The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific and unambiguous pleadings, the burden of proof on the party averring the negative, and the duty of candour in presenting pleadings.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

CM No. 7884 of 2014

Allowed subject to just exceptions.

1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated March 11, 2014 dismissing IA No.4372/2014 seeking amendment of the plaint instituted by the appellants. The suit filed has been dismissed burdening appellants costs in sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to be paid to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

2. The learned Single Judge has noted various decisions to reach the conclusion arrived at.

3. We proceeded to note the averments of the appellants even as per the proposed amended plaint for the reason we need to bring out the frivolousness of the suit and our agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

4. It is the case of the appellants that along the road named Khajoor Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi a parcel of land abutting the plots on either side of the road has been leased by the MCD to the appellants. In the same breath the appellants have pleaded that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has licensed the said land to the appellants. To give clarity to the pleadings we note that it is the case of the appellants that along the boundary of their plots abutting the road a three feet wide strip of land has been leased/licensed to them by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

5. There is no reference to the date when the lease or the license was granted. What are the terms of the lease or the license has not been pleaded.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the land was under a license pursuant to a policy decision taken by the Corporation to permit use of the strip as a licensee on the conditions contained in letters sent to some occupants. Our attention has been drawn to one such letter at page No.110 of the appeal paper book.

7. The letter would evidence that MCD wrote to the addressees that upon payment of a fee in sum of Rs.259.98 for the years 1962-1968 and further annual payment @ Rs.1 per sq.yds. the addresses would be permitted to use the said strip of land provided no temporary or permanent structure is erected thereon. It records that the permission can be revoked any time.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the letter in question contains the terms of the license.

9. Now, if this was so, the appellants had to plead in the suit and we mean even the proposed amended plaint, that they were licensees under the aforesaid grant and that they were complying with the terms of the license, in that, had paid the demand raised in the letter in question and each year had deposited the necessary license fee.

10. There are no such pleadings.

11. In 1903, the US Supreme Court in the decision reported as 191 U.S. 84 United States vs. Denver & Rio Grande Railroad Company, said:

“Upon principle as well as upon authority, a party who hasbeen shown to be prima facie guilty of a trespass, and relies upon a license, must exhibit his license, and prove that his acts were justified by it. The practical injustice of a different rule is manifest.

It is a general rule of evidence, noticed by the elementary writers upon that subject (1 Greenl. Ev. 79) that where the subject-matter of a negative averment lies peculiarly within the know-ledge of the other party, the averment is taken as true unless disproved by that party. When a negative is averred in pleading, or plaintiff's case depends upon the establishment of a negative, and the means of proving the fact are equally within the control of each party, then the burden of proof is upon the party averring the negative; but when the opposite party must, from the nature of the case, himself be in possession of full and plenary proof to disprove the negative averment, and the otherparty is not in possession of such proof, then it is manifestly just and reasonable that the party which is in possession of the proof should be required to adduce it; or, upon his failure to do so, we must pre-sume it does not exist, which of itself establishes a negati