LexVATHSALA MANICKAVASAGAM & ORS. versus N. GANESAN & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2013] 7 S.C.R. 320 VATHSALA MANICKAVASAGAM & ORS. v. N. GANESAN & ANR. (Civil Appeal No.1241 of 2005) JULY 02, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908: s. 96 - First appeal - Suit for partition decreed by trial court holding the suit properties as joint family properties relying on the statement made by first defendant in a letter as admissible - High Court reversed the judgment without 0 examining implications of the said letter - Held: Non consideration of the letter by the Division Bench of the High Court, would certainly amount to total misreading of the evidence, while interfering with the judgment of the trial court - Similarly, the Division Bench miserably failed to examine E the issue relating to gift as regards the first item of the suit scheduled properties - Though, such a claim was made by defendant, there was no iota of evidence to support the said claim -The ingredients of s. 122 of the Transfer of Property Act relating to gifts were not shown to have been complied with - F Judgment of High Court set aside and the judgment and decree of trial court restored - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - s.122 - 'Gift' - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.17. EVIDENCE ACT, 1872: G s. 17 - Admission - In a suit for partition, letter of defendant produced by plaintiff wherein he had stated the suit properties as joint family properties - Held: Once, there admission is in a statement either oral or documentary, onus would shift to the party who made such an admission and it H 320 VATHSALA MANICKAVASAGAM & ORS. v. N. 321 GANESAN & ANR. will become an imperative duty on such party to explain it -- A In the absence of any satisfactory explanation, it will have to be presumed to be true - In the instant case, the letter written by defendant is a statement constituting a tacit admission -- Every ingredient of s. 17 relating to the said document was fully complied with. B A dispute over property arose between a family consisting of five members, namely, the mother, three sons and one daughter. A suit for partition was filed by the mother, two sons and the daughter against the eldest C son of the family (defendant no. 1/respondent no. 1) claiming 415th share in the suit properties which comprised three houses, namely, items nos. 1, 2 and 3. Item no. 1 was sold by defendant no. 1, and his vendee further sold it to defendant no. 2. As regards item no. 3, there was no dispute. With regard to item no. 1, the stand D of defendant no. 1 was that it had been gifted to him by his deceased father and item no. 2 was purchased by him out of the funds arranged by him on his own. The trial court relying on the evidence of the mother (PWI) and Ext. A-17, a letter written by defendant no. 1 to plaintiff no. 3, E held all the three items as joint family properties and · decreed the suit, as prayed. However, the Division Bench of the High Court, in the first appeal, reversed the decree in respect of item nos. 1 and 2. In the instant appeal, the question for consideration before the Court was "whether there was total misreading of evidence by the High Court by not considering or referring to Ext.A-17 while interfering with the judgment F of the trial court and whether legal principles of gift were established in regard to the first item of the suit schedule G property." Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 An admission, as defined in s.17 of the H 322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R. A Evidence Act, 1872 constitutes a substantial piece of evidence and can be relied upon for proving the veracity of the facts incorporated therein. Once the admission as noted in a statement, either oral or documentary, is found, then the whole onus would shift to the party who made B such an admission and it will become an imperative duty on such party to explain it. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation, it will have to be presumed to be true. [Para 23 and 24] [332-D, F-G] c Union of India vs. Moksh Builders and Financiers Ltd. and Others 1977 (1) SCR 967 =AIR 1977 SC 409 - relied on. 1.2 While examining the contents of Ext. A-17, the trial court concluded that the three houses referred to therein, only related to the suit scheduled properties. Going by D the statements made by respondent no. 1 himself in the said letter Ext.A-17, it was explicit and apparent that he was fully aware that even tho
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.