Key Delhi High Court Verdict: Landmark Clarification on Admissibility of Documents and Plea of Adverse Possession  

165
0
Share:
national woman tax minor Evidence Copy maintenance police Landlord landlord claim Eviction ground Email Promotions judicial civil disclosure constable probate matrimonial relationship protection delhi cbse justice government automatic judiciary recovery government police view bail bail framing medical Rajya Sabha marriage matrimonial bank scale marriage bail wife decision national 67 copyright divorce plea under divorce fraud global documentsdocumentsvideo divorce sexual bail divorce validity sexual month friendlyfriendly suit disciplinary personal election case acquittal contract notice drug major day divorce teacher jewellers work honorable voluntary principle judgment Bail ordering wrestling remarks bail death criminal Cross- rape validity mother judicial wilful police daughters bail v eviction broad Examination wife land sexual marriage Delhi senior framing bail delhi guilty nationals bail

In a significant judgment by the Delhi High Court, a division bench comprising of HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA delivered a landmark verdict on August 18, 2023, shedding light on the admissibility of documents as evidence and the plea of adverse possession.

The case centered around a property dispute over ownership and possession. The appellants contested the verdict of the First Appellate Court that upheld the Trial Court’s decree of possession and mandatory injunction. The respondents claimed ownership based on documents provided to establish their title. The appellants raised objections of forgery and insufficient proof for the documents.

One of the pivotal observations made by the bench was, “Objections to the admissibility of documents on grounds of mode of proof should be raised when evidence is tendered. Failure to do so results in the waiver of objection.” This stance reaffirms the principle that parties should timely raise objections during the trial process.

Furthermore, the bench delved into the plea of adverse possession, which the appellants raised only during the first appeal. The bench clarified that this plea was not maintained in the written statement and contradicted the appellants’ earlier claim of co-ownership. The Court emphasized the necessity to prove clear and continuous possession with animus possidendi to establish adverse possession.

The judgment underscored that “the burden of proof rests on the party claiming adverse possession.” The bench highlighted that inconsistent pleas and failure to adhere to established legal principles cannot be entertained. Consequently, the plea of adverse possession was dismissed in this case due to inadequate pleading and supporting evidence.

In light of these findings, the Delhi High Court upheld the First Appellate Court’s verdict, dismissing the appeal. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to proper legal procedures and precedents, fostering a consistent and fair trial process.

This ruling serves as a significant legal precedent, guiding litigants and legal professionals to navigate the intricacies of evidence admissibility and the plea of adverse possession effectively.

 Quote from the Judgment:  “Objections to the admissibility of documents on grounds of mode of proof should be raised when evidence is tendered. Failure to do so results in the waiver of objection.”

D.D on : 18.08.2023

 RATTAN LAL & ANR.  vs RAGUNATH

Download Judgment

Share: