In S.A.No. 16 of 2009-MAD HC- Under Sec.58 of Evidence Act, admitted fact need not be proved except when Court calls upon party to prove that particular fact, clarifies Madras HC Justice C.V. Karthikeyan [15-07-2022]

Read Order: MRS. AMUTHA AND ORS V. MR. RADHAKRISHNAN AND ORS 

Mansimran Kaur

Chennai, July 18, 2022: The Madras High Court has made it clear that section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act indicates that when a fact has been admitted, it need not be proved except when the Court calls upon the party to prove that particular fact.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan allowed the second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court wiht the observation that allowing the Appeal suit on the basis of the additional written statement is a procedure alien in law and therefore, the First Appellate Court judgment suffered and had to be interfered with on this one ground itself. 

The plaintiffs in the Original Suit of 2001 on the file of District Munsif Court at Madurantakam were the appellants in the present case.  The aforesaid suit was originally filed by the plaintiff, Kalyana Subderam. He died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record as second to fifth plaintiffs. 

The suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the property, namely, private land and for costs of the suit. In pursuance of the same, the defendants instituted the appeal and the same was allowed . Consequently, the judgment of the Trial Court was set aside and the grant of permanent injunction was also set aside.  This compelled the legal representatives of the plaintiff to file the present second appeal. 

After hearing the submissions of the parties and after considering the material on record, the Court deemed it necessary to consider Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In view of the same the Court observed that a simple reading of the provision indicated that when a fact has been admitted, it need not be proved except when the Court calls upon the party to prove that particular fact.  

Thus, this Court opined that the First Appellate Court misdirected itself in not taking into consideration the admission of the defendants in their evidence that the lane was within the property of the appellants. It was further noted by the present Court that the procedure followed by the First Appellate Court was strewn with errors. 

A decision can be taken to admit to file on record the additional written statement. If such an additional written statement is taken on record then the plaintiffs must be given an opportunity to file a reply statement.  It must be further examined whether the facts pleaded in the additional written statement and in the reply statement require further issues to be drawn and it must be further examined whether such issues require oral and documentary evidence to be adduced to establish the averments additionally pleaded, the Court further noted. 

 In view of these findings, the Court stated that First Appellate Court  misdirected itself in its procedure in taking on record the additional written statement and not granting opportunity to the appellants to file a reply statement and in not examining whether further issues had to be framed and whether such issues require oral or documentary evidence to be adduced.  Thus, in light of the foretasted findings and observations, the second appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court was set aside.