LexGAUTAM SARUP versus LEELA JETLY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.... ; [2008] 4 S.C.R. 523 GAUTAM SARUP v. LEELA JETLY AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1808 of 2008) MARCH 7, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] Evidence Act, 1872: A B ~ s.58-Admission made by a party to the /is-Admissibility of - Held: Admissible against him proprio vigore - A C categorical admission cannot be resiled from but it may be explained or clarified - It is permissible to take an alternative plea, however, it should not be mutually destructive - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 8 r. 5. D Admission made in a pleading - Not same as admission in a document. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : 06 r.11-Amendment of written statement- Respondent no. 6 filing written statement accepting the claim of appellant E in its entirety - Subsequently resiting from it stating that the written statement was not filed by her and signature on it were not hers - Failure on her part to prove so -Application by her seeking amendment of written statement - Permissibility of - Held: Not permissible - Only explanation which could be F .,.. offered by her was that the purported admission had been ..., _, taken from her by playing fraud on her and she, therefore, was not bound thereby - As such explanation not offered, application for amendment of written statement wrongly allowed by Courts below. G The testator bequeathed his properties in favour the appellant and respondent no.7. Appellant filed a suit for declaration of his title to the properties and for decree of 523 H 524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS , [2008] 4 S.C.R. ~ ) A permanent injunction. Respondent No.6 on being served with the summons appeared through MPV, Advocate. She filed a written statement admitting the averments made in ~ the plaint. She,, however, filed another written statement denying and disputing the claim of the appellant in toto., B She also filed an application on 28.8.2000 for permission to take the first written statement off the records and to file another written statement on the premise that she had . not engaged MPV, Advocate nor filed ariy written statement through him. She denied her signatures c appearing on the said written statement. The said application was allowed by the trial court. Appellant filed revision wherein High Court while setting aside the order of trial court directed it to hold an enquiry as to whether the respondent no.6 ever engaged MPV, Advocate or ever .. o signed the written statement which had been placed on record. It was directed that in the event the findings of the said enquiry go· in her favour, it would be open to her to file the second written statement or the one which has been filed by her may be accepted. Pursuant thereto, ~ E enquiry was held and it was opined that respondent no.6 had, in fact, appointed the said MPV as her lawyer and filed her written statement on 30.3.2000. This order was upheld by High Court. Thereafter, Respondent no.6 filed an applica~ion for F amendment which was allowed by trial Court and affirmed by High Court. Hence the 'present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. An admission made in a pleading is not G to be treated in the same manner as an admission in a document. An admission made by a party to the lis is admissible against him proprio vigore. [Para 13) [530-E] State of Haryana and Ors. v. M.P Moh/a (2007) 1 SCC H 457 - referred to, ., · ,, . \ ~ GAUTAM SARUP v. LEELA JETLY AND ORS. 525 1.2. A thing admitted in view of s.58 of the Indian A Evidence Act need not be proved. Order VIII Rule 5 CPC provides that even a vague or evasive denial may be treated to be an admission in which event the court may pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff. It is one thing to say that without resiling from an admission, it would be B permissible to explain under what circumstances the same had been made or it was made under a mistaken belief or to clarify one's stand in regard to the extent or • ,. effect of such admission, but it is another thing to say that a person can be permitted to totally resile therefrom. c [Para 15) [530-G-H; 531-A-B] Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co.Ltd. and Anr. v. Ladha Ram and Co. (1976) 4 SCC 320; Panchdeo Rarain Srivastava v. Km. Jyoti Sahay and Anr. (1984) Supp. SCC 594; Akshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa and Anr. (1995) D Supp. 2 SCC 303;Basavan Jaggu Dhobi v. Sukhnanndan Ramdas Chaudhary (1995) Supp. 3 179; Heeralal v. Kalyan .., Mal and Ors. (199
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.