Adverse Inference under Section 114 Evidence Act: Supreme Court Ruling on Lawful Possession and Permanent Injunction in Iqbal Basith & Ors. v. N. Subbalakshmi & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1725 of 2010), delivered on 14 December 2020:

---

Adverse Inference under Section 114 Evidence Act: Supreme Court Ruling on Lawful Possession and Permanent Injunction

🧑‍⚖️ Case Title: Iqbal Basith & Others v. N. Subbalakshmi & Others

📜 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 1725 of 2010

🏛️ Court: Supreme Court of India

🗓️ Date of Judgment: 14 December 2020

👨‍⚖️ Bench: Justices R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha, and Krishna Murari

---

Background:

The appellants (plaintiffs) sought a permanent injunction against the respondents to prevent encroachment on property No. 44/6 on J.C. Road, Bangalore. The respondents claimed ownership of a different property (No. 42) 103 feet away. The Trial Court and the High Court dismissed the suit, questioning the appellants' possession and title.

---

Key Legal Issues:

1. Whether lawful possession alone was sufficient for injunction.

2. Whether adverse inference could be drawn for non-deposition of a party.

3. Admissibility of photocopies and old public documents.

---

Supreme Court Findings:

• Adverse Inference under Section 114(g), Evidence Act, 1872:
  The original defendant (respondent) did not appear for deposition; instead, his younger brother (separated) deposed via power of attorney. The Court drew adverse inference against the defendant for non-appearance, relying on Iswar Bhai C. Patel v. Harihar Behera (1999) 3 SCC 457.

• Possession Established, Title Irrelevant for Injunction:
  The Court held that since the appellants proved lawful possession and the respondents had no claim over the suit property, injunction could not be denied merely because the appellants' title was not adjudicated.

• Presumption of Genuineness for 30-Year-Old Documents (Section 90, Evidence Act):
  Photocopies of official documents, though originals were untraceable, were accepted. The respondents never challenged their genuineness. The Court cited Lakhi Baruah v. Padma Kanta Kalita (1996) 8 SCC 357 to uphold the presumption of authenticity for old documents.

• Error in Lower Court Reasoning:
  The Trial Court and the High Court erroneously focused on title, which was never in dispute. The identity of the property and its possession were established, but the courts ventured into irrelevant grounds and denied relief.

---

Judgment Summary:

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

• Set aside the decisions of the Trial Court and High Court.

• Granted the relief of permanent injunction to the appellants.

---

Legal Principles Discussed:

• Section 114(g), Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Adverse inference against a party not entering the witness box.

• Section 90, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Presumption of genuineness of 30-year-old documents.

• Section 114(e), Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Presumption in favour of regularity of official acts.

---

🖊️ Conclusion:

This judgment reaffirms that in suits for injunction, lawful possession suffices even if title is not conclusively established. It further underscores that non-appearance of key parties may attract adverse inference, and public documents from proper custody need not face undue suspicion merely due to their age or form.

---