UNION OF INDIA versus IBRAHIM UDDIN & ANR.

Citation: [2012] 8 S.C.R. 35 · Decided: 17-07-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 8 S.C.R. 35 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
IBRAHIM UDDIN & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1374 of 2008) 
JULY 17, 2012 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
A 
B 
Title suit - Burden of proof - Suit for declaration of title C 
of ownership of property against Union of India - Suit 
dismissed by trial court - Order set aside by District Judge 
in first appeal on the finding that the defendant-Union of India 
failed to prove its title over the suit land - Second appeal 
dismissed by High Court - Held: The first appellate court as 
D 
well as the High Court committed grave error in shifting the 
burden of proof on the defendant-Union of India, though it was 
exclusively on the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 to prove his case, 
which the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 failed to do -
The 
documents produced by the Union of India were not properly 
appreciated by the first appellate court and the High Court -
E 
The appellate courts decided the appeals in unwarranted 
manner in complete derogation of the statutory requirements 
and in flagrant violation of the provisions of CPC and the 
Evidence Act - Decree of the trial court restored. 
F 
Order XII - Admission - Evidentiary value of - Held: 
Admission made by a party though not conclusive, is a 
decisive factor in a case unless the other party successfully 
withdraws the same or proves it to be erroneous - Even if the 
admission is not conclusive it may operate as an estoppel -
G 
Failure of a party to prove its defence does not amount to 
admission, nor it can reverse or discharge the burden of proof 
of the plaintiff. 
35 
H 
36 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012) 8 S.C.R. 
A 
Order XL/, Rule 27 - Additional evidence at the appellate 
stage - Admissibility of - Recording of reasons, if required -
Held: The matter is entirely within the discretion of the 
appellate court- The discretion is to be exercised by the court 
judicially taking into consideration the relevance of the 
B documents/evidence in respect of the issues involved in the 
case and the circumstances under which such an evidence 
could not be led in the court below and as to whether the 
applicant had prosecuted his case before the court below 
diligently and as to whether such evidence is required to 
C pronounce the judgment by the appellate court - In absence 
of satisfactory reasons for non-production of the evidence in 
the trial court, additional evidence should not be admitted in 
appeal - Whenever the appellate Court admits additional 
evidence it should record its reasons for doing so - The 
omission to record the reasons must be treated as a serious 
D defect - But this provision is only directory and not mandatory, 
if reception of such evidence can be justified under the rule. 
Order XL/, Rule 27 - Application for production of 
additional evidence in appellate court -
Stage of 
E consideration - Held: Application under Order XL/ Rule 27 
CPC is to be considered at the time of hearing of appeal on 
merits so as to find whether the documents and/or the 
evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing 
on the issues involved - Such an application, even if filed 
F during the pendency of the appeal, is to be heard at the time 
of final hearing of the appeal - In case, such application has 
been considered and allowed prior to the hearing of the 
appeal, the order being a product of total and complete non-
application of mind, as to whether such evidence is required 
G to be taken on record to pronounce the judgment or not, 
remains inconsequential/ inexecutable and is liable to be 
ignored. 
s.100 - Interference in second appeal -
Scope -
Substantial question of law - Held: Generally, a Second 
H 
UNION OF INDIA v. IBRAHIM UDDIN & ANR. 
37 
Appeal does not lie on question of facts or of law - However, A 
there may be exceptional circumstances where the High Court 
is compelled to interfere, notwithstanding the limitation 
imposed by the wording of s.100 CPC - In second appeal, 
the court frames the substantial question of law at the time of 
admission of the appeal and is required to answer all the said B 
questions unless the appeal is finally decided on one or two 
of those questions or the court comes to the conclusion that 
the question(s) framed could not be the substantial 
question(s) of law - There is no prohibition in law to frame the 
additional substantial question of law if the need so arises at c 
the time of the final hearing of the appeal. 
Specific Relief Act

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