The Jharkhand High Court held that a public document itself cannot be taken on record if there is no pleading made to that effect.

The Court was considering a petition against an order of the Trial Court whereby the application of the Defendant under Order XLI Rule 27 to adduce death certificate was allowed.

The single-bench of Justice Subhash Chand observed, "Even if this document, which is public document issued on the individual information of the applicant/ defendant after the judgment and decree passed in the original suit, this public document itself cannot be taken on record because there is no pleading to that effect on record on behalf of the defendants in regard to the date of death of their mother Ramwati Devi and there is no plea that Ramwati Devi had not executed sale deed in favour of plaintiff prior to her death".

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Rahul Gupta while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Pradip Modi.

The Petitioner had filed the original suit for declaration of right, title and interest in the property in suit and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to make interference in the possession of the very suit, which was decreed by the Trial Court and in that suit, the plaintiff had averred his rights in the property in suit on the basis of sale deed, which had been executed in his favour in the year 1973 by the mother of the defendant, namely, Ramwati Devi and dissatisfied with the decree passed in Title Suit, the appeal was preferred on behalf of the respondent, which is pending now.

During pendency of the very appeal, the defendants-appellants got the death certificate of their mother and that certificate was sought to be adduced by way of an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. In that appeal, an objection as raised on behalf of the respondents of the appeal before the appellate court but the Appellate court has allowed the application which is based on adverse finding.

Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Trial Court while taking the said document on record gave the finding that the evidentiary value of the document was not to be considered at this stage and the document, which was sought to be adduced on record was the public document

The Court took note has been stated that the applicant for issuance of the death certificate was Ram Dhyan Sharma who had also filed the affidavit and further on the very affidavit of Ram Dhyan Sharma, the enquiry was made and it was apprised by the local persons of the locality that Ramwati Devi had died 40-45 years ago while Ram Dhyan Sharma has deposed the date of death on 15.07.1970; but in the enquiry report no such date was given rather tentatively stated 40-45 years ago and this report is dated 30.11.2018.

However, the Court stated that it will not consider the evidentiary value of the document and will only examine whether there is pleading to that effect of the parties?

"In the written statement itself, the defendants have admitted impliedly the execution of the sale deed by their mother in the year 1973 in favour of the plaintiffs. But there is no pleading of defendant that the mother of defendant had died prior to execution of sale deed by her in favour of plaintiff of the original suit," the Cout observed while holding that it is the settled law that no party can be permitted to adduce evidence beyond pleadings.

The Court concluded that the public document itself cannot be taken on record because there is no pleading to that effect on record on behalf of the defendants in regard to the date of death of their mother Ramwati Devi and there is no plea that Ramwati Devi had not executed sale deed in favour of plaintiff prior to her death.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Motilal Agarwal vs. Ram Babu Sharma

Appearances:

Petitioners- Advocate Rahul Gupta, Advocate Surya Prakash, Advocate Rakesh Singh

Respondents- Advocate Pradip Modi, Advocate Sarvendra Kumar, Advocate Amrita Kumari

Click here to read/ download Judgement