Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Title Suit: P. Ishwari Bai vs. Anjani Bai (2021)

Date of the Judgment: September 01, 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 630

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., B.R. Gavai, J.

Can a court allow additional evidence at the appellate stage that could change the outcome of a case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a property dispute case, focusing on whether the High Court was justified in admitting new evidence and subsequently dismissing the plaintiff’s suit. The Court examined the lower courts’ decisions, the evidence presented, and the relevant legal provisions to arrive at its judgment. The bench consisted of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, who delivered a unanimous verdict.

Case Background

The case involves a property dispute between P. Ishwari Bai (the Appellant/Plaintiff No. 1) and Anjani Bai (Respondent No. 1/Defendant No. 1) concerning a house in Hyderabad. Initially, P. Ishwari Bai and her husband, Narsoji, filed a suit seeking a declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs claimed that they had purchased the property from Defendant No. 4, while Defendants No. 1 and 2 were trespassers. Defendant No. 1 and 2 contested this claim, asserting that the property belonged to Defendant No. 1, who had purchased it from a different vendor. The Trial Court initially ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs, but the High Court reversed this decision, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the proceedings, Narsoji (Plaintiff No. 2) and Defendant No. 2 passed away, and the case continued with their legal representatives.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, initially ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs on 25.04.1986, declaring their title to the suit house and directing Defendants No. 1 and 2 to deliver vacant possession. However, on appeal, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh reversed the Trial Court’s judgment. The High Court allowed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and admitted a judgment dated 18.06.1987 in CCCA No.146 of 1979 as additional evidence. The High Court concluded that the suit house was not part of the plot claimed by the Plaintiffs. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the Single Judge’s decision, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Order XLI Rule 4 and Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Order XLI Rule 4 deals with the effect of the death of one of several appellants or respondents, and Order XLI Rule 27 pertains to the admission of additional evidence in appellate proceedings. The relevant provisions are:

• Order XLI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This rule addresses situations where one of several appellants or respondents dies, and the appeal can proceed if the right to sue survives.
• Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This rule allows the appellate court to admit additional evidence if it deems it necessary to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause.

Arguments

Plaintiff’s Arguments:

• The Plaintiff argued that the appeal was maintainable despite the death of Defendant No. 2, relying on Order XLI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
• The Plaintiff cited the judgment in Mahabir Prasad v. Jage Ram & Ors. (1971) 1 SCC 265, stating that if a legal representative is already on record in another capacity, it is sufficient to describe them as a legal heir.
• The Plaintiff contended that the High Court erred in allowing the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Defendant’s Arguments:

• The Defendant argued that the appeal was not maintainable due to the abatement of the appeal concerning Defendant No. 2.
• The Defendant relied on the judgment in Goli Vijayalakshmi & Ors. v Yendru Sathiraju & Ors. (2019) 11 SCC 352 to argue that contradictory decrees cannot exist if the Plaintiff succeeds in the appeal.

The core of the Plaintiff’s argument was that the presence of Defendant No. 1, who is the wife of the deceased Defendant No. 2, on record was sufficient to continue the appeal. The Defendant, on the other hand, argued that the deletion of Defendant No. 2 from the array of parties led to the abatement of the appeal.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issues that the Court addressed were:

• Whether the appeal was maintainable despite the deletion of Defendant No.2 from the array of parties.
• Whether the High Court was correct in allowing the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and admitting additional evidence.
• Whether the High Court was correct in reversing the Trial Court’s decision and dismissing the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Supreme Court followed Mahabir Prasad v. Jage Ram & Ors. (1971) 1 SCC 265* to hold that the appeal was maintainable as Defendant No. 1, a legal representative of Defendant No. 2, was already on record.
• The Supreme Court distinguished Goli Vijayalakshmi & Ors. v Yendru Sathiraju & Ors. (2019) 11 SCC 352* stating that it was not applicable to the present case.
• The Supreme Court interpreted and applied Order XLI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to hold that the appeal was maintainable.
• The Supreme Court interpreted and applied Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to hold that the High Court was correct in admitting additional evidence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The presence of a legal representative of the deceased Defendant No. 2 on record as Defendant No. 1.
• The lack of prejudice to the Plaintiff by admitting additional evidence at the appellate stage.
• The detailed and well-reasoned judgment of the High Court, which thoroughly analyzed the evidence and concluded that the Plaintiff failed to establish title over the suit property.

The Court’s reasoning was a blend of factual assessment and legal interpretation. The factual assessment, particularly the High Court’s detailed analysis of the evidence, played a significant role in the Court’s decision. The legal interpretation of Order XLI Rule 4 and Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was also crucial in the Court’s reasoning.

The Supreme Court considered the alternative interpretation that the appeal would abate due to the deletion of Defendant No. 2. However, it rejected this interpretation based on the fact that Defendant No. 1, a legal representative of Defendant No. 2, was already on record. The Court also considered the argument that the High Court erred in admitting additional evidence but rejected this argument because it found no prejudice was caused to the Plaintiff.

The court concluded that the High Court’s decision was correct in dismissing the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The court stated that, “We are in agreement with the well-considered judgement of the High Court in which there is a detailed discussion of all the issues.” The Court further observed, “The High Court thoroughly discussed the entire evidence to come to a conclusion that the Plaintiff has not made out any case for declaration of title over the disputed property in her favour.” Finally, the Court stated, “The judgement of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court on appreciation of the evidence, with which we agree.”

Key Takeaways

• The presence of a legal representative of a deceased party on record in another capacity can be sufficient to maintain an appeal.
• Appellate courts can admit additional evidence if it is necessary to pronounce judgment and does not cause prejudice to the other party.
• A thorough analysis of evidence is crucial in property disputes, and the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish their title.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appeal does not necessarily abate if one of the respondents dies, provided that a legal representative of the deceased respondent is already on record in another capacity. This judgment reinforces the principle that technicalities should not prevent the adjudication of a case on its merits. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to admit additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, emphasizing that no prejudice was caused to the Plaintiff. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by P. Ishwari Bai, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court found no error in the High Court’s decision to admit additional evidence and to dismiss the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of a thorough analysis of evidence and the need for plaintiffs to establish their title clearly. The Court also clarified the position of law regarding the maintainability of an appeal when a legal representative of a deceased party is already on record.