NDLI: M/s. Gian Chand & Brothers and Another Vs. Rattan Lal @ Rattan Singh

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Books of Accounts Evasive Denial
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VIII, rr. 3, 4 & 5 - Manner in which allegations of fact in the plaint should be traversed - Legal consequences fir-wing from its non- C compliance - Appellants filed suit for recovery of the money allegedly lent by it to the defendant-respondent - Appellants placed reliance upon the alleged signatures of the defendant- respondent on the cash book maintained by the appellants - Respondent denied having borrowed any sum from the plaintiffs-appellants and further denied the alleged signatures on the cash book - Held: The burden of proving the facts rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative issues and not the party who denies it but there may be an exception thereto, - On facts, the plaintiff examined witnesses, proven entries in the books of accounts and also proven the acknowledgements duly signed by the defendant - The defendant, on the contrary, except making a bald denial of the averments, did not state anything else - Nothing was put to the witnesses in the cross-examination when the documents were exhibited - The defendant only came with a specious plea in his evidence which was not pleaded - In the circumstances, the High Court fell into error in holding that it was obligatory on the part of the plaintiffs to examine the handwriting expert to prove the signatures - The finding that the plaintiffs had failed to discharge the burden was absolutely misconceived in the facts of the case - In the written statement, there was absolutely evasive denial - The defendants could not have been permitted to lead an evidence when nothing was stated in the pleadings - The courts below had correctly rested the burden of proof on the defendant but the High Court, in an erroneous impression, overturned the said finding - Evidence - Onus to prove - Evasive denial by defendant - Effect. Evidence - Variance in the pleadings in the plaint and the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs - Effect - Held: On facts, the variance was absolutely very little - It did not remotely cause prejudice to the defendant - In all circumstances, it cannot be said that because of variance between pleading and proof, the rule of secundum allegata et probata would be strictly applicable. Evidence - Books of accounts maintained in regular course of business - Held: Should not be rejected without any kind of rebuttal or discarded without any reason.The appellants filed suit for recovery of the money allegedly lent by it to the defendant-respondent. The appellants placed reliance upon the alleged signatures of the defendant-respondent on the cash book maintained by the appellants. The respondent denied having borrowed any sum from the plaintiffs-appellants and further denied the alleged signatures on the cash book. The suit was decreed by the trial court. The decree was partially modified by the first appellate court. On further appeal by the defendant, the High Court held that the findings returned by the courts below were perverse on two counts, namely, incorrect placing of onus on the defendant to prove that the signatures had been forged more so when there was denial of the same and second, the variance in the pleadings and the evidence as regards the amounts in question were not appositely taken note of, and accordingly set aside the judgments of the courts below. Hence the present appeal.
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra
Neutral Citation	2013 INSC 18
Petitioner	M/s. Gian Chand & Brothers And Another
Respondent	Rattan Lal @ Rattan Singh
SCR	[2013] 3 S.C.R. 601
Judgement Date	2013-01-08
Case Number	130

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

M/s. Gian Chand & Brothers and Another Vs. Rattan Lal @ Rattan Singh

Please Log-in to view this content

S. Sanyal Vs. Gian Chand

Gian Kaur Vs. Raghubir Singh

Inderjeet Singh Sial Vs. M/s. Karam Chand Thapar

Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.p. Vs. M/s Mohan Brickfield, Agra

M/s R.n. Jadi & Brothers and Ors. Vs. Subhashchandra

State of Punjab Vs. Gian Chand & Ors.

Jasraj Inder Singh Vs. Hem Raj Multan Chand

M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. M/s. Mohan Lal Harbans Lal Bhayana

Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Rattan Chand and Ors.

M/s. Gian Chand & Brothers and Another Vs. Rattan Lal @ Rattan Singh

M/s. Gian Chand & Brothers and Another Vs. Rattan Lal @ Rattan Singh

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

S. Sanyal Vs. Gian Chand

Gian Kaur Vs. Raghubir Singh

Inderjeet Singh Sial Vs. M/s. Karam Chand Thapar

Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.p. Vs. M/s Mohan Brickfield, Agra

M/s R.n. Jadi & Brothers and Ors. Vs. Subhashchandra

State of Punjab Vs. Gian Chand & Ors.

Jasraj Inder Singh Vs. Hem Raj Multan Chand

M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. M/s. Mohan Lal Harbans Lal Bhayana

Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Rattan Chand and Ors.

M/s. Gian Chand & Brothers and Another Vs. Rattan Lal @ Rattan Singh