1973 (10) TMI 54 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Ownership of shop-room at the extreme northwest corner of plot No. 1238.
2. Status of properties mentioned in Schedule C to the plaint as joint family properties liable to partition.

Ownership of Shop-Room:
The dispute in this case revolved around the ownership of a shop-room at the extreme northwest corner of plot No. 1238. The High Court upheld the first defendant's possession of the shop-building based on admissions made by the eighth defendant and the plaintiffs in earlier depositions and written statements. The High Court concluded that the disputed shop-room was allotted to the first defendant in a partition that took place in 1938. The appellants argued that the admissions used against them were vague and insufficient to justify a clear verdict. They also contended that a new case, not raised in the pleadings, was considered by the court. However, the court found no substance in these arguments and dismissed the appeal, stating that the reliance on the admissions was valid and the appellants failed to articulate any prejudice earlier.

Status of Properties in Schedule C:
Regarding the properties listed in Schedule C to the plaint, the case revolved around three items covered by four usufructuary mortgages. The first defendant claimed that these properties belonged exclusively to him, a claim accepted by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court based on the admissions made by the first plaintiff and the eighth defendant in earlier suits. The High Court concluded that the properties belonged to the first defendant, emphasizing the impact of the admissions on the plaintiffs' case. The appellants raised concerns about the fairness of relying on these admissions without giving them an opportunity to explain or counter them. However, the court held that the admissions were substantive evidence and admissible, even if not directly confronted to the parties during the trial. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were directed to pay only half the costs in the Supreme Court.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts based on the admissions made by the parties in earlier proceedings, affirming the ownership of the shop-room and the properties in question. The court emphasized the validity of using admissions as substantive evidence and rejected the appellants' arguments of prejudice or procedural unfairness. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were directed to bear half the costs of the proceedings in the Supreme Court.