RANGAMMAL versus KUPPUSWAMI & ANR.

Citation: [2011] 6 S.C.R. 835 · Decided: 13-05-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 6 S.C.R. 835 
RANGAMMAL 
v. 
KUPPUSWAMI & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 562 of 2003) 
MAY 13, 2011 
[J.M. PANCHAL AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.) 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
A 
B 
s.101 - Burden of proof- Suit for partition - Property of C 
third person (who later got herself impleaded as defendant no. 
2), included in plaint-schedule property on the basis of a sale 
deed stated to have been executed by the alleged guardian 
of defendant no. 2 when she was a minor, on the ground of 
legal necessity to pay the debts of her deceased mother -
D 
Defendant no. · 2 disputing genuineness of the sale deed -
High Court placing the burden on defendant no. 2 that she 
should have challenged genuineness of the sale deed -
HELD: The burden of proving a fact always lies upon the 
person who asserts - Until such burden is discharged, the 
E 
other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case 
- In the instant matter, when the plaintiff pleaded that the 
disputed property fell into his share by virtue of the sale deed, 
then it was clearly for him to prove that it was executed for 
legal necessity of defendant no. 2 while she was a minor - It 
F 
was not defendant no. 2/appellant who claimed any benefit 
from the sale deed or asserted its existence,, therefore, the 
burden of challenging the sale deed specifically when she had 
not even been dispossessed from the disputed share by virtue 
G 
of the sale deed, did not arise at all - Since the High Court 
has misplaced the burden of proof, the impugned judgment 
of the High Court as also the judgments of the courts below 
are clearly vitiated, as it is a well established dictum of the 
835 
H 
836 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 6 S.C.R. 
A Evidence Act that misplacing the burden of proof would vitiate 
the judgment. 
· 
Partition: 
Suit for partition - HELD: In a suit for partition, it is 
8 expected of the plaintiff to include only those properties for 
partition to which the family has clear title and unambiguously 
belong to the members of the joint family which is sought to 
be partitioned and if someone else's property i.e. disputed 
C property is included in the schedule to the suit for partition, 
and the same is contested by a third party who is allowed to 
be impleaded, obviously it is the plaintiff who will have to first 
of all discharge the burden of proof for establishing that the 
disputed property belongs to the joint family. 
D 
Pleadings: 
Suit - Held: A suit has to be tried on the basis of the 
pleadings of the contesting parties filed in the suit before the 
trial court in the form of plaint and wri; 'en statement and the 
E nucleus of the case of the plaintiff and the contesting case of 
the defendant in the form of issues emerges out of that - In 
the instant case, the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 has miserably 
failed to prove his case as per his pleadings in the plaint and 
the burden to prove that the sale deed on which he based his 
F claim, in fact was valid has not even been cast on him. 
Delay!Laches: 
Suit for partition - Property of a third person (who 
G subsequently got herself impleaded as defendant no. 2) 
included in the plaint scheduled property on the basis of a 
sale deed executed 31 years back by the alleged guardian 
of defendant no. 2 while she was a minor- High Court holding 
that delay in challenging the sale deed should have been 
H 
RANGAMMAL v. KUPPUSWAMI & ANR. 
837 
explained by defendant no. 2 - HELD: It is the plaintiff who 
A 
based his case on execution of the sale deed of the property 
of defendant no. 2, and when there was a dispute about the 
genuineness of the sale deed and defendant no. 2 was in 
occupation of the property, it is the plaintiff who should have 
filed the suit claiming title on the basis of the sale deed, 
B 
before the said property could be included in the suit for 
partition - Thus, there was no cause of action for defendant 
no. 2 to file a suit challenging the alleged sale deed as she 
asserted actual physical possession of the property and 
knowledge of sale deed could not be attributed to her prior to 
C 
receiving the copy of the plaint disclosing execution of the 
alleged sale deed - Cause of action. 
Costs: 
Suit for partition - Property of third party (who later got D 
herself impleaded as defendant no. 2) included in schedule 
to the plaint - HELD: Defendant no. 2 was unnecessarily 
dragged into this litigation at the instance of the plaintiff, who 
filed a partition suit which was apparently collusi

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