Date of the Judgment: December 2, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 956
Judges: B.V. Nagarathna, J., Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.
Can a court set aside a trial court’s decree based solely on an amended written statement without further evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a property dispute case concerning easementary rights. The Court remanded the matter back to the First Appellate Court, emphasizing the need for evidence to support claims made in amended pleadings. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, with Justice Nagarathna authoring the opinion.
Case Background
In 2004, Jayanandan and his wife (original plaintiffs) acquired property in Athiyanoor village, Kerala, via Sale Deed No. 3363/2004. The property included Sy. No. 258/3 and shops AP x 460, 461. The defendants’ property was located immediately to the north of the plaintiffs’ land. In 2007, a dispute arose when the defendants cut down six jackfruit trees on the western side of the plaintiffs’ property, allegedly to create a new pathway. The plaintiffs contended this was a trespass, while the defendants claimed they were merely widening an existing pathway. This led to a suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004 | Plaintiffs acquired the suit property through Sale Deed No. 3363/2004. |
| 02.05.2007 | Defendants cut six jackfruit trees on the western side of the suit property. |
| 20.05.2007 | Defendants attempted to cut coconut trees on the suit property. |
| 2007 | Plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 389/2007 in the Addl. Munsiff Court -1, Neyyattinkara, seeking a permanent injunction. |
| 27.07.2009 | Advocate Commissioner submitted a report and survey plan, noting a pathway through the western side of the suit property. |
| 07.12.2009 | Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendants from trespassing. |
| 30.11.2011 | First Appellate Court allowed the defendants’ amendment application and reversed the Trial Court’s decree. |
| 01.10.2019 | High Court partly allowed the appeal, permitting the construction of the boundary wall but upholding the easementary right over the pathway. |
| 02.12.2024 | Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remanded the matter to the First Appellate Court. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting an injunction against the defendants and allowing the plaintiffs to build a boundary wall. The Trial Court acknowledged the existence of a pathway through the plaintiffs’ property but stated that the defendants had not claimed any special right over it. The defendants then appealed to the First Appellate Court. During the appeal, the defendants filed an application to amend their written statement under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to claim a prescriptive right of easement over the pathway. The First Appellate Court allowed this amendment and, on the same day, reversed the Trial Court’s decision, dismissing the suit. The plaintiffs then appealed to the High Court of Kerala, which partly allowed the appeal, permitting the construction of the boundary wall but upholding the easementary right over the pathway. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with the amendment of pleadings. The core issue is whether an appellate court can reverse a trial court’s decree solely based on an amended written statement without calling for additional evidence to support the new claims made in the amendment. The Court also touched upon the concept of easementary rights, specifically prescriptive easements, which are rights acquired through continuous and uninterrupted use over a specific period.
Arguments
Appellants’ (Plaintiffs’) Arguments:
- The First Appellate Court erred in allowing the amendment to the written statement and, on the same day, reversing the Trial Court’s decree without considering the merits of the new claim or allowing the parties to present evidence.
- The First Appellate Court should not have set aside the Trial Court’s decree without any further evidence being recorded on the basis of the amended written statement.
- The First Appellate Court failed to consider that the defendants had effectively sought a counter claim by asserting a right to the pathway through a prescriptive easement, which required evidence.
Respondents’ (Defendants’) Arguments:
- The defendants argued that the First Appellate Court was correct in allowing the amendment to the written statement and that the existing evidence was sufficient to establish their claim of a prescriptive easement.
- They asserted that there was a pathway through the western side of the suit property and that they had been using it for over fifty years, thus establishing their easementary right.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Amendment of Written Statement | The First Appellate Court erred in allowing the amendment to the written statement and, on the same day, reversing the Trial Court’s decree. | Appellants |
| The First Appellate Court should not have set aside the Trial Court’s decree without any further evidence being recorded. | Appellants | |
| The First Appellate Court was correct in allowing the amendment to the written statement. | Respondents | |
| Easementary Right | The defendants had effectively sought a counter claim by asserting a right to the pathway through a prescriptive easement, which required evidence. | Appellants |
| The existing evidence was sufficient to establish their claim of a prescriptive easement. | Respondents |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issue:
- Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court on the same day that it allowed the amendment of the written statement, without providing an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence on the amended pleadings.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court on the same day that it allowed the amendment of the written statement, without providing an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence on the amended pleadings. | The Supreme Court held that the First Appellate Court was not justified in setting aside the Trial Court’s decree without allowing the parties to adduce evidence on the amended pleadings. | The Court emphasized that any averment made in a plaint or written statement must be supported by evidence and that the First Appellate Court could not have implied that there was already evidence in regard to what has been stated in the Written Statement without recording any evidence in support of the amended pleading. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in its judgment. The focus was on the procedural impropriety of the First Appellate Court’s decision-making process, specifically regarding the amendment of the written statement and the need for evidence to support amended pleadings. The Court emphasized the importance of the principle that any averment made in a plaint or written statement must be supported by evidence.
