Failure to Testify Leads to Adverse Inference; Litigants Cannot Blame Counsel for Not Adducing Evidence at Appellate Stage: Madras High Court - 2025-04-25

Madras High Court Upholds Demolition Order in 19-Year Property Dispute, Citing Defendants' Failure to Adduce Evidence

CHENNAI – In a decisive ruling on a protracted property dispute, the Madras High Court has upheld the concurrent findings of two lower courts, ordering the demolition of a house built on the wrong plot of land. The Hon'ble Mrs. Justice T.V. Thamilselvi, dismissing a second appeal, emphasized that a party's deliberate failure to produce evidence or testify during trial rightfully leads to an adverse inference against them under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The court also imposed an exemplary cost of ₹25,000 on the appellants for protracting the litigation for nearly two decades and harassing the 81-year-old plaintiff.

Background of the Case

The legal battle began in 2009 when the plaintiff, K.R. Venkataraman, filed a suit before the Subordinate Judge in Tambaram. Mr. Venkataraman stated that he was the absolute owner of Plot No. 606/1 in Madipakkam, Chennai, which he purchased in 1985. He alleged that the original defendant, Govindasami, who owned the adjacent Plot No. 604/1, had wrongfully constructed a house on his (Venkataraman's) property.

The suit sought a mandatory injunction to compel the defendant to remove the illegal structure and hand over possession of the plot. After the original defendant's demise, his legal heirs, including two practicing advocates, were brought on record and continued the litigation.

Both the Trial Court (2017) and the First Appellate Court (2023) ruled in favour of the plaintiff, noting that the defendants admitted to owning Plot No. 604/1 but had constructed on Plot No. 606/1. A crucial factor in both decisions was the defendants' failure to present any oral or documentary evidence to support their claims.

Arguments Before the High Court

The appellants (defendants) raised several grounds in their second appeal, arguing: * Mistaken Identity: They were bona fide occupants who had mistakenly built on the wrong plot, a confusion they claimed existed since their vendors purchased the land. * No Fair Opportunity: They contended that their counsel at the trial court had unilaterally closed their side of the evidence, denying them a chance to defend their case properly. * Procedural Lapses: They alleged non-application of mind by the First Appellate Court, which had dismissed their plea to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and submit additional evidence. * Maintainability of Suit: The suit for a mandatory injunction was not maintainable without a prayer for declaration of title, and it was also barred by the statute of limitations.

The respondent (plaintiff) countered that the defendants had intentionally dragged the proceedings since 2005, frequently changing lawyers to delay justice. He maintained that the ownership of the plots was never in dispute, only the location of the construction, making a declaration of title unnecessary.

Court's Decisive Findings

Justice T.V. Thamilselvi dismissed the appellants' contentions, making several key observations.

“It is pertinent to mention here that two defendants are advocate by profession they are not illiterate, and voluntarily they are not inclined to give any evidence, thus court is empowered to draw adverse interference against them therefore the objection raised on the side of them that the fair opportunity was not given is not sustainable.”

The Court noted that the defendants, despite being legally knowledgeable, chose not to enter the witness box or produce any evidence during the trial. Their attempt to blame their counsel at the appellate stage was deemed unacceptable.

The judgment also addressed the maintainability of the suit:

"The Trial Court has rightly concluded that in respect of purchase by the plaintiff in S. No. 606/1 is undisputed fact, the plot purchased by the defendants' in S. No. 604/1 also undisputed. Therefore, when the title is not disputed there is no necessity for declaratory relief, title need not be proved."

The High Court found no substantial questions of law to warrant interference with the lower courts' findings. It highlighted the plaintiff's advanced age and the decades-long wait for justice, describing the appellants' conduct as an abuse of the court process.

Final Verdict and Directions

The Madras High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgments of the lower courts. The key directives are: 1. The appellants must remove the superstructure from Plot No. 606/1 within three months. 2. If they fail to comply, the plaintiff is entitled to have the demolition carried out through an execution petition. 3. The appellants are ordered to pay an exemplary cost of ₹25,000 to the District Legal Services Authority, Kancheepuram.

This judgment reinforces the fundamental legal principle that litigants must substantiate their claims with evidence at the trial stage and cannot later use the appellate process to fill evidentiary gaps caused by their own inaction.