 149 IPC, allegedly committed by an unlawful assembly that attacked the victim. The prosecution case is that the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and behaved in a manner violative of the cited IPC sections. The petitioners and the victim submit that the dispute is private, the matter has been settled, and the victim has no objection to quashing the proceedings. The Public Prosecutor initially expressed reservations but conceded the settlement. The court relies on the Supreme Court decisions in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688, and the earlier Gian Singh and Narinder Singh lines, to hold that the power under S.482 CrPC can be exercised in private, non‑compoundable cases where the entire dispute is settled, and where the accused’s conduct and antecedents do not negate the settlement. After considering the records and the victim’s affidavit, the court finds the dispute private, the settlement bona fide, and quashing warranted. All further proceedings in C.C.No.950/2018 are quashed, balancing private resolution against public interest.
MACA Nos. 3486/2015 & 122/2016 These Motor Accident Claims Appeals arise from a claim petition (OP(MV) 553/2013) filed for injuries sustained in a motor accident on 29.07.2013, resulting in amputation of the petitioner’s leg. The appellant in MACA 3486/2015 is SASI, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala, while the insurer, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., is the respondent in MACA 3486/2015 and the appellant in MACA 122/2016. The insurer contested liability and quantum, whereas SASI contended that the tribunal’s compensation under pain, loss of earning capacity, and future expenses was inadequate. The tribunal held the insurer liable and awarded Rs. 21,87,450 with interest and costs, but the appeals center on recalculating compensation for loss of earning capacity, considering disability, avocation, and future prospects. The High Court accepts the disability percentage can be driven by functional criteria, distinguishes Basappa v. T. Ramesh to treat amputation without neurological impairment differently, and applies the Pranay Sethi framework for future prospects, resulting in a reassessment that increases compensation; it also revisits heads such as loss of amenities and future treatment expenses, and disallows penal interest. The judgment ultimately awards an additional Rs. 4,04,000 in favour of the petitioner, to be deposited within three months, and modifies the earlier award accordingly.
This Regular Second Appeal arises from a dispute over land in Ezhumattoor village, Pathanamthitta, framed through Ext. A1, a settlement deed of 08.10.1997 by Smt. Thresiamma @ Mariamma. The deed purportedly settled 23.32 Ares in favour of appellant No.1 (T.T. Joseph) but reserved rights to the settlor: a life estate and an absolute right to alienate 2.50 Ares of land. The suit (O.S. No.8/2010) sought declarations, boundary fixation, and injunctive relief; the Trial Court held that appellant No.1 had title to item No.1 and appellant No.2 to item No.2, and that Exts. A5–A7 and B1 were not binding on the appellants. The First Appellate Court later modified the decree, holding the appellants had acquired rights over 20.82 Ares under Ext. A1. The High Court re-framed substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC and, after hearing, concluded that Ext. A1, read harmoniously, shows the settlor divested title only to 20.82 Ares and retained 2.50 Ares. The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed with costs. The decision emphasizes interpretation, harmony of terms, and background facts, holding that the retention was not a void restriction under Sections 10–11 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
This is a Kerala High Court writ petition challenging Exhibit P3, an order of the Upa Lok Ayukta directing the respondent to participate in the State Level Kerala School Kalolsavam (Mohiniyattam) at Thiruvananthapuram in January 2016. The petitioners, officials in the education department and convener of Kalolsavam committees, contend that the Lok Ayukta had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since its averments do not fall within the grievance definition under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999. They seek quashing Ext. P3 and mandamus directing the Upa Lok Ayukta to proceed with Complaint No.132/2016 according to law, and to uphold the Appeal Committee’s decision under the Kalolsavam. The case records show a prior Single Judge order granting urgent interim relief pending the respondent’s eligibility to participate, conditioned on first place at feeder level. The court relies on a Division Bench decision in Anagha K and others (2022 (5) KHC 473) cautioning against routine interim orders by Lok Ayukta, HRC, or Civil Courts that may confer undue advantage and disrupt schedules. Following those precedents, the court holds that the Lok Ayukta cannot override feeder-level decisions; Ext. P3 is set aside and the petition is allowed, directing a proper course in the proceedings.
