Existing User Account
Subscribe Premium

Plaintiff In Civil Suit Has To Prove His Case On His Own Strength, Can't Draw Strength From Documents Of Other Side: Gauhati High Court

Upashana Duarah

19 Feb 2022 5:45 AM GMT

    • Plaintiff In Civil Suit Has To Prove His Case On His Own Strength, Cant Draw Strength From Documents Of Other Side: Gauhati High Court

    The Gauhati High Court has made it clear that in a civil suit, the plaintiff has to prove his case on his own strength. He cannot draw strength from the documents of the other side.Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia thus refused to interfere with the findings of the courts below, in a case relating to property title. It observed,"The appellant (plaintiff before the court below) failed to prove the...

    The Gauhati High Court has made it clear that in a civil suit, the plaintiff has to prove his case on his own strength. He cannot draw strength from the documents of the other side.

    Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia thus refused to interfere with the findings of the courts below, in a case relating to property title. It observed,

    "The appellant (plaintiff before the court below) failed to prove the sale deed, so he failed to prove his title over the suit land. For the reasons as aforesaid, this court finds that the trial court as well as the first appellate court had correctly appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at correct findings. Therefore, this appeal is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly."

    The appellant's witness had exhibited the sale deed, a hand written document. The writer of the document was not examined by the appellant. Therefore, it was the Court opined that on the face of record, the Sale deed on the basis of which the appellant claimed title over the suit land, was not proved according to the procedure laid down in Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act.

    "Where a document is written by one person and signed by another, the handwriting of the former and the signature of the latter both have to be proved in view of Section 67 of the Evidence Act . When the sale deed(Ext 1), by which the appellant claimed to have title over the suit land is not proved, then the title of the appellant over the suit land is not proved. Therefore, it is proved that the appellant never had title over the suit land," said the Court.

    The Bench further proceeded to observe that in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, High Courts have limited jurisdiction and it cannot reappreciate evidence or facts unless the case involves a substantial question of law.

    The Court noted that section 100 of CPC declares that the first appellate court is the final court on facts.
    "Though Section 100 CPC deals with the High Court's power in second appeal, it has the effect of declaring that the first appellate court is the final court on facts and the High Court in a second appeal cannot reappreciate evidence or facts unless the case involves a substantial question of law. Section 100 CPC was amended in 1976 and thereby drastic restriction was imposed on the High Court's jurisdiction in entertaining a second appeal. Even prior to the 1976 amendment, the first appellate court was treated as the final court of facts."
    The High Court further elaborated on constituting substantial question of law in a second appeal by citing Chunilal v. Mehta and Sons, Ltd vs The century Spinning and Mfg. Co. Ltd AIR (1962) SC 1314, whereby the Apex Court held that if the question is settled by the highest court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled then there is no substantial question of law.
    "The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether if directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law."
    Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the second appeal as it found it to be devoid of merit.
    Case Name : M/S GAUHATI ROLLER FLOUR MILLS LTD. v. SMTI PREMODA MEDHI and 2 ORS
    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 15
    Case No. : RSA 35/2012
    Date : 15/02/2022
    Quorum: JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA


    Tags
    Gauhati High CourtJustice Parthivjyoti SaikiaCivil Procedure Code 1908(CPC)Section 100 CPCSecond AppealJurisdiction Of Courts
    Next Story
    X