PANDURANG JIVAJI versus RAMCHANDRA GANGADHAR ASHTEKAR (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

PANDURANG JIVAJI versus RAMCHANDRA GANGADHAR ASHTEKAR (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

Adverse inference for non-appearance of a party arises only when there is no other relevant evidence on the record. Where admissions and documentary evidence established that the appellant's (Apte's) dues were unsatisfied by the sale, the High Court erred in reversing the findings of the lower courts and in directing the deposit of any surplus. The decree-holder could not proceed against the property or its proceeds until Apte's dues were fully satisfied.

Parties
Appellant: Pandurang Jivaji Apte; Respondent: Ramchandra Gangadhar Ashtekar (dead) by LRs.; Respondent: Bavdekar (Madhusudan Vasudeo Bavdekar)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 October 1981
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order of Bombay High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 60 of 1964.
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Judgment of the High Court set aside; decree of District Judge restored.
Legal Topics
Attachment Before Judgment, Garnishee Proceedings, Right of Mortgagee to Sell Pledged Property, Adverse Inference Under Evidence Act
Civil Procedure Contract Law Evidence Attachment Before Judgment Garnishee Proceedings Right of Mortgagee to Sell Pledged Property Adverse Inference Under Evidence Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pandurang Jivaji Apte

Appellant

Ramchandra Gangadhar Ashtekar (dead) by LRs.

Respondent

Bavdekar (Madhusudan Vasudeo Bavdekar)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order of Bombay High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 60 of 1964.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adverse inference can be drawn against a party for failure to appear in court under section 114 Evidence Act when there is other evidence on record.
  2. 2 Whether the attachment before judgment was valid.
  3. 3 Whether the proceeds of sale satisfied the debts due to the mortgagee (Apte).

Ratio Decidendi

Adverse inference for non-appearance of a party arises only when there is no other relevant evidence on the record. Where admissions and documentary evidence established that the appellant's (Apte's) dues were unsatisfied by the sale, the High Court erred in reversing the findings of the lower courts and in directing the deposit of any surplus. The decree-holder could not proceed against the property or its proceeds until Apte's dues were fully satisfied.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Judgment of the High Court set aside; decree of District Judge restored.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs.
  • Judgment of the High Court set aside.