Need to be more careful while filing pleadings in this Court as any error may be disastrous for the parties: Top Court to litigants
Justices Vikram Nath & Rajesh Bindal [21-02-2024]

Read Order: THE TEHSILDAR, URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND ANR v. GANGA BAI MENARIYA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS [SC- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 722 OF 2012]

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, February 22, 2024: Highlighting the total casualness on the part of the litigants in not placing on record correct copies of the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court when five different suits were filed by different persons, the Supreme Court has asked the parties to be more careful while filing the pleadings.

The respondents filed the suit on 10.05.1999 for permanent injunction against the appellants and also claimed ownership and possession of the suit land on which a room had been constructed. It was claimed that the suit land was purchased by the respondents-plaintiffs from Panchayat Titardi in 1959 and a boundary wall was constructed in the year 1960. The suit was filed as a notice was issued by the appellants under Section 92A of the 1959 Act (Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959).

The stand taken by the appellants was that the land in question was a Government land (Bilanam Sarkar) earmarked for grazing cattles (gochar land) and the Gram Panchayat was not competent to grant lease in respect to the aforesaid land, especially when it was ear-marked for grazing cattles. Notice was issued on receiving information that the respondents-plaintiffs had encroached upon the land. It was also pleaded that Gram Panchayat, Titardi was a necessary party but had not been impleaded. In the revenue record, the land was still shown to be owned by the Government. In case the claim of respondents-plaintiffs was that it was given on lease to them, there was no mutation entered on the basis thereof.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, however, First Appellate Court (Additional District Judge, Udaipur) accepted the appeal and decreed the suit restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit land. The appeal preferred before the Rajasthan High Court by the present appellants was dismissed. It was this judgment which was impugned before the Top Court.

To prove the lease in their favour, the respondents-plaintiffs had produced in evidence a document claiming to be lease deed executed by the Gram Panchayat in favour of late Ganga Bai widow of Jai Shankar Menaria. In the stand taken by the appellants, the land being reserved for grazing cattles could not possibly be leased out by the Gram Panchayat.

The plea sought to be taken by the respondents was that the document being more than 30 years old, there was presumption of truth in terms of Section 90 of the 1872 Act. The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Rajesh Bindal noted that this section provides that if the document is more than 30 years old and is being produced from proper custody, a presumption is available to the effect that signatures and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person’s handwriting and in case a document is executed or attested, the same was executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested. This does not lead to a presumption that recitals therein are correct. Reference was made to the judgment in Union of India v. Brahim Uddin and another [LQ/SC/2012/578] .

It was also noticed that nothing was referred to by the respondents from the record to show the reasons for producing copy of the document in Court and not summoning the record from the Gram Panchayat to prove execution of the alleged lease in their favour. Effort was made to prove the document by producing two witnesses. (PW4 and PW5 stated that the lease was granted in favour of the respondents). It was signed by the Sarpanch. However, there was no material on record to show that, except the oral statements of aforesaid two witnesses that at the relevant time, namely, in the year 1959, they were members of the Gram Panchayat otherwise the lease deed placed on record by the respondents-plaintiffs as such did not contain their signatures. “If the respondents-plaintiffs wished to prove the contents of the document in question, they could very well summon the record from the Gram Panchayat when a specific plea taken by the appellants was that the document was forged and the Gram Panchayat did not have competence to lease out the land”, the Bench added.

As the respondents-plaintiffs while filing the civil suit did not implead the Gram Panchayat as party, so in such circumstances, the respondents-plaintiffs were required to prove the document as the competence of the Gram Panchayat to lease out the land itself was in question. “…it was incumbent on the respondents to have proved their title on the land, which they failed to establish”, the Bench said.

Placing reliance upon the judgment in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. and ors. [LQ/SC/2008/747], the Top Court held, “Further a suit simpliciter for injunction may not be maintainable as the title of the property of the plaintiff/respondent was disputed by the appellants/defendants. In such a situation it was required for the respondent/plaintiff to prove the title of the property while praying for injunction.”

Thus, setting aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court as well as the High Court, the Bench dismissed the suit filed by the respondents.

In another set of appeals, the Radheshyam son of Bhagwati Prasad and his family members filed five civil suits praying for permanent injunction. Civil Suits were filed claiming that the land in question was leased out to the plaintiffs on 27.08.1985. However, in the annexed documents, the transaction was shown to be sale. The suit for permanent injunction was dismissed by the Trial Court. The judgment and decree in all the suits were challenged by filing appeals. The appeal was accepted and decree of permanent injunction was passed by the First Appellate Court against which the appeals were filed by the present appellants before the High Court. The same was disposed of in terms of the impugned judgment.

The Top Court found merit in these appeals as nothing was produced on record to show that the due process required for leasing out/sale of the land in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs by private negotiation was followed. Gram Panchayat from whom the land was taken was not impleaded as party to admit or deny the allegations made by the respondents/plaintiffs in the plaint.

Before parting with the order, the Bench highlighted the total casualness on the part of the appellants as in the bunch of five appeals, challenge was to the order passed by the High Court in five different second appeals. As per the Bench, when five different suits were filed by different persons while filing the documents with the paper book filed in this Court, it was incumbent upon the appellants to place on record correct copies of the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court for each of the case. However, it was evident that in all the appeals the Trial Court judgment placed on record was passed in a Case titled as Smt. Sumitra Devi w/o Radheshyam Tripathi dated 30.04.2003 and the judgment of the First Appellate Court placed on record in all the appeals was a case titled as Radheshyam son of Bhagwati Prasad Tripathi dated 19.04.2004.

“The related judgments of the individual cases before the Trial Court and the lower Appellate Court have not been placed on record in the respective appeals. With great deal of effort to join the loose ends, we could find out the details from the title of the impugned judgment of the High Court as the same mentioned the civil suit number as well as the appeal number in the First Appellate Court which was different in all five cases”, the Bench opined while also adding, “We can only observe that the parties need to be more careful while filing the pleadings in this Court and so the Registry of this Court as any error therein may be disastrous for any of the parties.”