LAWyersclubindia LCI
Login  Register
Decode Ballistic Reports Like a Pro. Register Now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Meaning of a line in judgement

(Querist) 12 April 2020 This query is : Resolved 
Hello respectable lawyers,..
Report Abuse
Quick Summary
This discussion delves into the legal principle of "mutually destructive pleas" within court proceedings. It clarifies that while parties can often present alternative or inconsistent arguments, these arguments cannot contradict each other to the point of undermining the entire case. The thread cites various High Court and Supreme Court judgments to illustrate when such pleas are permissible and when they are deemed impermissible, particularly in amendments to written statements and industrial adjudication.

Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 12 April 2020
The meaning of this line is that the plaintiff despite of his being a practicing advocate has taken a plea which cannot be believed at all when he says in his cross-examination that the said plot was purchased by him against a sum of Rs. 60 lakh though there is no title-deed or any document supporting his plea. This piece of evidence is self goal.
KISHAN DUTT KALASKAR (Expert) 13 April 2020
Dear Sir,
I agree with the opinion of Expert Mr.Raj Kumar Makkad
P. Venu (Expert) 13 April 2020
It is surprising that the author has since truncated his posting!
Rajendra K Goyal (Expert) 13 April 2020
The term would be clarified by going through following decision from Delhi High Court in which the term was clarified by referring various cases:
Hon’ble Delhi High Court has referred the following cases while deciding the case of Kewal Kishan vs Delhi Development Authority on 21 August, 2013 (CM(M) No.679/2013 & C.M. No.10192/2013)

Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain Vs. Ramakant Eknath Jajoo, MANU/SC/0441/2009, Biswanath Agarwalla Vs. Sabitri Bera, MANU/SC/1452/2009 & in Gautam Sarup Vs. Leela Jetly, MANU/SC/7401/2008 distinguished inconsistent pleas from mutually destructive pleas. Thus though a defendant is entitled to take an alternative and inconsistent plea, such alternative pleas cannot be mutually destructive of each other; pleadings of the parties are required to be read as a whole; defendants although are entitled to raise alternative and inconsistent pleas but should not be permitted to raise pleas which are mutually destructive of each other.

Pramod Kumar Jain & Anr. vs. Ramesh Kumar Jain, I.A.
No.187/2011 (Order VI, Rule 17 CPC) in CS(OS) No.2179/2010, decided on 19th May, 2011, Para 9 whereof reads as under:-
"9. In the case before this court also, since the defendant has already pleaded co-ownership. Plea of ownership and the plea of adverse possession now sought to be taken by way of proposed amendment are mutually destructive and both of them cannot be allowed to stand together. Law permits the defendant to set up alternative and in some cases even inconsistent pleas, but, not the pleas which are mutually destructive of each other. The application therefore, is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone."

