1. Declaration of ownership suit for agricultural land — Concurrent findings reversed — Appeal before Supreme Court. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.S. Chauhan, J
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Ibrahim Uddin – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1374 of 2008
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.P. Bhatt, Madhurima Tatia
For the Respondents: Asok Ganguly, C.L. Pandey, Vibhor Garg
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.P. Bhatt, Madhurima Tatia
For the Respondents: Asok Ganguly, C.L. Pandey, Vibhor Garg
A suit for declaration of title without seeking possession is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Furthermore, adverse inferences cannot be drawn for non-production of evidence without following discovery procedures, and additional evidence cannot be admitted in appeal without supporting pleadings.
Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114(g) and Section 58 - Adverse inference for non-production of documents - Not permissible unless the party in possession was asked to produce them and failed to comply with court orders - Conduct and diligence of the other party is paramount; burden of proof remains with the party making a factual averment (Paras 6-16).
(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XI - Discovery and Inspection - No adverse inference can be drawn for non-production of a document unless notice is served and the procedure for discovery or inspection is followed (Paras 15-17).
(C) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XII - Admissions - Failure to prove a defence or not filing a document in rebuttal does not amount to an admission of the opponent's document or its contents (Paras 18-24).
(D) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI Rule 27 - Additional evidence in appellate stage - Not a matter of right; allowed only in exceptional circumstances where the court requires it to pronounce judgment or for substantial cause - Application must be heard at the time of final hearing of the appeal; if allowed prior to hearing without assessing the record, it is an improper exercise of discretion (Paras 25-41). (E) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34 - Suit for declaration of title without seeking consequential relief of possession, when the plaintiff is not in possession, is not maintainable and barred by the proviso to the section (Paras 43-46). (F) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Only on substantial questions of law - High Court is required to answer the substantial questions framed at the time of admission or record reasons if they are not substantial (Paras 47-58).
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff sought a decree for declaration of ownership over agricultural land, claiming it was granted to ancestors by a previous government. Trial court dismissed the suit. In the first appeal, the court allowed additional evidence in the form of a Will and drew an adverse inference against the defendant for not producing revenue records. High Court upheld these findings. Defendant challenged the judgments on the ground that the suit was barred by law and the evidence was improperly admitted.
Findings of Court:
First appellate court and High Court erred in shifting the burden of proof to the defendant. The Will was not based on pleadings and was not proved as per law. The rent note was vague and irrelevant. The certified copies of the General Land Register were admissible and indicative of title. The suit was barred by the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as no possession was sought.
Issues: Whether adverse inference could be drawn for non-production of documents without following Order XI CPC; whether a Will could be admitted as additional evidence without pleadings; whether a suit for declaration without possession is maintainable; and whether the High Court correctly handled the second appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that adverse inference requires the other party to be diligent in seeking production through legal process. Additional evidence at the appellate stage cannot be used to patch a weak case and must be based on a record of reasons. A suit for mere declaration of title is barred if the plaintiff is out of possession and fails to seek restoration of possession. Relief cannot be granted on grounds not pleaded.
Result: Appeal allowed, judgments and decrees of the first and second appellate courts set aside and judgment and decree of the Civil Court restored.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
- civil procedure
- evidence
- property law
- specific relief
Table of Contents
2. Appellant challenged lack of evidence and procedural errors; respondent supported concurrent findings as not liable to interference. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Courts below misdirected by shifting burden of proof, wrongly admitting additional evidence, and misapplying adverse inference and admission provisions. (Para 17 , 24 , 38 , 41 , 46 , 59 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 )
4. Appellate court can admit additional evidence only if required to pronounce judgment; mere non-production of rebuttal does not amount to admission. (Para 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 )
5. Appeal allowed; judgments of first and second appellate courts set aside; trial court's decree dismissing suit restored. (Para 70 )
6. When can an appellate court draw an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act for non-production of documents?
