2012 (7) TMI 887 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the first appellate court as well as the High Court committed grave error in shifting the burden of proof on the Union of India, appellant/defendant No.1, though it could have been exclusively on the plaintiff/respondent No.1 to prove his case? Whether there is nothing on record to prove the grant/gift by the Maratha Government in favour of ancestors of plaintiff/respondent No.1 in the year 1800 ? Whether Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 miserably failed to prove the pedigree produced by him? Whether the alleged partition in the year 1819 among the ancestors of plaintiff/respondent No.1 even if had taken place, cannot be a proof of title of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 over the suit property as the pedigree has not been proved? Whether the rent note produced by the appellant/defendant No.1 before the court below does not prove anything in favour of the plaintiff/respondent? Whether the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was liable to be rejected? Whether the court cannot travel beyond the pleadings as no party can lead the evidence on an issue/point not raised in the pleadings and in case, such evidence has been adduced or a finding of fact has been recorded by the Court, it is just to be ignored? Whether the first appellate court committed a grave error in deciding the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC much prior to the hearing of the appeal? Whether the documents produced by the Union of India have not been properly appreciated by the first appellate court and the High Court? Whether the courts below further committed an error holding that in case the document is taken on record, the document as well as the content thereof would be deemed to have been proved? Whether the appellate courts have also wrongly rejected the certified copies of the documents prepared by the Cantonment Board which were admissible in evidence? Whether the High Court committed a grave error in not addressing itself to the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission of the appeal and it ought to have decided the same or after discussing the same a finding could have been recorded that none of them was substantial question of law? Whether the suit was barred by the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, for the reason that plaintiff/respondent No.1, admittedly, had not been in possession and he did not ask for restoration of possession or any other consequential relief? Whether the first appellate court as well as the High Court recorded a finding that the Union of India failed to prove its title over the suit land. The said courts did not realise that this was not the issue to be determined, rather the issue had been as to whether the plaintiff/respondent No.1 was the owner of the suit land? Whether the first appellate court has not decided the issue of admission of documents in correct perspective and recorded a perverse finding? Whether the Question of filing a document in rebuttal of a Will could not arise? Whether the courts below had wrongly drawn adverse inference against the appellant/defendant No.1 for not producing the documents as there was no direction of the court to produce the same?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Adverse Inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act
2. Admissions and their Legal Implications
3. Order XLI Rule 27 CPC (Additional Evidence)
4. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
5. Section 100 CPC (Second Appeal on Substantial Questions of Law)

Detailed Analysis:

1. Adverse Inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act:
The court discussed the circumstances under which adverse inference can be drawn when a party withholds evidence. It emphasized that adverse inference is permissible if the evidence withheld is relevant and material to the issue in controversy. The court noted that the plaintiff/respondent no.1 was not permitted to inspect the records during the pendency of the suit, but he did not follow the procedures under Order XI CPC to compel the production of such documents. Therefore, the first appellate court and the High Court erred in drawing adverse inference against the appellant/defendant no.1.

2. Admissions and their Legal Implications:
The court examined whether the failure to file a document in rebuttal amounts to an admission under Section 58 of the Evidence Act. It clarified that not filing a rebuttal document does not constitute an admission. Admissions must be clear, unambiguous, and relevant, and should be proved in accordance with the Evidence Act. The first appellate court misdirected itself by treating the non-rebuttal of the Will as an admission.

3. Order XLI Rule 27 CPC (Additional Evidence):
The court reiterated the principle that appellate courts should not travel outside the record of the lower court, except under exceptional circumstances as outlined in Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. The appellate court should consider additional evidence only if it is necessary to pronounce judgment or for any substantial cause. The first appellate court erred by allowing additional evidence (the Will) without proper scrutiny and without following the procedure. The application for additional evidence should be considered at the time of hearing the appeal on merits, not before.

4. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963:
The court highlighted that a suit for declaration without seeking consequential relief is not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The plaintiff/respondent no.1 was not in possession of the suit property and did not seek restoration of possession. Therefore, the suit was barred by the proviso to Section 34 and should have been dismissed on this ground alone.

5. Section 100 CPC (Second Appeal on Substantial Questions of Law):
The court noted that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is permissible only on substantial questions of law. The High Court failed to address the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission of the appeal. The court emphasized that substantial questions of law must affect the final decision in the case and should be debatable. The High Court's reliance on the Will, which was not properly pleaded or proved, was erroneous.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments and decrees of the first and second appellate courts, and restored the judgment and decree of the Civil Court dated 20.1.1998. The court found multiple errors in the handling of the case by the lower appellate courts, including improper shifting of the burden of proof, incorrect application of adverse inference, and misapplication of legal principles regarding admissions and additional evidence. The suit was also barred by the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.