SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

ORISSA HIGH COURT
Dr. A.K. Rath, J.
Benudhar Swain and Ors. —Petitioners
versus
Nilamani Swain and Anr. —Opp. Parties
C.M.P. No.1721 of 2016
Decided on 26.7.2017

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Ajit Kumar Tripathy, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. Ashok Mohanty Senior Advocate, Mr. B.K. Nayak, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Right to begin is not the same as adducing evidence in support of a party’s case.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 18 Rule 1—Right to begin evidence—Partition suit—Right to begin is not the same as adducing evidence in support of a party’s case—There is distinction between two—Assertion of plaintiffs is that suit schedule properties are joint family property and have not been partitioned by meats and bounds—In view of categorical stand of defendants that parts of Schedule-B property are self-acquired properties of defendants, defendants shall begin first—Only when defendants lead some evidence in proof of their case, plaintiffs shall be obliged to lead evidence in rebuttal—Petition dismissed. (Paras 11 to 13)

       Result: Petition dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

Dr. A.K. Rath, J.—By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenge is made to the order dated 2.11.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri in C.S.No.319 of 2002, whereby and where under, the learned trial court allowed the application of the plaintiffs under Order 18 Rule 1 C.P.C. and directed the defendants to begin first.

2. The opposite parties as plaintiffs have instituted the suit for partition impleading the petitioners as defendants. According to the plaintiffs, out of thirteen lots of schedule-B property, Lot Nos.1 to 7 and 13 are the ancestral properties. Lot No.8 was purchased in the name of defendant no.1 out of joint family funds. Lot No.9 property was purchased in the name of defendant no.2 (present petitioner no.2) out of joint family funds. Lot Nos. 10, 11 and 12 were purchased in the name of defendant no.3 out of joint family funds. Lot Nos.1 and 8 of schedule-B property were purchased by the father. The Will through which defendant no.2 got properties, was not executed by the father. The said Will is a fraudulent one. Their father was not in a fit state of mind to execute such deed.

3. The defendants filed written statement and contended that Lot Nos.1 to 7 of schedule-B property were the self-acquired properties of the father of the plaintiffs and defendant no.1. Lot No.8 is the self-acquired property of defendant no.1. Lot No.9 is the self acquired property of defendant no.2. Lot No.10 is the self-acquired property of defendant no.3. Lot No.3 has been recoded in the name of Ananta Parida and others. Lot No.7 was acquired by the father in an auction sale. He executed a Will on 2.8.1992 in favour of defendant No.2. Lot Nos.1, 3 (part) and 4 to 6 of schedule-B property were also the self-acquired properties of the father. He executed three Wills in favour of defendant no.2 in respect of the same. R.S.A No.254 of 2000 is pending in respect of a part of lot No.3. While the matter stood thus, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 18 Rule 1 C.P.C. for a direction to the defendants to begin first. The defendants filed objection. The learned trial court allowed the same.

4. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar Tripathy, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. B.K.Nayak, Advocate for the opposite parties.

5. Mr. Tripathy, learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that there is no presumption that family, because it is joint, possessed joint family property and in a suit for partition, if a party claims that any particular item of property, held by an individual member, is a joint family property, then burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the same. He further submitted that the presumptive doctrine available in respect of the properties acquired in the name of male member, is not available in case of property standing in the name of female member. He further submitted that burden lies upon the person who asserts that a particular property is joint family property to establish that fact. He further submitted that right to begin is to be determined by the rules of evidence. As a general rule the party on whom the burden of proof rests should begin. In no case plaintiff can be allowed to take any undue advantage over the defendant, whatever may be the position or stand the defendant takes, for the very reason that the defendant is expected to answer the claim made by the plaintiff in the suit. The words “facts alleged”, occurring in Order 18 Rule 1 C.P.C., mean all the material facts. Thus, where a defendant admits only some of the facts alleged by the plaintiff, there the plaintiff should begin. He relied on a decision of the apex Court in the case of Mst. Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan and others, AIR 1960 SC 335 as well as on the decisions of this Court in the case of Mirza Niamat Baig and another v. Sk.Abdul Sayeed and others, 2008 (II) OLR-566, Sarojini Dei alias Das and others v. Satya Prasad Pattnaik













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top