Case Title: Chandra & Others AND G. Krishnappa.
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 19003 OF 2022
Date of Order: 02-08-2023
CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE S G PANDIT
INTRODUCTION
The Karnataka High Court recently ruled that when filing a lawsuit for a simple injunction, the responsibility lies with the party approaching the court to provide evidence of their legal ownership of the property mentioned in the lawsuit.
FACTS
The respondent filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the petitioners’ alleged interference with their property. The petitioners contested the authenticity of the respondent’s documents, requesting officials from BBMP and Grama Panchayath to be summoned. The Trial Court denied this request. The petitioners appealed to the High Court, arguing that summoning these officials was crucial to prove their claim about the documents’ genuineness. The respondent’s counsel supported the Trial Court, stating that the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff in an injunction suit.
COURT’S ANALYSIS
The Court concluded that it had no reason to interfere with the Trial Court’s decision. In a case involving a simple injunction to prevent disturbance of possession rather than a claim of ownership, the burden of proving lawful possession rested with the plaintiff. The plaintiff had presented documents (marked as exhibits P11 to P23) as evidence, but their legitimacy and legality would be determined during the final ruling.
The Court emphasized that the plaintiff must authenticate the documents in line with the law. The Trial Court would assess these documents and their authenticity during the final judgment.
Justice S G Pandit added that in such cases, the defendant is not required to move an application to prove the authenticity of the documents produced by the plaintiff during the course of evidence.
“In a suit for bare injunction, it is for the person who approaches the Court to prove his lawful possession… In the course of trial admittedly the respondent/plaintiff has marked exhibits P11 to P23, documents said to have been issued by the BBMP or the Grama Panchayath of Tanisandra. Therefore, it is for the plaintiff to prove the documents in accordance with law and it is for the Trial Court, at the time of final disposal, to evaluate and to appreciate the documents and its genuineness.”
Furthermore, the Court ruled that the responsibility to prove the documents rested with the plaintiff. If the plaintiff failed to substantiate the documents, their case would fail. The Court also stated that it was unnecessary for the defendants to summon officials from the BBMP and Grama Panchayath to disprove the documents or establish their own argument.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Shreya Sharma
