Sufficiency Of Evidence Is To Be Seen In The Context Of Standard Of Proof, Which In Civil Cases Is By Preponderance Of Probability: SC
The Supreme Court has held that while inquiring into whether a fact is proved or not, sufficiency of evidence has to be be seen in the context of standard of proof, which in civil cases is by a preponderance of probability.
The Trial Court had dismissed a suit for declaration of title and injunction since the respondent was not able not establish her title by way of a clear document of title in her favour, and secondly, the suit was barred by limitation.
However, the Bombay High Court referred to the deed evidencing the presence of title in favour of the respondent’s predecessor followed by their continuous possession and concluded that her title over the property was well-established.
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar observed, “This is a matter relating to the sufficiency of evidence. While inquiring into whether a fact is proved, the sufficiency of evidence is to be seen in the context of standard of proof, which in civil cases is by preponderance of probability. By this test, the High Court has correctly arrived at its conclusion regarding the existence of title in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of the evidence adduced.”
Advocate Ruchira Gupta represented the appellant, while Sr. Advocate Huzefa Ahmedi appeared for the respondents.
The appellant argued that the High Court had wrongly shifted the burden of proof, rather than requiring the respondent to prove the title. It was further argued that the High Court wrongly asked for proof of possession of the property rather than for proof of title of the property, which should be the only inquiry in a suit for declaration.
The Supreme Court held that “the High Court has correctly reappreciated the facts and evidence while exercising first appellate jurisdiction and has also followed the law as applicable in proving a suit for declaration.”
The Court explained that the respondent had submitted the burden of proof and not the standard of proof which is why “The High Court did not solely rely on the lack of evidence by the State to establish its own title in coming to its conclusion.”
The Court distinguished between the burden of proof and the standard of proof. The Court explained that the appellant was right to argue that no single document concluded the title in favour of the plaintiff. The Court clarified that the issue was not that of the burden of proof, but was related to the sufficiency of evidence.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Government of Goa v. Maria Julieta D’souza (D) & Ors. (2024 INSC 88)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Shishir Deshpande, Advocates Ruchira Gupta, Harshita Sharma, Swati Jain, Pooja Tripathi and Tejaswin Suri
Respondents: Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmedi, AOR Abhishek Chaudhary, Advocates U R Timble and Ajay Kumar Jha