NDLI: Rangammal Vs. Kuppuswami & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Evidence Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Evidence Act, 1872:s.101 - Burden of proof- Suit for partition - Property of third person (who later got herself impleaded as defendant no. 2), included in plaint-schedule property on the basis of a sale deed stated to have been executed by the alleged guardian of defendant no. 2 when she was a minor, on the ground of legal necessity to pay the debts of her deceased mother - Defendant no. · 2 disputing genuineness of the sale deed - High Court placing the burden on defendant no. 2 that she should have challenged genuineness of the sale deed - HELD: The burden of proving a fact always lies upon the person who asserts - Until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case - In the instant matter, when the plaintiff pleaded that the disputed property fell into his share by virtue of the sale deed, then it was clearly for him to prove that it was executed for legal necessity of defendant no. 2 while she was a minor - It was not defendant no. 2/appellant who claimed any benefit from the sale deed or asserted its existence,, therefore, the burden of challenging the sale deed specifically when she had not even been dispossessed from the disputed share by virtue of the sale deed, did not arise at all - Since the High Court has misplaced the burden of proof, the impugned judgement of the High Court as also the judgements of the courts below are clearly vitiated, as it is a well established dictum of the Evidence Act that misplacing the burden of proof would vitiate the judgement.Partition:Suit for partition - HELD: In a suit for partition, it is expected of the plaintiff to include only those properties for partition to which the family has clear title and unambiguously belong to the members of the joint family which is sought to be partitioned and if someone else's property i.e. disputed property is included in the schedule to the suit for partition, and the same is contested by a third party who is allowed to be impleaded, obviously it is the plaintiff who will have to first of all discharge the burden of proof for establishing that the disputed property belongs to the joint family.Pleadings:Suit - Held: A suit has to be tried on the basis of the pleadings of the contesting parties filed in the suit before the trial court in the form of plaint and written statement and the nucleus of the case of the plaintiff and the contesting case of the defendant in the form of issues emerges out of that - In the instant case, the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 has miserably failed to prove his case as per his pleadings in the plaint and the burden to prove that the sale deed on which he based his claim, in fact was valid has not even been cast on him.Delay/Laches:Suit for partition - Property of a third person (who subsequently got herself impleaded as defendant no. 2) included in the plaint scheduled property on the basis of a sale deed executed 31 years back by the alleged guardian of defendant no. 2 while she was a minor- High Court holding that delay in challenging the sale deed should have been explained by defendant no. 2 - HELD: It is the plaintiff who based his case on execution of the sale deed of the property of defendant no. 2, and when there was a dispute about the genuineness of the sale deed and defendant no. 2 was in occupation of the property, it is the plaintiff who should have filed the suit claiming title on the basis of the sale deed, before the said property could be included in the suit for partition - Thus, there was no cause of action for defendant no. 2 to file a suit challenging the alleged sale deed as she asserted actual physical possession of the property and knowledge of sale deed could not be attributed to her prior to receiving the copy of the plaint disclosing execution of the alleged sale deed - Cause of action.Costs:Suit for partition - Property of third party (who later got herself impleaded as defendant no. 2) included in schedule to the plaint - HELD: Defendant no. 2 was unnecessarily dragged into this litigation at the instance of the plaintiff, who filed a partition suit which was apparently collusive in nature and was filed clearly with an oblique motive and evil design - It was a compulsion on the part of defendant no. 2 to contest the suit for decades wasting time, energy and expenses - Therefore, a token cost of Rs.25,000/- would be paid to her by plaintiff.
Judge	Hon'ble Ms. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra
Neutral Citation	2011 INSC 399
Petitioner	Rangammal
Respondent	Kuppuswami & Anr.
SCR	[2011] 6 S.C.R. 835
Judgement Date	2011-05-13
Case Number	562

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Rangammal Vs. Kuppuswami & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Ratnam Chettiar & Ors. Vs. S. M. Kuppuswami Chettiar & Ors.

Jagmail Singh & Anr. Vs. Karamjit Singh & Ors.

Surajdeo Mahto and Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar

Rajesh & Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

State of U.p. Vs. Veerpal & Anr.

Krishan Kumar and Anr Vs. The State of Haryana

Mohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Ajit Singh and Anr.

V.n. Bharat Vs. D.d.a. and Anr.

Majendran Langeswaran Vs. State (nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Rangammal Vs. Kuppuswami & Anr.

Rangammal Vs. Kuppuswami & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Ratnam Chettiar & Ors. Vs. S. M. Kuppuswami Chettiar & Ors.

Jagmail Singh & Anr. Vs. Karamjit Singh & Ors.

Surajdeo Mahto and Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar

Rajesh & Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

State of U.p. Vs. Veerpal & Anr.

Krishan Kumar and Anr Vs. The State of Haryana

Mohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Ajit Singh and Anr.

V.n. Bharat Vs. D.d.a. and Anr.

Majendran Langeswaran Vs. State (nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Rangammal Vs. Kuppuswami & Anr.