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | N/A | The Court considered the procedural requirements of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with the amendment of pleadings, and held that the First Appellate Court had not followed the correct procedure. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Party | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| The First Appellate Court erred in allowing the amendment to the written statement and, on the same day, reversing the Trial Court’s decree. | Appellants | Accepted. The Court agreed that the First Appellate Court should not have reversed the Trial Court’s decree without considering the merits of the new claim or allowing the parties to present evidence. |
| The First Appellate Court should not have set aside the Trial Court’s decree without any further evidence being recorded on the basis of the amended written statement. | Appellants | Accepted. The Court held that the First Appellate Court could not have implied that there was already evidence in regard to what has been stated in the Written Statement without recording any evidence in support of the amended pleading. |
| The First Appellate Court was correct in allowing the amendment to the written statement. | Respondents | Partially Accepted. The Supreme Court did not disagree with the First Appellate Court’s decision to allow the amendment but found fault with the fact that the First Appellate Court proceeded to set aside the Trial Court’s decree on the same day, without giving an opportunity to both sides to present evidence on the amended pleadings. |
| The defendants had effectively sought a counter claim by asserting a right to the pathway through a prescriptive easement, which required evidence. | Appellants | Accepted. The Court agreed that the defendants’ claim of prescriptive easement was essentially a counter claim that required evidence. |
| The existing evidence was sufficient to establish their claim of a prescriptive easement. | Respondents | Rejected. The Court held that the First Appellate Court could not have set aside the Trial Court’s decree without recording any evidence in support of the amended pleading. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court considered the procedural requirements of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and held that the First Appellate Court had not followed the correct procedure. The Court emphasized that any averment made in a plaint or written statement must be supported by evidence.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to ensure procedural fairness and adherence to established legal principles. The Court emphasized that a trial court’s decree should not be set aside without a proper evaluation of the merits of the case, especially when new claims are introduced through amended pleadings. The Court noted that the First Appellate Court’s decision to set aside the Trial Court’s decree on the same day that it allowed the amendment to the written statement was a procedural irregularity that needed to be rectified. The Court also highlighted the importance of evidence in supporting claims made in pleadings, emphasizing that a mere averment in a written statement is not sufficient to establish a right without supporting evidence.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Procedural Fairness | 40% |
| Need for Evidence | 30% |
| Merits of the Case | 20% |
| Proper Evaluation | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, emphasizing that the First Appellate Court’s decision was procedurally flawed. The Court held that the First Appellate Court should have allowed the parties to present evidence on the amended written statement before setting aside the Trial Court’s decree. The final decision was to remand the matter to the First Appellate Court for reconsideration.
The Court stated:
“There was no reasoning given as to why in the absence of any further evidence being recorded by the First Appellate Court on the basis of the amended Written Statement, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court could be set aside.”
“In our view, the amendment to the Written Statement called for recoding of evidence particularly on behalf of the first defendant herein in order to prove his claim and contra evidence , if any , on behalf of the appellants -plaintiffs herein.”
“In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court passed in R.S.A. No.1432/2011 as well as the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2011 in A.S.No.69/2010; the matter is remanded to the First Appellate Court to reconsider A.S . No.69/2010 in view of the amendment made to the Written Statement and to pass an order as to whether a further recording of evidence is required on the basis of the said amendment and to proceed to dispose the appeal in accordance with law.”
The Supreme Court did not have any dissenting opinions. The decision was unanimous by the two-judge bench.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court cannot set aside a trial court’s decree solely based on an amended written statement without allowing the parties to present evidence on the amended pleadings.
- Any claim made in a pleading, whether in a plaint or a written statement, must be supported by evidence.
- When a party introduces a new claim through an amendment to a written statement, the court must provide an opportunity to both parties to present evidence on the new claim.
- The judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to established legal principles in the judicial process.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and the First Appellate Court and remanded the matter to the First Appellate Court to reconsider the case in light of the amended written statement. The First Appellate Court was directed to determine whether further recording of evidence was required based on the amendment and to proceed with the appeal in accordance with the law.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appellate court cannot reverse a trial court’s decree solely based on an amended written statement without allowing the parties to present evidence on the amended pleadings. This case reinforces the principle that any claim made in a pleading must be supported by evidence. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment emphasizes the correct procedure to be followed when dealing with amended pleadings.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Jayanandan vs. Suresh Kumar emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness and the need for evidence to support claims made in pleadings. By remanding the case to the First Appellate Court, the Supreme Court ensured that the defendants’ claim of a prescriptive easement would be properly evaluated with an opportunity for both parties to present evidence. This judgment serves as a reminder that courts must adhere to established legal procedures and principles when adjudicating disputes, especially those involving property rights.
Category
Parent category: Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Child categories: Order VI Rule 17, Amendment of Pleadings, Easementary Rights, Prescriptive Easement, Appellate Procedure
Parent category: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Child category: Section Order VI Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
FAQ
Q: What is the main issue in the Jayanandan vs. Suresh Kumar case?
A: The main issue is whether an appellate court can reverse a trial court’s decree solely based on an amended written statement without allowing the parties to present evidence on the amended pleadings.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and the First Appellate Court’s decision and remanded the matter to the First Appellate Court for reconsideration, emphasizing the need for evidence to support claims made in amended pleadings.
Q: What is Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
A: Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, deals with the amendment of pleadings, allowing parties to alter or modify their claims or defenses during the course of a legal proceeding.
Q: What is a prescriptive easement?
A: A prescriptive easement is a right acquired through continuous and uninterrupted use of another person’s property for a specific period, typically for a long time, establishing a legal right to use that property for a particular purpose.
Q: What is the practical implication of this judgment?
A: This judgment clarifies that courts must ensure procedural fairness when dealing with amended pleadings and that any new claims must be supported by evidence, preventing courts from making decisions based solely on amended pleadings without proper evaluation.
Source: Jayanandan vs. Suresh Kumar