4 September 2025 Legal Updates

S.100 CPC | HIGH COURT MUST ASSIGN REASONS FOR FRAMING ADDITIONAL QUESTION OF LAW IN SECOND APPEALS: SUPREME COURT LAYS DOWN PRINCIPLES

(a) Case Title:

• C.P. Francis v. C.P. Joseph and Others

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• September 3, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti

Brief Facts

C.R. Pius and Philomina Pius owned property in Kerala. They executed a joint will on January 27, 2003, bequeathing their property to their son C.P. Francis (appellant). The will was attested by two witnesses: Ponsy (Francis's wife) and Antony (son-in-law). After both parents died, other children filed a suit claiming equal shares in the property through intestate succession. They challenged the will's validity on grounds of mental incapacity and fraud.

Legal Issues

Was there a procedural violation in Second Appeal- to the extent that can courts decide cases on entirely new grounds not pleaded by the parties?

Court’s finding

Courts cannot decide cases on entirely new grounds not pleaded by parties. The High Court had invoked Section 67 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which makes a bequest void if it's made to an attesting witness or their spouse. However:

• No Pleadings: The plaintiffs never raised this ground in their pleadings
• No Issues Framed: No issue was framed regarding Section 67
• No Cross-examination: Witnesses were never questioned about this aspect
• Procedural Requirements: Under Section 100(5) CPC, courts must record reasons for framing additional substantial questions of law

Supreme Court's Ruling

The High Court erred by introducing Section 67 without proper pleadings or evidence. This created an "entirely new case" for the plaintiffs at the appeal stage. The will was validly executed and proved by all three courts. Mental capacity of testators was established through evidence.

Key Legal Principles

Civil Procedure Code - Second Appeals (Section 100)- Second appeals lie only on substantial questions of law. Courts can frame additional questions under proviso to Section 100(5) but must Record reasons, give parties opportunity to argue and ensure questions are grounded in pleadings.

ANTICIPATORY BAIL IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER SC/ST ACT ONLY IF PRIMA FACIE OFFENCE ISN'T MADE OUT: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• September 1, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice N.V. Anjaria

Brief Facts

The incident occurred on 25th November, 2025 (day after assembly elections). Accused persons came to complainant's house after assembly elections and used casteist slur "Mangatyano" (derogatory term for Mang community). Accused said: "you have become much arrogant, you are staying in the village and voting against me". They beat up the complainant and family members with iron rods and threatened to burn their house, had petrol bottles. They also molested complainant's mother, damaged household items. The Incident occurred in public view outside the house.

1. Key Provisions involved:

• Section 3(1)(o): Offence against SC/ST member for voting/not voting for particular candidate
• Section 3(1)(r): Intentionally insulting/intimidating SC/ST member in public view
• Section 3(1)(s): Abusing SC/ST member by caste name in public view
• Section 3(1)(w)(i): Intentionally touching SC/ST woman without consent

2. Section 18 - Absolute Bar on Anticipatory Bail:

• "Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act."

Court Proceedings

1. Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Paranda):

• Rejected anticipatory bail application
• Found prima facie case made out under SC/ST Act
• Noted specific casteist allegations and independent witnesses

2. High Court (Bombay HC, Aurangabad Bench):

• Granted anticipatory bail
• Held prosecution case was "exaggerated and false"
• Considered incident had "political overtures" due to election timing
• Found "inconsistencies" in prosecution story

Supreme Court's Legal Analysis

1. Nature of Section 18 Bar:

• Creates absolute bar against anticipatory bail for SC/ST Act offences. The Legislature deliberately removed this protection to prevent intimidation of victims. This provision has been upheld as constitutionally valid (not violative of Articles 14 or 21).

2. Limited Exception:

Court can grant anticipatory bail only when:

• No prima facie case made out on first reading of FIR
• Accusations are completely devoid of merit
• Court must decide on first blush/first impression

3. Prohibited Judicial Conduct:

• Courts cannot conduct "mini-trial" at bail stage. They cannot evaluate evidence or witness testimony. They cannot consider discrepancies in prosecution case. Courts must decide based only on FIR allegations.

4. Prima Facie Case Analysis:

• Caste nexus established: Use of "Mangatyano" (casteist slur)
• Public view requirement satisfied: Incident outside house visible to others
• Political motive: Beating for voting against accused's preferred candidate
• Clear intention to humiliate based on caste identity

Supreme Court Judgment:

Set aside High Court order and cancelled anticipatory bail granted to accused.