Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a Special Civil Suit filed by the appellant, the original plaintiff, seeking declaration, damages, and permanent injunction over an agricultural field bearing survey no. 83/1 at village Satnawari, Nagpur. The appellant claimed exclusive ownership based on an unregistered Partition Deed dated 23 November 1986, allegedly executed by his father Namdeorao Gotmare, allotting the suit property to him to the exclusion of other family members. The respondents, original defendants, included the other legal heirs of Namdeorao Gotmare and a prospective purchaser. The suit property was recorded in the names of all heirs, including the appellant. The defendants failed to file a written statement, and the fifth defendant was proceeded against ex parte. The trial court, by judgment and order dated 20 August 2007, dismissed the suit on the ground that the appellant failed to prove his case because the Partition Deed was not produced in evidence. The trial court noted that although witnesses to the deed were examined, their evidence was of no avail without the document. On appeal, the appellate court confirmed the dismissal on 29 April 2015, treating the document as a Will and holding that the appellant's contentions could not be accepted in the absence of the document. In the second appeal, the High Court admitted the matter on the substantial question of law: 'Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree on admission in absence of document of title produced on record?' The appellant argued that under Order 8 Rule 10 and Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the failure of the defendants to file a written statement amounted to an admission of the plaint allegations, entitling him to a decree. He cited Karam Kapahi v. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust, Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dayanand Margeppa Pedde in support. The respondents contended that the plaintiff was still required to prove his case to the hilt, that the original Partition Deed was never produced, and that no notice to produce was given to the first defendant, who allegedly held the original. They relied on Maya Devi v. Lalta Prasad and Shantilal Gulabchand Mutha v. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited. The High Court, after examining the provisions and precedents, held that the absence of a written statement does not absolve the trial court from the obligation to satisfy itself of the factual and legal veracity of the plaintiff's claim. It emphasized that the court has a greater responsibility when the defendant fails to file a written statement and must ensure that the plaintiff proves his case with cogent evidence. The court quoted Maya Devi, stating that the failure to file a written statement does not invite a punishment in the form of an automatic decree. It also referred to Balraj Taneja, which cautioned against blindly passing judgment merely because a written statement is not filed. Since the appellant failed to produce the foundational document, the Partition Deed, his claim could not succeed. Accordingly, the High Court found no error in the decisions of the courts below and dismissed the second appeal, confirming the dismissal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Written Statement and Decree on Admissions - Effect of Failure to File Written Statement - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 8 Rule 10, Order 12 Rule 6 - The suit involved claim of exclusive ownership based on a Partition Deed not produced; defendants failed to file written statement. Held that failure to file written statement does not amount to automatic decree; the court must be satisfied that plaintiff proved his case with cogent evidence. The absence of written statement casts a greater responsibility on court to ensure veracity of claim. Mere absence is not admission under Order 12 Rule 6. The plaintiff's failure to produce the Partition Deed was fatal to his claim. (Paras 8-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree on admission in absence of document of title produced on record?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that failure to file written statement does not automatically entitle plaintiff to decree; the court has a duty to satisfy itself that plaintiff has proved his case. The plaintiff failed to produce the Partition Deed, which was fatal to his claim. The lower courts' decisions were confirmed.
Law Points
- Order 8 Rule 10 CPC does not mandate automatic decree
- court must satisfy itself of plaintiff's case
- failure to file written statement does not constitute admission under Order 12 Rule 6
- plaintiff must prove his claim with evidence
- burden of proof not shifted by absence of written statement
