Jharkhand HC rules in property disputes

While setting aside a district court’s order allowing the introduction of death certificate as evidence in a property dispute, the Jharkhand High Court held that a death certificate issued many years after death, based solely on an affidavit, cannot be accepted as additional evidence if there is no evidentiary basis and is inconsistent with the pleadings.

Presiding over the case Justice Subhash Chand he maintained that “Even though this document, being a public document issued to the individual information of the petitioner/accused after the judgment and decree in the original suit, this public document itself cannot be said to be a record of the case as there is no writing on the record to this effect on behalf of the respondents in connection with the date of death of their mother Ramwati Devi and there is no allegation that Ramwati Devi did not execute the deed of sale in favor of the plaintiff before her death.”

The Court made this observation when setting aside the order of the Third District Judge, Lohardaga, which permitted the appellants to produce a death certificate as additional evidence under s. 27 of provisions XLI 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 decree in the title suit, alleging that they had acquired the disputed property pursuant to a sale deed executed by Ramwati Devi in ​​1973. Challenging the decree, the defendants produced a death certificate showing that Ramwati Devi had died in 1970, three years before the sale deed was entered into .

As proof of the invalidity of the sales contract, a death certificate was presented, issued in 2018 on the basis of a declaration submitted under oath by one of the plaintiffs. However, the High Court held that the additional evidence of this certificate did not meet the requirements under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the CPC.

The High Court, in its ruling, clarified that additional evidence under Art. 27 of Regulation XLI cannot be admitted if it does not meet the preliminary conditions. The Court noted that the death certificate, which stated 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 noted “The death certificate itself does not mention anywhere what was the basis for the date of death of Ramwati Devi.”

The plaintiffs had previously obtained a decree in their favor in Title Suit No. 31 of 2015, confirming ownership of the disputed property through a sale deed executed by Ramwati Devi in ​​1973. The defendants, challenging the decree, produced a death certificate to claim that the sale deed was void, as their mother allegedly died three years before her execution.

However, the court pointed out that the defendants’ written statement did not contain any allegation regarding the mother’s death before the conclusion of the sales contract.

The Court, relying on the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases Bondar Singh and Ors. vs. Nihal Singh and Ors. reported in 2003 AIR SCW 1383 and Satish Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2017) 4 SCC 760, he repeated, “Neither party may be permitted to present evidence other than pleadings.”

As a result, the Court took into account the miscellaneous civil plea filed by the plaintiffs, overturning the District Judge’s decision to the extent that it allowed the introduction of a death certificate.

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

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 1

Click here to read the judgment