Is a Probate Order Obtained During Appellate Proceedings Admissible to Prove Title in an Eviction Suit Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, Reaffirming the Relaxed Proof Standard?

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Probated Will obtained while appeal is pending must be admitted under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC in eviction proceedings.
• Proof of ownership in eviction suits is less exacting than in a standalone title suit.
• Continuous rent payments—even post the landlord’s death—constitute attornment, barring tenants from belatedly disputing title.
• A 50-year-old relinquishment deed and unchallenged Will carry decisive weight over tenant’s mere suspicion.
• Bona fide need for eviction can be established by planned expansion of an existing adjacent family business.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

1. The High Court erred in rejecting the probated Will produced under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC; probate confers legal sanctity on testamentary documents.
2. In eviction suits, ownership need not be proved with the exactitude required in declaratory title actions—less stringent standards apply.
3. The relinquishment deed of 1953 and decades of uninterrupted rent payments to the plaintiff’s predecessors conclusively established title and attornment.
4. Challenges to the Will based on family-allocation surmises were unfounded; none of the testator’s heirs disputed the Will until after trial.
5. Bona fide need was proven by the plaintiff’s intention and family involvement in an adjacent sweets and savouries business, justifying eviction for expansion.
6. Concurrent findings of three courts were set aside as perverse, being grounded in conjecture rather than material evidence.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Landlord)

• Produced a 1999 Will bequeathing the shop, later probated in 2018 under Probate Case No. 8 of 2013.
• Relinquishment deed (1953) demonstrated original landlord’s title.
• Continuous rent payments to plaintiff’s husband post-1999 amounted to attornment.
• Bona fide need established by planned expansion of existing family business.

Respondents (Tenants)

• Asserted Ramji Das never held title; premises belonged to Sua Lal’s estate.
• Attacked the 1999 Will as fraudulent, citing odd exclusions of certain heirs.
• Denied attornment after landlord’s death and opposed belated production of probate order.

Factual Background

A grocery shop rented in 1953 from Ramji Das (via a 1953 relinquishment deed) was occupied continuously by tenants and their predecessors. In May 1999, Ramji Das made a Will bequeathing the shop to his daughter-in-law; he died in August 1999. The plaintiff sued in January 2000 for rent arrears and eviction on bona fide need to expand an adjacent sweets business. The tenants disputed title and Will validity; trial, first appeal, and High Court all dismissed the suit. In 2018, the plaintiff obtained probate of the Will and filed it under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, which the High Court refused to admit. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, admitted the probate, and decreed eviction and rent recovery.

Statutory Analysis

• Order 41 Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: permits production of documents not produced at trial but obtained thereafter, including probate orders, in appellate proceedings.
• Civil-procedure principle: eviction suits require a relaxed standard of ownership proof compared to declaratory title suits.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed