2007 Supreme(SC) 790

2007(5) Supreme 357
Supreme Court of India
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju, JJ.
Gannmani Anasuya & Ors. – Appellants
versus
Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary & Ors. – Respondents
Appeal (civil) 7318 of 2000
Decided on : 17-05-2007

Important points
An admission made by a party can be used against him. When such admission is made by a Karta of Hindu undivided family, who is managing family property as well as family business affairs, same would be a relevant fact.
In terms of Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a thing admitted need not be proved.
A pleading in regard to existence of a document may be necessary for advancing case of a party, but when a witness admits a document to be in his own handwriting without anything more, effect thereof may have to be considered having regard to provisions contained in Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act in terms whereof only requirement would be that his attention is drawn before a writing can be proved.

Headnote:Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 58 & 145 - Code of Civil Procedure - Order 41 Rule 31 - Suit for partition – Decreed by Trial Judge and High Court – Appeal there against on plea that Trial Judge as also High Court committed a serious error insofar as they failed to take into consideration effect of Ex.B-8, which categorically showed that accounts had been settled by and between parties – Held a pleading in regard to existence of a document may be necessary for advancing case of a party, but when a witness admits a document to be in his own handwriting without anything more, effect thereof may have to be considered having regard to provisions contained in Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act in terms whereof only requirement would be that his attention is drawn before a writing can be proved – Non consideration of Said relevant facts by High Court - High Court merely proceeded on basis that Ex. B-8 did not contain anybody’s signature - If Defendant No. 1 accepted contents of said document, which, according to him, were noted by him from books of accounts, authenticity thereof was not in question – Hence even in absence of books of accounts, relevant pages whereof were found to have been torn, High Court ought to have taken same into consideration as well as admission on part of Defendant No. 1 and effect thereof - Such an admission could be taken into consideration both for purpose of arriving at a finding in regard to fact as to whether a full and final settlement of accounts had been arrived at, which was a relevant fact as also for determining question of limitation - High Court, committed a manifest error in not taking into consideration contents of Ex. B-8 in its proper perspective - High Court ought to have framed appropriate points for its determination in light of submissions made on behalf of Appellants in terms of Order 41 Rule 31 of Code of Civil Procedure – Since High Court failed to address itself on said issue – Hence Impugned judgment set aside accordingly in part and matter remitted to High Court for consideration of matter afresh on said issues. (Paras 21, 25,29,30)

       Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 58 - An admission made by a party can be used against him - When such admission is made by a Karta of Hindu undivided family, who is managing family property as well as family business affairs, same would be a relevant fact - When a claim was made by plaintiffs for rendition of accounts in lis, issuance of a document purported to have been authored by one of parties, was required to be taken into consideration - In terms of Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a thing admitted need not be proved - When in cross-examination a witness accepts correctness of a document, same would be relevant.(Paras 22,23,24)

       2006(14) SCALE 174 relied upon.

       Facts of the case :

       A Suit for partition was filed by Respondents 1 & 2 herein in the instant case claiming 2\3rd share in schedule “A” property and 4\9th Share in schedule “B” property as also decree directing defendants 1 to 3 to render fair and proper accounts in respect of poultry business being run in schedule “B” property. Trial Judge passed a preliminary decree directing partition of properties and directing Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 as also Respondent No. 3 to render fair and proper accounts in respect of poultry business from 1968 onwards. Appeal thereagainst filed by Appellants was dismissed by High Court.

       Present appeal has been filed agaisnt said order of High Court. Plea that Trial Judge as also High Court committed a serious error insofar as they failed to take into consideration effect of Ex.B-8, which categorically showed that accounts had been settled by and between parties on 30.05.1979 and in view of fact that Defendant 1 having admitted execution thereof, same should have been taken into consideration for purpose of determining issue of limitation, if not for other purposes

       Findings of the Court:-

       The Court held that it was difficult to accept reasoning of High Court in regard to Ex. B-8. Plaintiffs Respondents were claiming property as members of Hindu undivided family. Admittedly, interest of Hindu undivided family was being looked after by one “N” and after his death by Defendant 1. High Court merely proceeded on basis that Ex. B-8 did not contain anybody’s signature. If Defendant No.1 accepted contents of said document, which, according to him, were noted by him from books of accounts, authenticity thereof was not in question. Hence even in absence of books of accounts, relevant pages whereof were found to have been torn, High Court ought to have taken same into consideration as well as admission on part of Defendant No.1 and effect thereof. Such an admission could be taken into consideration both for purpose of arriving at a finding in regard to fact as to whether a full and final settlement of accounts had been arrived at, which was a relevant fact as also for determining question of limitation. High Court, committed a manifest error in not taking into consideration contents of Ex. B-8 in its proper perspective. High Court ought to have framed appropriate points for its determination in light of submissions made on behalf of Appellants in terms of Order 41 Rule 31 of Code of Civil Procedure. Since High Court failed to address itself on said issue. Hence Impugned judgment set aside accordingly in part and matter remitted to High Court for consideration of matter afresh on said issues.

       Result: Appeal allowed in part.