Supreme Court Summarises Guide To The Construction Of Deeds And Tools Adopted

The Supreme Court has summarised the guide to the construction of deeds and tools adopted.

The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal filed against the Order of the Bombay High Court which confirmed the Judgment of the Appellate Bench.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti summarised the following points –

• The contract is first constructed in its plain, ordinary and literal meaning. This is also known as the literal rule of construction.

• If there is an absurdity created by literally reading the contract, a shift from literal rule may be allowed. This construction is generally called the golden rule of construction.

• Lastly, the contract may be purposively constructed in light of its object and context to determine the purpose of the contract. This approach must be used cautiously.

“The construction of a deed is “generally speaking, a matter of law.” However, when there is an ambiguity in the deed, determining its meaning is a mixed question of fact and law. This concept is encapsulated by sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872”, further observed the Court.

Senior Advocate B.H. Marlapalle appeared on behalf of the Appellants while Senior Advocate Vinay Navare and Advocate Chinmoy Khaladkar appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

The Plaintiff filed a Suit for declaration that the Plaintiff is the deemed tenant/protected licensee of the Defendant in terms of Section 15A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, for the shops. The Plaintiff also prayed for a Restraint Order against the Defendants from interfering with or dispossessing the Plaintiff from the Plaint Schedule. The Defendant was running a hotel and after demise of her husband, ran the business for some time. But she was unable to run it successfully, so she allowed her brother to continue running the same.

The said arrangement did not prove to be advantageous to her and hence, the Plaintiff stepped in. An agreement was entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for conducting hotel business. In 1997, the Defendant served a notice to the Plaintiff to vacate and handover the business and resultantly, the Plaintiff filed a Suit for the relevant reliefs. The Trial Court decided the case in favour of the Plaintiff but the Appellate Bench reversed the Trial Court’s Judgment and Decree. The High Court confirmed the Appellate Bench’s Judgment and hence, the Plaintiff/Appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “The averments in the plaint are elaborate; commensurate to the detailed plaint, the written statement is equally elaborate. To wit, the plaint runs into eight pages, and the written statement is sixteen pages long. The resultant consequence is that, in the trial, much oral evidence is brought on record, resulting in a lengthy judgment by the trial court. The judgment of the appellate bench is equally lengthy, even though the core issue for consideration could have been captured in a nutshell by the appellate bench.”

The Court emphasised that a Judgment should be coherent, systematic, and logically organised and should enable the reader to trace the facts to a logical conclusion on the basis of legal principles.

“The parties to a suit ought not to compel the court to exercise its jurisdiction under Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and strike out unnecessary or frivolous pleadings. The effort of pleading and evidence should be to be concise to the cause and must not confuse the cause. The lengthy pleadings and avoidable evidence are well within the scrutiny of trial courts, and, at the right stage, must be regulated within four corners of the law”, it said.

The Court added that such an approach by Trial Courts would like a stitch in time, save nine and that long and drawn-out pleadings will run the risk of having a cascading effect on the Appellate and Revisional Courts.

Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the evidence to vary the terms of an agreement in writing is not admissible, but evidence to show that there is no agreement in the first place is admissible.

“Unless and until the case falls under one or the other exceptions enabling receipt of oral evidence on a written document, the court is precluded from entertaining oral evidence. The document or deed interpreted in a particular case is not relied upon, but the subject deed is construed on well-established principles”, it also enunciated.

The Court, therefore, concluded that in this case, the terms of the agreement are clear that the entrustment to the Plaintiff is the ownership of the hotel business of the Defendant and not the tenancy right of the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal, imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh, and upheld the High Court’s Judgment.

Cause Title- Annaya Kocha Shetty (Dead) through LRs v. Laxmibai Narayan Satose since deceased through LRs & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 466)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocate B.H. Marlapalle and AOR Kunal Cheema.

Respondents: Senior Advocate Vinay Navare, AORs Abhinay, Rohan Batra, Advocates Chinmoy Khaladkar, Parul Khurana, Rishabh Bhargava, Harsh Vardhan Arora, Aman Vachher, Dhiraj, Chinmoy Acharya, Ashutosh Dubey, Anshu Vachher, Abhiti Vachher, Akshat Vachher, Nandni Sharma, Amit Kumar, and Jasvinder Choudhary.

Click here to read/download the Judgment