Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION No.58283/2014 (GM-CPC)
Between:
G. Sanjay, S/o Late V. Gowrishankar, Age: 47 years, R/o No.22, A & B, VI Main, Jayalakshmipura, III Block, Mysore – 570 001.
… Petitioner
(By Sri B.S. Raghu Prasad, Advocate)
And:
Smt. Satyavathi Meghadoot,
D/o Late V. Gowrishankar and W/o Meghadoot M. Dallal, Age: 49 years, R/o Doddathota, Doddamaragowdanahalli, Ilawala Hobli, Mysore Taluk & District – 570 006.
Smt. Swarnalatha Devi,
Age: 70 years,
W/o Late V. Gowrishankar, R/o No.22, A & B, VI Main, Jayalakshmipura, III Block, Mysore – 570 001.
2 3. Smt. Sharada Jagadeesh, D/o late V. Gowrishankar, W/o Jagadeesh, Age: 46 years, R/o No.302, Sankalp, Yadavagiri, Mysore – 570 001.
… Respondents
(By Sri M.N. Madhusudhan, Advocate for R1; Sri D.M. Kumar, Advocate for R2; R-3 Served)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated 01.12.2014 allowing the application I.A. 13 filed under Order 11 Rule 14 of CPC passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Mysore in O.S. No.329/2011 vide Annexure-H and dismiss I.A. 13 filed under order 11 Rule 14 of CPC praying for a direction to the petitioner herein who is the defendant No.2 in the suit to produce his Income Tax Returns, Balance Sheet with Statement of Assets and Liabilities for the year 2010-11 upto date and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The defendant before the trial court has challenged the order dated 01.12.2014, whereby I.A.No.13 filed under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC by the plaintiff calling upon the defendant to produce his income-tax returns, balance sheet with statement of assets and liabilities for the year 2010-11 till date came to be allowed.
The plaintiff had filed the said application referred to above contending that notice has been issued calling upon the defendant to produce documents and that it was the stand of the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties were the joint family properties, whereas the stand of the defendant was that these properties were self-acquired properties of her husband and if that were to be so, the income-tax returns of the second defendant would throw light as regards to the points in controversy. The said application was objected to and it is the contention of the defendant that the burden of proof would rest on the plaintiff in light of the assertion made and if that were to be so, the question of the defendant furnishing documents to enable the plaintiff to discharge the burden of proof cast upon the plaintiff would not arise.
The trial court has allowed the application while recording the contention of the plaintiff that the second defendant had taken a defence that the properties in dispute were the self-acquired properties of her husband. The trial
4 court had further observed that if plaintiff were to produce the said documents, the question of relevancy could be decided at a subsequent point of time. The trial court has also taken note of the contention of the plaintiff that the declaration of assets and liabilities in the income-tax return would also throw light on the aspect as to whether properties are the self-acquired properties or the joint family properties. While observing so, the court has directed the defendant no.2 to produce the documents.
The learned counsel for petitioner contends that discharge of burden casts upon the defendant cannot extend to directing the second defendant to produce documents including income-tax returns. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of D.S.LAKSHMAIAH AND ANOTHER v. L.BALASUBRAMANYAM AND ANOTHER [ (2003) 10 SCC 310].
The preposition of law as put farward by the learned counsel for petitioner is not in dispute. The only question is as to whether the defendant could be called upon
5 to produce document as sought for. Order 11 Rule 14 CPC provides that it shall be lawful for the court to order production of such documents in the possession of persons in-charge of the same relating to any matter in question.
In the present case, the defendant has taken a specific contention that the properties which are the subject matter of claim are the self-acquired properties of the defendant’s husband. The plaintiff seeks to make out a case by relying on Income Tax returns which may throw light with respect to the nature of acquisition of the property. It cannot be held that the court does not possess the power to call upon the defendant at the instance of the plaintiff to produce the documents which are in his custody, which may have bearing on a issue that has arisen in the suit. The trial court has adverted to the reasons assigned by the plaintiff while seeking to summon the documents and a considered decision has been arrived at.
6 7. This court finds no infirmity in the said order nor finds any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Np/-