(iv) Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Union of India, (2006) 12 SCC 233, Para 28 whereof reads as under:-
"28. The workmen whether before the Labour Court or in writ proceedings were represented by the same Union. A trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act is entitled to espouse the cause of the workmen. A definite stand was taken by the employees that they had been working under the contractors. It would, thus, in our opinion, not lie in their mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that they were also the workmen of the principal employer. To raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in law. Such mutually destructive plea, in our opinion, should not be allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication. Common law principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence are applicable in an industrial adjudication.
Dr J C Vashista (Expert) 15 April 2020
Very well explained by experts, I agree and appreciate, nothing more to add.
Rajendra K Goyal (Expert) 15 April 2020
Thanks a lot to expert Dr. J.C. Vashishta ji for valuable comments.
Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 16 April 2020
I also pay my regards to expert J. C. Vashishtha ji for agreeing with my reply.
Rajendra K Goyal (Expert) 17 April 2020
Apart from this academic information, the querist should come forward with actual facts of the problem he is facing.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 17 April 2020
taken by way of amendment of written statement was mutually destructive of the plea earlier taken in the written statement and the same could not have been allowed by way of amendment of written statement cause of action is totally different.
On the contrary it is mutually destructive.
Illustration:
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents disputes the same. He contends that the Trial Court should not have entertained the suit at all. That the plea of the plaintiff seeking for a declaration of title based on title as well as on adverse possession cannot be considered. They are mutually destructive pleas.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 17 April 2020
In a case before Karnataka high court:
Narayan S Kurdekar vs Dawal Sab S/O Jani Sab Sathsanadi on 26 April, 2017:
the court observed the following:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the contentions therein on the ground that the pleas of the plaintiff therein were either inconsistent or were alternate. The plea of the plaintiff in the case on hand cannot be said to be either an inconsistent plea or an alternate plea. Inconsistent pleas are pleas that differ with one another. They are pleas that are inconsistent with one another. An alternate plea is a plea which is in addition to the plea that has already been made. In the instant case, the plea of the plaintiff is based on title and the second plea is based on adverse possession. Therefore, both these pleas cannot be said to be inconsistent or an alternate. The plea based on title would pre-suppose that the plaintiff asserts his title to the property and claims ownership by virtue of his rightful claim as a lawful owner based on a document of title. By claiming adverse possession, the title of the defendant is admitted but what is pleaded is a hostile, continuos possession to the knowledge of the defendant. Therefore, such a plea would necessarily be destructive to the plea based on title. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an inconsistent or an alternative plea is permissible. The judgment does not speak of a mutually destructive pleas. Even though the plaintiff may be entitled to take an inconsistent or an alternate plea, he cannot be permitted to take mutually destructive pleas. In my considered view, the pleas are mutually destructive.
Hope the mutually destructive plea has been explained properly.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 18 April 2020
In Supreme Court of India
Srinivas Ram Kumar vs Mahabir Prasad And Others on 9 February, 1951
Equivalent citations: 1951 AIR 177, 1951 SCR 277, the court observed the following:

But it was certainly open to the plaintiff to make an alternative case to that effect and make a prayer in the alternative for a decree for money even if the allegations of the money being paid in pursuance of a contract of sale could not be established by evidence. The fact that such a prayer would have been inconsistent with the other prayer is not really material. A plaintiff may rely upon different rights alternatively and there is nothing in the Civil Procedure Code to prevent a party from making two or more inconsistent sets of allegations and claiming relief thereunder in the alternative.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 18 April 2020
It is settled law as laid down by this Court in Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad 1951 AIR(SC) 117 : 1951 SCR 277) that it is open to the parties to raise even mutually inconsistent pleas and if the relief could be founded on the alternative plea it could be granted. If the facts are admitted in the written statement, the relief could be granted to the plaintiff on the basis of the evidence though inconsistent pleas were raised. Amendment to written statement cannot be considered on the same principle as an amendment to the plaint. The pleas in the written statement may be alternative or on additional ground or to substitute the original plea. It is equally settled law that amendment of the pleadings could be made at any stage of the proceedings. Instances are not wanting that pleadings are permitted to be amended even when second appeal is pending. Equally it was refused. It is not necessary to burden the judgment by copious references thereof. But each case depends upon its own facts. The essential requisites are that the delay in making the application; the reason therefor should be given and considered; and there should be no prejudice caused to the other side. Bar of limitation which is available to the parties cannot be permitted to be defeated. It is also settled law that if the relief is found on the same cause of action, though different sets of facts are sought to be brought on record by appropriate pleadings, it cannot be refused. In those circumstances, permission to amend the pleadings could be granted.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 18 April 2020
Whether it is permissible to raise mutually destructive plea in industrial adjudication?
A definite stand was taken by the employees that they had been working under the contractors. It would, thus, in our opinion, not lie in their mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that they were also the workmen of the principal employer. To raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in law. Such mutually destructive plea, in our opinion, should not be allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication. Common law principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence are applicable in an industrial adjudication.
P. Venu (Expert) 18 April 2020
The author has already truncated the posting and guillotined the facts, for reasons best known to him. How long this thread could be stretched!

Previous
Next

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login now



Similar Resolved Queries :



Ask Query
Unanswered Queries

Laws Follow us





Browse by Category