1 Aug 2022 4:00 AM GMT
The Tripura High Court recently observed that mofussil pleadings, i.e. poorly drafted pleadings, should be considered as a whole, liberally and must be construed reasonably.The observation came from a division bench of Justices Arindam Lodh and SG Chattopadhyay in a property dispute.The plaintiff-appellant submitted that defendants/respondents have admitted in their earlier suit...
The Tripura High Court recently observed that mofussil pleadings, i.e. poorly drafted pleadings, should be considered as a whole, liberally and must be construed reasonably.
The observation came from a division bench of Justices Arindam Lodh and SG Chattopadhyay in a property dispute.
The plaintiff-appellant submitted that defendants/respondents have admitted in their earlier suit that the appellant was the owner of 14.77 acres of land and for that reason they cannot retract from their statements, but, the trial Judge did not appreciate such admission of the defendants and dismissed his suit for possession.
While perusing the evidence placed on record, the bench observed,
"I am in agreement with the view taken by the learned trial court as to how the court should read and construe the pleadings of the parties. It is settled law that mofussil pleadings are to be considered as a whole, liberally and must be construed reasonably."
It noted that from the evidence placed on record it cannot be said that the plaintiff purchased the whole 1st schedule land of plaint measuring 14.77 acres. The Court found that the suit land was not covered by the sale deeds of plaintiff, for which, it can be said that the defendants correctly pleaded that the sale deeds of plaintiff do not attract suit land.
In earlier suit, the defendants had merely pleaded that plaintiff purchased 14.77 acres of land including 2nd schedule land of plaint of this suit and, therefore, the Court held that the plea of the defendants in this case that the plaintiff did not purchase the suit land (4th schedule land of plaint of the suit) is not contradictory as suit land does not fall within the purchased land of the plaintiff.
"Title to land cannot pass by admission when the statute requires a deed," it said.
The Court also relied on Apex Court judgment given in Devasahayam vs. P. Savithramma wherein the court had said that pleadings as are well known must construed reasonably. The contention of the parties in their pleadings must be culled out from reading the same as whole.
Further, the court noted that any statement or pleadings cannot falsify the documentary evidences adduced by the parties. It observed,
"In case of conflict, without any sort of debate, the documentary evidence relating to a particular fact in issue that supports the pleadings of a party shall prevail over the pleadings based on such knowledge/information, or perception, etc. that run in contra to the contents of such documents/records."
On considering the documents, the Court found that the suit land is not covered by the sale deeds of plaintiff. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: Sri Pratap Chandra Das v Smt. Hira Bala Das and ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tri) 25
Click Here To Read/Download Judgment