Court Can Draw Adverse Inference Against Party Withholding Best Evidence, Has No Duty To Seek Production: Supreme Court

"When a party in possession of the best evidence, which throws light on the issue in controversy, withholds it, the Court is entitled to draw an adverse inference and there is no responsibility on the Court to call upon the party to produce the document," Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling dated April 10, 2026, held that courts are entitled to draw an adverse inference against a litigant who withholds the best evidence bearing on a legal controversy.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that when a party possesses crucial documents but fails to produce them during the trial, there is no obligation on the judicial forum to independently call for their production, while simultaneously refusing to condone a 31-year delay in challenging a civil decree.

The appellant had originally filed a suit for declaration of his 'khatedari' (tenant-occupant) rights over 158.3 bighas of land, which was decreed in his favour by the trial court in 1975. The primary defendant challenged this decree after a massive delay of 31 years, alleging that the original order was obtained through fraud and without her knowledge or participation. While the First Appellate Authority rejected the appeal citing the gross delay, the Board of Revenue and subsequently the Rajasthan High Court remanded the matter, prompting the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

The primary question before the court was whether an adverse inference should be drawn against a defendant who asserts property rights based on a sale deed but fails to produce the original document during the trial. The court was also called upon to determine whether a delay of 31 years in challenging an ex-parte decree could be condoned based on improved allegations of fraud that contradicted official court records.

Adverse Inference For Withholding Best Evidence

Focusing on the core evidentiary issue, the Supreme Court noted that the defendant had filed an application before the trial court to produce the original sale deed but subsequently failed to place it on record. Relying on Sections 103 and 140(g) of the Evidence Act, 1872, the bench emphasized the principle of adverse inference. The court cited its earlier precedent in Ajay Kumar D. Amin v. Air France, establishing that a litigant cannot claim rights based on a document they actively conceal from judicial scrutiny.

No Duty On Court To Call For Documents

The court firmly rejected the Board of Revenue's finding that the trial court erred by not actively summoning the sale deed. The bench clarified that the burden of proving a defense lies exclusively with the party asserting it. Applying the ratio from Gurnam Singh v. Surjit Singh, the judges observed that when the best evidence is deliberately withheld, the judicial forum has no independent responsibility to demand its production to assist the defaulting litigant.

Repudiation Of Voidable Transactions

Addressing the respondent's argument that the plaintiff never filed a specific suit to cancel the contested 1963 sale deed, the court clarified the law on voidable documents. Relying on K.S. Shivappa v. K. Neelamma, the bench held that repudiation of a voidable transaction need not necessarily happen through a formal suit for cancellation. The court observed that claiming khatedari rights based on mutation entries and obtaining a decree constitutes an effective repudiation of the document, especially since the unregistered sale deed was not in the public domain.

"Delay condonation cannot be an act of generosity defeating the cause of substantial justice and causing prejudice to the opposite party."

Sale Of Minor's Property Voidable

The bench also scrutinized the substantive validity of the unproduced sale deed, which the respondents eventually brought on record during the appellate proceedings. The court noted that the deed disclosed the vendor to be a 12-year-old minor at the time of execution. Since no prior permission was obtained from the competent court, the judges held that the transaction was strictly hit by Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, further weakening the respondents' claim of a bona fide purchase.

Trial Court Records Belie Fraud Claims

Turning to the condonation of the 31-year delay, the bench strongly criticized the shifting and contradictory pleadings regarding fraud. The court highlighted that trial court records showed the defendant had engaged a lawyer, filed a vakalatnama, submitted a written statement, and even examined two defense witnesses. The judges observed that the subsequent allegations of a manipulated vakalatnama were a deliberate falsehood and an afterthought designed to overcome the massive limitation bar.

Generosity Cannot Subvert Justice

Citing the precedent in Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy, the Supreme Court cautioned against taking a lenient approach to statutory limitation periods in property disputes. The bench noted that entertaining such severely delayed challenges severely prejudices the successful decree-holder who has enjoyed the fruits of the judgment. Consequently, the court found the remand orders passed by the High Court and the Revenue Board to be entirely illegal and unsustainable in law.

Concluding its judgment, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the remand orders passed by the Board of Revenue and the High Court. The original decree passed by the Revenue Court in 1975, declaring the appellant's khatedari rights, was successfully restored, bringing an end to the decades-long litigation.

Date of Decision: 10 April 2026