IMPORTANT POINTS
Adverse inference, Admission, Additional evidence at appellate stage, Giving Reasons, Substantial question of law.

Headnote:(a) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114(g) r/w Order XI CPC - Adverse inference - Issues to be considered before drawing adverse inference - Plaintiffs application for inspection of document not permitted - Not submitting any interrogatory statement or application for inspection or production of the document - No adverse inference could be drawn against defendant. (Paras 16 and 17)
        AIR 1917 PC 6; AIR 1953 SC 225; AIR 1964 SC 136; AIR 1965 SC 1755; AIR 1968 SC 1413; AIR 2003 SC 3024; AIR 2010 SC 3813; (2011) 9 SCC 126; AIR 1915 PC 96; AIR 2003 SC 3342; AIR 2004 SC 4681; AIR 1967 SC 256; AIR 1967 SC 1134; AIR 2012 SC 1339; AIR 1988 SC 1074; (2005) 1 SCC 639; AIR 2005 SC 2179; AIR 2005 SC 534; AIR 2006 SC 355; AIR 2006 SC 514 - Relied upon
        (b) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 58 - Admission - Section 58 could be applied only if the procedure required under Order XII, CPC has been followed or admission is made during the course of hearing before the Court - Failure of a party to prove its defence does not amount to admission, nor it can reverse or discharge the burden of proof of the plaintiff. (Paras 23 and 24)
        AIR 1960 SC 100; AIR 1967 SC 341; AIR 1977 SC 1712; AIR 2004 SC 230; (2005) 5 SCC 784; AIR 2005 SC 2765; (2007) 15 SCC 529; AIR 1956 SC 593; (1840) 6 M & W 664; (2010) 4 SCC 491 - Relied upon
        (c) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI, rule 27 - Additional evidence at appellate stage - As exception to normal rule, O. 41, r. 27 empowers appellate court to allow a document to be produced and witness to be examined - Fresh evidence cannot be introduced under this provision at appellate stage - If the evidence available on record is sufficient for judgment, O. 41, r. 27 cannot be resorted to - There must exist sufficient cause for invoking this provision - The appellate court requires additional evidence when evidence taken by the lower court is so imperfect that a satisfactory judgment cannot be passed on that basis. (Paras 28 to 30 and 37)
        AIR 1963 SC 1526; AIR 1965 SC 1008; AIR 1975 SC 479; AIR 1979 SC 553; AIR 1978 SC 798; AIR 1957 SC 912; AIR 1969 SC 101 - Relied upon
        (d) Administration of Justice - Judicial Review - Reasons - All administrative as well as judicial orders must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. (Paras 33 and 34)
        AIR 2004 SC 1794; AIR 2008 SC 2026; AIR 2010 SC 1285; (2010) 13 SCC 336; AIR 1976 SC 2403; AIR 2008 SC 1108 - Relied upon
        (e) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI, rule 27 - Application for taking additional evidence on record at an appellate stage is to be heard at the time of final hearing of the appeal - If additional evidence was required to be taken on record in order to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. (Para 41)
        AIR 1951 SC 193; AIR 1976 SC 1053; AIR 1931 PC 143; AIR 1928 P.C. 128- Relied upon
        (f) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34 - Claiming relief of declaration without consequential relief - Not permissible - Suit for declaration of title - Without being in possession - Not maintainable. (Para 46)
        AIR 1972 SC 2685; AIR 1993 SC 957; (2011) 4 SCC 567 - Relied upon
        (g) Code of Civil procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Existence of a substantial question of law is a sine-qua-non for the exercise of jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 100 CPC - However, in very exceptional case second appeal may be heard on questions of fact also (Paras 50 and 55)
        AIR 2008 SC 2594; AIR 1962 SC 1314; (2011) 1 SCC 673; (2005) 7 SCC 60; AIR 1994 SC 678; AIR 1947 PC 19; (1949) 17 ITR 269; AIR 1957 SC 852; AIR 1957 SC 49; AIR 1992 SC 1604; (1996) 5 SCC 353; (1998) 6 SCC 423; AIR 2000 SC 534; AIR 2000 SC 1261; AIR 2010 SC 2685; (2010) 12 SCC 740; AIR 2002 SC 1428; AIR 2008 SC 1749; AIR 1977 SC 747 - Relied upon
        (h) Code of Civil procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - High Court not answering any of the substantial questions formulated - Judgment not sustainable. (Para 58)
        (i) Administration of Justice - Judicial propriety - Court cannot travel beyond the pleadings. (Paras 62 and 63)
        AIR 2011 SC 1127; AIR 1953 SC 235; AIR 2002 SC 665; AIR 2005 SC 3165; AIR 2010 SC 1299; AIR 2009 SC 1103 - Relied upon
        (j) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 65 and 74 - Title - Entries made in General Land Register maintained under Cantonment Land Administration Rules is conclusive evidence of title.
        AIR 1999 SC 2294; (2010) 13 SCC 511 - Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
        The respondents had filed suit for declaration of title on Cantonment land without being in possession thereof alleging that the land was granted to their ancestors and a Will without any description of property or date.
        The appellate court and the High Court allowed the suit.
       Finding of the Court:
        The appellate courts dealt with the case in an unwarranted manner giving a complete go-by to the procedure prescribed by law.
       Result : Appeal allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Legal Question Resolved in the Judgment:

Under what conditions can an appellate court draw an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act against a party for non-production of documents? (!) [1000514690015][1000514690016] (!)

JUDGMENT

Dr. B. S. Chauhan, J.-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/res

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(SC) 465

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DR. B.S. CHAUHAN & DIPAK MISRA, JJ.UNION OF INDIA - Appellants VERSUS IBRAHIM UDDIN & ANR. - Respondents Civil Appeal No. 1374 of 2008Decided on 17-07-2012.

IMPORTANT POINTS Adverse inference, Admission, Additional evidence at appellate stage, Giving Reasons, Substantial question of law.

Cases Referred (73)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DR. B.S. CHAUHAN & DIPAK MISRA, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA - Appellants
VERSUS
IBRAHIM UDDIN & ANR. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1374 of 2008
Decided on 17-07-2012.

IMPORTANT POINTS
Adverse inference, Admission, Additional evidence at appellate stage, Giving Reasons, Substantial question of law.