GANNMANI ANASUYA AND ORS. versus PARVATINI AMARENDRA CHOWDHARY AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 201 · Decided: 17-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

. .. 
GANNMANI ANASUYA AND ORS. 
A 
--~-. 
v. 
PARVATINI AMARENDRA CHOWDHARY AND ORS. 
MAY 17, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
;, 
Evidence Act, 1872-ss. 58 and 145-Document without signature-
Admitted by executor-Document has bearing effect on limitation-Not 
. considered by High Court-Hence matter remitted back for reconsideration- c 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder. 41 r. 31. 
Pleadings-Necessity of-On jurisdictional facts-Held: A jurisdictional 
fact need not necessarily be pleaded. 
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) filed a suit against the appellants D 
(defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 5 to 7) and respondent No. 3 (defendant No. 1) claiming 
2/3rd share in the property described in Schedule A to the plaint and 4/9th 
..\ 
share in the property described in Schedule B to the plaint and seeking 
direction to defendants 1 to 3 to render fair and proper accounts, in respect 
of the poultry business which was being run in Schedule B property, from 
the year 1968 and for future profits thereon. Plaintiffs claimed the properties E 
as members of Hindu undivided family. Defendant No. 1- respondent No. 3 
was the 'Karta' of the family. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that their father 
(defendant No. 1 - respondent No. 3) had made investments for the poultry 
business started by the appellant Nos. 1 and 2. Arrangement was entered into 
between the parties that profits of the said business was to be shared by their F 
grandfather on one hand and their father and appellant No. 1 on the other 
~ 
I 
hand equally after giving due credit to the expenditure and interest to 
investments. Land was purchased in the name of the grandfather and appellant 
No. 1 from the money advanced. Poultry business was started on that With 
the profits from the poultry business a tube manufacturing plant was installed. 
On death of their grandfather they inherited 2/3rd undivided interest in the G. 
two business. Defendant No. 1 (father of the plaintiffs) supported their case. 
Appellants (defendant Nos. 2 and 3) denied the allegations in the suit. They 
also took the plea that the suit was barred by limitation. Defendant Nos. 2 and 
-r 
3 pleaded that the busineses were exclusively theirs. They had started the 
201 
H 
GANNMANIANASUYAv. PARVATINIAMARENDRACHOWDHARY 
203 
in the lis, issuance of a document purported to have been authored by one of A 
-...\-
the parties was required to be taken into consideration. In terms of Section 
58 of the Indian Evidence Act, I872, a thing admitted need not be proved. 
[Paras 22 and 23) [2IO-B, C, D) 
Shreedhan Govind Kamerkar v. Yesahwant Govind Kamerkar and Anr., 
(2006) I4 SCALE I74, referred to. 
B 
4. It is also a trite law that when in cross-examination a witness accepts 
+ 
the correctness of a document, the same would be relevant A pleading in 
) 
regarcl to existence of a document may be necessary for advancing the case of 
·a party, but when a witness admits a document to be in his own handwriting c 
without anything more, the effect thereof may have to be considered having 
regard to the provisions contained in Section I45 of the Indian Evidence Ad 
in terms whereof the only requirement would be that his attention is drawn 
before a writing can be proved. These relevant facts have not been considered 
by the High Court. The High Court merely proceeded on the basis that Ex.B-
8 did not contain anybody's signature. If defendant No.I accepted the conten~ D 
of the said document, which, according to him were noted by him from the 
-.,~ 
books of accounts, authenticity thereof is not in question, and, thus, even in 
absence of books of accounts, relevant pages whereof were found to have been 
torn, the High Court ought to have taken the same into consideration as well 
as the admission on the part of defendant No.I and the effect thereof: Such an E 
admission could be taken into consideration both for the purpose of arriving 
at a finding in regard to the fact as to whether a full and final settlement of 
accounts had been arrived at, which was a relevant fact as also for determining 
the question oflimitation. [Para 24) [210-D-G) 
5. There is no document in writing to prove partnership. Accounts had F 
not been demanded by the plaintiffs or the defendant no.3 for a long time. Even 
.../ 
an oral partnership had not been proved. What was the subject matter e>fthe 
partnership had also not been considered by the High Court. A share in a 
joint venture, in absence of any document in wr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.