Whether it is necessary to prove fact which is admitted by other party?

The High Court proceeded on the premise   that
no   document   has   been   filed   for   purpose   of
establishing   that   Survey   No.   188/2   stands   in   the
name   of   Janaki   Ammal   and   further,   the   High   Court
proceeded   that   First   Defendant   being   not   absolute
owner of the old Survey No. 188 except 5 acres and
10 cents, the plaintiff is the owner of the rest of
the property.
28. Thus   virtually,   the   suit   has   been   decreed   by
the   High   Court   for   Survey   No.   188/2,   whereas,
Survey   No.   188/2   was   admittedly   recorded   in   the
name of Janaki Ammal, who was not impleaded in the
suit nor any relief was claimed against the Janaki
Ammal or for Survey No.188/2. In this context, it
is   useful   to   refer   to   the   evidence   of   Plaintiff
himself i.e. PW 1. PW 1, in his deposition before
the   court,   has   admitted   the   fact   that   Survey   No.
188/2 is in the name of Janaki Ammal and he has not
initiated   any   action   against   her   nor   she   was
impleaded in the suit. Following statement was made
by the PW 1 in his statement:
"It   is   correct   to   say   that   S.No.
188/2 stands in the name of Janaki
Ammal.   Now   the   said   Janaki   Ammal
sold   that   property   to   third
person.   I   have   not   initiated   any
action to include Janaki Ammal as
a party to this suit.”
29. In   view   of   the   statement   of   the   plaintiff
himself   that   Survey   No.   188/2   is   in   the   name   of
Janaki   Ammal,   the   observations   of   the   High   Court
that   no   documentary   evidence   was   filed   for   the
purpose   of   establishing   that   Survey   No.   188/2
stands   in   the   name   of   Janaki   Ammal   are   erroneous
and   mis­placed.   When   Plaintiff   himself   admitted
that   Survey   No.   188/2   is   recorded   in   the   name   of
Janaki Ammal, there was no basis for the High Court
to   come   to   conclusion   that   plaintiff   is   entitled
for the area apart from 5 acres and 10 cents, which
belonged to the Temple.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2342 OF 2017

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ARULMIGU       
CHOKKANATHA SWAMY KOIL TRUST 
VIRUDHUNAGAR    
   V
CHANDRAN & ORS  
 
Citation:(2017)3 SCC702

Read full judgment: Click here

Print Page