IMPORTANT CASE LAWS - Madras High Court

Suit was originally filed by Company, represented by its Vice-President(Operations) – Company
authorized the said Vice-President by its resolution to institute legal proceedings on behalf of the company, but
however the same was omitted to be filed by mistake – Held: to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the petitioner
could be permitted to file the said resolution.
Order 18 Rule 17 CPC cannot be invoked to fill up the omissions in the evidence of witnesses – Order 18
Rule 17-A was omitted by Amendment Act 46 of 1999 with effect from 01.07.2002 – Insertion of Rule 14(3) under
Order 7 will amply establish that the plaintiff, with the leave of the Court, can file the document with or annexed with
the plaint.
Order of the Court below rejecting the request of the petitioner to recall PW1 and to file the document
referred to above is totally untenable and unjustified.
(2011) 3 MLJ 533
Sandrayan and Ors
vs
S.S. Mariappan and Anr
Code of Civil Procedure (5 of 1908), Section 100 – Second Appeal – Suit for specific performance –
Agreement to sell – Burden of proof is only on plaintiff – Courts below misapplied concept of burden of proof as
though burden of proof was on defendants – Second appeal allowed.
FACTS IN BRIEF:
A suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement to sell and the trial Court decreed the suit. Being
aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred an appeal which got dismissed by the appellate Court confirming the
decree of the trial Court. Challenging the same, a second appeal has been filed by the defendants.
QUERIES:
Held:
1. Whether the Courts below were justified in proceeding on the footing as though the burden of proof is on
defendants to prove the falsity of Exhibit A-1 – the Agreement to sell?
2. Despite the scribe having not signed in the agreement to sell, whether the Courts below were justified in not
adverting to the said fact and in upholding the validity of Exhibit A-1?
3. Whether the Courts below were justified in giving weightage to the non – examination of the mother of the
plaintiff as a fact against the genuineness of the case of the defendants?
4. Whether the judgments of the Courts below are fraught with perversity?
It is clear that interference of this Court is warranted, as the judgments of the Courts below are fraught with
perversity. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are decided as under:
Substantial question of law (i) is decided to the effect that the Courts below misunderstood the concept ‘burden of
proof’ and misapplied it as though the burden of proof was on the defendants.
Substantial question of law (ii) is decided to the effect that despite the scribe having not signed in the agreement
to sell, the Courts below were not justified in not signed in the agreement to sell, the Courts below were not adverting to the
said fact while discussing the facts involved in this case and in upholding the validity of Exhibit A-1.
25