CRL.M.C. No. 2555 of 2022 RCI Industries & Technologies Ltd (RCI Ltd), a Delhi-based manufacturing company, with its Managing Director Rajeev Gupta and Director Mamta Gupta, challenged Annexure-A1 complaint filed by South Indian Bank Ltd. (SIB Ltd.) under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 (PSS Act) before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Ernakulam, under Section 28(1) of the PSS Act. The petitions, under Section 482 CrPC, raise identical issues regarding the legality of cognizance and the foundations of the alleged liability arising from dishonour of electronic funds transfers executed through the Trade Receivables Discounting System (TReDS) platform via M1xchange. The complainant-bank alleges that the 1st accused availed factoring facilities and defaulted on payments, resulting in dishonoured electronic transfers; the platform's Master Buyer Agreement and Annexure-A3 allegedly assign receivables to financiers and prescribe a Delhi forum. The petitioners contend that the demand under Section 27(c) was not properly triggered since information of dishonor originated from M1xchange rather than the bank, and that Annexure-A3 ousts Ernakulam jurisdiction. The State and the Bank counter that platform-generated data via NACH/ECS constitutes information from the bank, and RBI-guided TREDS processes govern settlements, thus sustaining cognizance and liability at the trial stage. The High Court, after detailing TREDS mechanics and RBI guidelines, held that the complaint satisfies the statutory provision, cognizance was proper, and the alleged vicarious liability is a matter for trial; all petitions were dismissed.
The petitioner, Sundaram Home Finance Ltd, approaches the Kerala High Court seeking a direction to the Sub Registrar to register Ext.P6 sale certificate without insisting on production of a Record of Rights (ROR) certificate. The core issue is whether ROR can be made a mandatory precondition for registration under the Registration Act and Registration Rules, which have not yet been amended to require such a certificate. The court relies on established precedents—including Synudheen v. State of Kerala (2013) and P.C. Jacob v. Village Officer (2020)—holding that mandatory production of an ROR certificate cannot be insisted upon where amendments to the Act and Rules are absent, and registration can proceed if otherwise in order. The judgment emphasizes that compelling ROR production could hinder urgent property transfers and impose undue hardship on owners seeking sale or mortgage settlement. It also notes that preparation of ROR is laudable but not a legal prerequisite, and that Tahsildars cannot invalidate prior, duly registered titles on the basis of non-production of an ROR. In light of these authorities, Ext.P5 (sale certificate under SARFAESI) should be registered without ROR, and mutation should follow in due course. The petition is allowed accordingly and disposed of.
This Regular First Appeal (R.F.A. No. 284 of 2005) arises from a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title, boundary fixation, and a mandatory injunction concerning two contiguous properties (A schedule: 35.50 cents in Sy. No. 90/1; B schedule: 17.315 cents in Sy. No. 90/3) and an adjacent canal/thodu. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the plaint not properly identified. The plaintiff-appellant asserts title through Exts. A1–A5 (title deeds and tax receipts) and Ext. A3/A4 relating to partition and tax payments, with Ext. C1 and C1(a) (Commissioner’s report and plan) identifying the properties. The defendants contend Section 544 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994 bars the suit, and deny trespass. The appellate court reaffirms identification of the plaint schedule properties in Ext. C1(a) and holds that the plaintiff has title, evidenced by Exts. A1–A5 and the Commissioner’s plan. It is observed that the act of encroachment for canal formation and the wall was not authorized under the Municipalities Act, and Section 544 cannot shield such illegal acts. The court reasons that Section 544 applies only to actions under municipal authority, not to trespass. Consequently, the appeal is allowed: a decree for recovery of possession of plots A, B, E, and D is granted, with the first defendant ordered to restore the properties and to remove constructions within one month. Ext. C1(a) forms part of the decree, and the decree is without prejudice to any rights of the defendant regarding water flow/acquisition by law if needed.