Adverse inference is permissible only if the other party sought production under Order XI CPC or the court directed production; mere withholding is insufficient. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
7. Does failure to file rebuttal evidence amount to admission under Section 58 of the Evidence Act?
No; admission requires an express agreement at or before hearing or in pleadings; mere failure to rebut does not constitute admission. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
8. What is the proper stage for deciding an application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC?
The application must be considered at the final hearing after examining whether the evidence is needed to pronounce judgment; allowing it earlier is improper. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 )
9. Is a suit for declaration of title maintainable without seeking consequential relief when the plaintiff is not in possession?
No; such a suit is barred by the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and must be dismissed on that ground alone. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 )
10. Can a court base its decision on evidence not supported by pleadings?
No; the court cannot travel beyond the pleadings, and evidence on an unpleaded issue must be ignored unless parties led evidence with full knowledge. (Para 59 , 62 , 63 )
1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.4.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Second Appeal No.289 of 2000 by which it has upheld the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court dated 15.10.1999 passed in Civil Appeal No.81 of 1998 by which the first appellate Court had reversed the judgment and decree of the Civil Court dated 20.1.1998 passed in Original Suit No.442 of 1995 wherein the plaintiff/respondent no.1 had sought declaration of title of the ownership in respect of the suit property.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are:
A. Plaintiff/respondent no.1-Ibrahim Uddin filed Original Suit No.442 of 1995 in the Court of Civil Judge, Agra on 25.7.1995 seeking a decree for declaration that he was the owner of the suit property (Agriculture land measuring 25 bighas), making averments that the suit land originally had been with the Maratha Government (Scindia-Gwalior). The ancestors of the plaintiff having close association with the Maratha Government, were made a grant in respect of the suit land in the year 1800. Subsequently, the land was partitioned between the ancestors of the plaintiff in the year 1819. The plaintiff/respondent no.1 being the only heir (descendant) of Smt. Hasin Begum and Zafaruddin became the absolute owner of the land after the death of his mother Smt. Hasin Begum. The said land was never sold, alienated, transferred or gifted to any person either by the plaintiff or his ancestors at any point of time. The suit land was given on rent to the State authorities in Agra by executing a rent note for a sum of Rs.22/- per month. The Union of India claimed title over the suit land illegally and in an unauthorised manner on 22.2.1993 and afterwards, thus the cause of action arose to approach the court.
B. The defendant no.1/appellant filed the written statement denying the averments and ownership of the plaintiff/respondent no.1 and averred that the land belonged to the Ministry of Defence, i.e., Union of India, a part of which has been leased out to several persons for agriculture work and their lease has been renewed from time to time. As they became unauthorised occupants, proceedings had been initiated in accordance with law and eviction order had been passed against the occupants/tenants.
C. In view of the pleadings, 8 issues were framed by the Trial Court and after appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that Pedigree produced by the plaintiff alongwith the plaint was not successfully proved; the plaintiff could not prove any kind of grant by the Maratha Government to his ancestors/great-grandfathers in the year 1800. Plaintiff failed to prove the partition between his ancestors in 1819. The lease deed alleged to have been executed in favour of the Military Estate Officer under the Union of India, appellant/defendant No.1, was not successfully proved. In view of the above, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.1.1998.
D. Aggrieved, the plaintiff/respondent no.1 preferred the first appeal before the District Judge, Agra. During the pendency of the said appeal, he preferred an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (hereinafter called "CPC") on 6.4.1998 for adducing additional evidence, i.e., Will executed by his maternal grandfather dated 1.3.1929 in his favour bequeathing the suit property. The said application was allowed by the first appellate Court vide order dated 28.4.1999. The First Appeal itself stood allowed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.10.1999 wherein the first appellate Court came to the conclusion that Maratha Government had made the gift of land in favour of plaintiff's fore-fathers which was subsequently partitioned. The registered partition deed stood duly proved and it was the proof of the title of the plaintiff/respondent no.1. The plaintiff/respondent no.1 made an application fo
