Whether adverse inference is to be drawn against a party if he withholds material document?

In the instant case, as noted above, the rent in dispute relates to the period of six months -- from January 1, 1978 to June 30, 1976. Notice of demand in respect of the rent in arrears was sent by the appellants (Exh. 29 which was received by the respondents on July 14, 1978. The period of one month contemplated in the provision within which the original tenant was entitled to pay the rent expired on August 14, 1978. The defence of the appellants is that on July 11, 1978, a money order on July 17, 1978 and, therefore, there has been substantial compliance of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 12. Admittedly, the respondents did not file receipt of sending the money order which is direct evidence of the fact of sending the money order to the appellants. In his deposition in the trial court the original tenant admitted that the receipt of sending the money order issued by the postal authorities was with him; however, he did not choose to file the same. The trial court drew adverse inference against him, in our view rightly. The money order coupon containing the endorsements of the postal authorities "refused" which was returned by the postal authorities (Exh. 67) was examined by the trial court and it was found that the postal stamp was dated August 27, 1978, if that be so there was no material to show that the amount in demand was sent within one month. These findings were confirmed by the appellate court. The High Court misread Exh. 67 as containing the dated August 17, 1978 and from that inferred that the money order might have been sent on August 12/13, 1978 and upset the concurrent findings of courts below. In view of the divergence of opinion of this aspect we ourselves looked into the record and with the help of magnifying glass perused Exh. 67. The same was also placed before the learned counsel for the parties. We are unable to agree with the High Court that the postal stamp is of August 17, 1978. The adverse inference drawn by the trial court and the appellate court remains unrebutted. There was no other material to justify interference by the High Court. Therefore, the finding recorded by the High Court cannot be sustained.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Appeal (civil) 4756-4757 of 1997

Decided On: 27.09.2001

Sugarbai M. Siddiq and ors. vs.  Ramesh S. Hankare (D) by Lrs.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.S.M. Quadri and S.N. Phukan, JJ.

Citation:2001(8) SCC 477

Print Page

Supreme court: Order obtained by practising fraud on Court is a nullity

 The facts of the present case leave no manner of doubt that Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. Jagannath was working as a clerk with Chunilal Sowcar. He purchased the property in the court auction on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. He had, on his own volition, executed the registered release deed (Exhibit B-1S) in favour of Chunilal Sowcar regarding the property in dispute. He knew that the appellants had paid the total decretal amount to his master Chunilal Sowcar. Without disclosing all these facts, he filed the suit for the partition of the property on the ground that he had purchased the property on his own behalf and not on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. Non-production and even non-mentioning of the release deed at the trial tantamounts to playing fraud on the court. We do not agree with the observations of the High Court that the appellants-defendants could have easily produced the certified registered copy of Exhibit B-15 and non-suited the plaintiff. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would he guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.

Decree obtained by practising fraud on Court is a nullity --Person who bases his case on falsehood has no right to approach the Court--His case can be summarily thrown out at any stage of litigation.

Citation : AIR 1994 SC 853

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 994 of 1972

Decided On: 27.10.1993

 S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs.

Vs.

Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: 

Kuldip Singh and P.B. Sawant, JJ.

Print Page

Whether party to proceeding can withhold material documents on ground that burden of proof is not on him?

 Mr. Desai, in reply to the argument of Mr. Marshal regarding the burden of proof, has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif, AIR 1968 SC 1413. In the said case, the question was whether the land comprised in survey No. 134 of village Wadi of Thana District, on a portion of which the Dargah of Peer Haji Malang near Kalyan is situated, was the property of the Dargah or whether it belonged to the appellant, a private party who was the applicant ~before the Authority under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The said appellant claimed that the said survey number was his private property. He was in possession of certain documents which were not produced and, therefore, the Supreme Court has in Para 5 of its judgment observed
"...... In the course of his evidence the appellant admitted that he was enjoying the income of plot No. 134 but he did not produce any accounts to substantiate his contention. He also admitted that he had got record of the Dargah income and that account was kept separately. But the appellant has not produced either his own accounts or the account of the Dargah to show as to how the income from plot No. 134 was dealt with. Mr. Gokhale, however, argued that it was no part of the appellant's duty to produce the accounts unless he was called upon to do so and the onus was upon the respondents to prove the case and to show that the Dargah was the owner of plot No. 134. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. Even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party the Court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds important
documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts at issue. It is not, in our opinion, a sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to rely upon the
abstract doctrine of onus of proof. In Murugesam Pillai v. Gnana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi, 44 Ind App 98 at p. 103 : AIR 1917 PC 6 at p. 8 Lord Shaw observed as follows:
"A practice has grown up in Indian procedure of those in possession of important documents or information lying by, trusting to the abstract doctrine of the onus of proof, and failing, accordingly, to furnish to the Courts the best material for its decision. With regard to third parties, this may be right enough they have no responsibility for the conduct of the suit, but with regard to the parties to the suit it is, in their Lordships opinion, an inversion of sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the written evidence in their possession which would throw light upon the proposition."

The aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court are directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the instant case the plaintiff-wife has done her level best to extract the information regarding the income of the defendant-husband, who is the only person having knowledge regarding his own income and in possession of the relevant documents, like the Income-tax assessment orders, etc. Neither the defendant nor his power of attorneys have stepped into the witness-box or produced the relevant documents in their possession. They are relying upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof. In such circumstances, the Court would be justified in drawing adverse inference against the defendant, and the defendant cannot be allowed to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof.

Gujarat High Court

Maganbhai Chhotubhai Patel vs Maniben on 19 November, 1984

Equivalent citations: AIR 1985 Guj 187, (1985) 1 GLR 374, (1985) 1 GLR 374

Bench: S Shah

Print Page

Landmark Supreme Court judgment on drawing of adverse inference against a party for withholding material documents

Thus, in view of the  above,  the  law  on  the  issue  can  be
    summarised to the effect that, issue of drawing  adverse  inference  is
    required to be decided by  the  court  taking  into  consideration  the
    pleadings of the parties and by deciding whether any document/evidence,
    withheld, has any relevance at all or omission of its production  would
    directly establish the case of the other side.  The court cannot  loose
    sight of the fact that burden of proof is on the party  which  makes  a
    factual averment.  The court has to consider further as to whether  the
    other side could file  interrogatories  or  apply  for  inspection  and
    production of the documents etc. as is required  under  Order  XI  CPC.
    Conduct  and  diligence  of  the  other  party  is  also  of  paramount
    importance. Presumption or  adverse  inference  for  non-production  of
    evidence is always optional and a relevant  factor to be considered  in
    the background of facts involved in the case.  Existence of some  other
    circumstances may justify non-production of   such  documents  on  some
    reasonable grounds. In case one party has asked the court to direct the
    other side to produce the document and other side failed to comply with
    the court’s order, the court may be justified in  drawing  the  adverse
    inference. All the pros and cons must be examined  before  the  adverse
    inference is drawn. Such presumption is permissible,  if  other  larger
    evidence is shown to the contrary.
 Reportable
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1374 of 2008

 Union  of   India Vs   Ibrahim  Uddin            

 Citation;2012(5) ALLMR 462 SC,2013 AIR SCW2752,(2012) 8 SCC 148
Bench: B.S. Chauhan, Dipak Misra

    Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.

Print Page