Jharkhand HC Rules in Property Disputes

Setting aside a district court order allowing death certificate to be introduced as evidence in a property dispute, the Jharkhand High Court said a death certificate issued years after death, based solely on a affidavit, cannot be admitted as additional evidence if it lacks probative basis and is inconsistent with the pleadings.

Chair the file Justice Subhash Chand held this, “Even if this document, which is a public document issued based on the individual information of the plaintiff/defendant after the judgment and decree issued in the original suit, this public document itself cannot be registered because there is no has no pleading to this effect in the file. on behalf of the defendants in respect of the date of death of their mother Ramwati Devi and there is no argument that Ramwati Devi had not executed the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff before her death.

The Court made this observation while setting aside the order of the District Judge III, Lohardaga, who had allowed the appellants to submit death certificate as additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC ).

The dispute concerned property between the plaintiffs, Motilal Agarwal and Dr Sachidanand Agarwal, and the defendants, who are the legal heirs of one Ramwati Devi. The plaintiffs obtained a judgment in a title suit, claiming that they had acquired the disputed property through a sale deed executed by Ramwati Devi in ​​1973. While attacking the decree, the defendants produced a certificate of death proving that Ramwati Devi had died in 1970. three years before the sale deed was signed.

The death certificate, issued in 2018 on the basis of an affidavit filed by one of the appellants, was produced to prove the invalidity of the sale deed. However, the High Court held that the additional evidence in this certificate did not satisfy the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 27 of the CPC.

The High Court, while delivering its judgment, made it clear that additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 could be admitted only if it fulfilled the prerequisites. The Court noted that the death certificate, claiming that Ramwati Devi died in 1970, was issued in 2018 solely on the basis of an affidavit submitted by one of the accused. The Court observed: “In this death certificate itself, it is not mentioned anywhere what was the basis of the date of death of Ramwati Devi.”

The plaintiffs had earlier obtained a judgment in their favor in Suit No. 31 of 2015, asserting ownership of the disputed property through a sale deed executed by Ramwati Devi in ​​1973. The defendants, while disputing the judgment, presented the death certificate to claim. that the deed of sale was invalid since their mother died three years before it was signed.

However, the court pointed out that the defendants’ written statement did not contain any argument regarding the death of their mother before the signing of the sale deed.

The Court, while citing the judgments of the Supreme Court in cases Bondar Singh and Ors. Against. Nihal Singh and Ors. reported in 2003 AIR SCW 1383 and Satish Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2017) 4 SCC 760, reiterated, “No party may be allowed to present evidence beyond pleadings. »

Therefore, the court granted the miscellaneous civil motion filed by the plaintiffs, vacating the district judge’s order, insofar as it permitted the introduction of the death certificate.

Case Title: Motilal Agarwal v. Ram Babu Sharma and Ors

Citation LL: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 1

Click here to read the judgment