Foundational or Crucial Documents Be Produced Along With the Plaint or WS. Why?

Order VII Rule 14(3) and Order VIII Rule 1A C.P.C Confer Power to Receive Documents if ‘Good Cause‘ is shown for the Late Production of the Documents

Jojy George Koduvath

PART I

Why should foundational or crucial documents be produced along with the plaint or WS?

  • 1. To prevent surprise to the opposite side.
  • 2. To substantiate and assure pleadings, and ensure fair play.
  • 3. To enable the court and the opposite side to understand the case fully.
  • 4. The CPC mandates it (Order VII Rule 14 & Order VIII Rule 1A).

CPC also mandates the production of all remaining documents before framing of issues (so that the court can frame proper issues).

Documents Are Not Pleadings; They only Support Pleadings

  • Pleadings mean Plaint or Written Statement.  They are statements of fact alone (Order VI Rule 1 CPC).
  • The documents cannot be used to supplement missing facts, and will not cure the defect of ‘not pleading’ a fact merely because the document is produced with the pleadings that contain the relevant fact.
  • The documents, even if produced along with the Pleadings, will not automatically become evidence.
  • The documents cannot be used as materials to introduce new facts (without making an amendment of the pleadings).

Relevant Provisions in the CPC

Order VII Rule 14 CPC:

“Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies:

  • (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.
    • (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.
    • (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.
    • (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiffs witnesses, or handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.”

Order VIII Rule 1A CPC:

“Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him

  • .(1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement.
  • (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.
  • (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.
  • (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to documents— (a) produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.”

Order 13 Rule 1.

“Original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues

  • .(1) The parties or their pleader shall produce on or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence in original where the copies thereof have been filed along with plaint or written statement.
  • (2) The court shall receive the documents so produced:
  • Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the High Court directs.
  • (3) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents—
  • (a) produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party; or
  • (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.”

Rule 4 of Order 18.

“Recording of evidence

  • .(1) In every case, the examination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit and copies thereof shall be supplied to the opposite party by the party who calls him for evidence:
  • Provided that where documents are filed and the parties rely upon the documents, the proof and admissibility of such documents which are filed along with affidavit shall be subject to the orders of the court.
  • xxx”

Rule 27 of Order 41.

“Production of additional evidence in appellate court

  • “(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the appellate court. But if—
  • (a) the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; or
  • (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed; or
  • (b) the appellate court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the appellate court may allow such evidence or document to be produced or witness to be examined.
  • (2) Whenever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an appellate court, the court shall record the reason for its admission….”

Documents Filed With the Pleadings Do Not Automatically Become Evidence

  • Though documents filed with the plaint or WS form part of the record, they do not automatically become evidence (that is, done at the evidentiary stage).

Requirement Of Production Of Documents Along With Plaint / WS

  • When deciding an application under Order VII, Rule 11 (i.e., for rejection of plaint). See: Gurmeet Singh Sachdeva v. Skyways Air Services (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3017,

Fundamental Rules of Pleadings

The Supreme Court of India pointed out, in Kusum Lata Sharma v. Arvind Singh, AIR 2023 SC 3067, the fundamental rules of pleadings, as under:

  • The pleadings must be read as a whole,
  • The purport of proper pleadings is – caused no prejudice to the other side.
  • When a question arises as to a flaw in the pleadings, it must be considered in the light of the evidence.
  • Impropriety (or otherwise) of a lack of pleading is tested on the touchstone – whether it caused prejudice to the respondents-tenants (or not).

When Documents Produced with the Plaint are Considered as Part of Pleadings

They are considered when an ambiguity arises as to pleadings. In Kusum Lata Sharma v. Arvind Singh, AIR 2023 SC 3067, our Apex Court explained the position as under:

  • “17. A comprehensive look at the pleadings taken by the appellant along with the site-plan attached to the petition makes it evident that the appellant gave out a detailed description of the extent of accommodation available in the suit property as also the accommodation presently in her occupation and the nature and extent of her requirement. In the pleadings, it was indeed specified that the appellant was residing on the property bearing No. “C-586/587”. The pleadings taken by the appellant in paragraph 18(a)(ii) of her petition, of course, begin with the expression “as stated above” and there had not been any earlier mention of property bearing No. “C-586/587” but, there had been detailed description in the preceding paragraphs and the site plan was also attached to the petition. The appellant further made the position clear in her cross-examination that the building in question was constructed on Plot Nos.586 and 587 jointly and she and her sister-in-law were residing in the same building as one family.
  • 18. Taking the pleadings as a whole and reading the same with the evidence, it is clear that there had not been any such mis-description of the property which would amount to a material flaw in the case of the appellant or which could have caused prejudice to the respondents-tenants.”

When Documents Produced With the Plaint are Treated As “Part Of The Plaint”

  • When deciding an application under Order VII, Rule 11 (i.e., for rejection of the plaint).

The Supreme Court observed in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajrat), (2020) 7 SCC 366, as under:

  • “23.8. Having regard to Order VII Rule 14 CPC, the documents filed along with the plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 (a). When a document referred to in the plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as a part of the plaint.”(Followed in: Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle, 2024 INSC 1025; 2024 KLT Online 3058).

PART II

Leave of the Court Necessary

The Supreme Court, in Sugandhi v. P. Rajkumar, AIR 2020 SC 5486; 2020-10 SCC 706, held as under:

  • “Sub-rule (3), as quoted above, provides a second opportunity to the defendant to produce the documents which ought to have been produced in the court along with the written statement, with the leave of the court. The discretion conferred upon the court to grant such leave is to be exercised judiciously. While there is no straight-jacket formula, this leave can be granted by the court on a good cause being shown by the defendant.”

Court Should Take a Lenient View

Our Apex Court, in Sugandhi v. P. Rajkumar, AIR 2020 SC 5486; 2020-10 SCC 706, further held as under:

  • “It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents under Sub-rule (3).”

In Dewanti Devi v. Radheshyam Tiwary, 2019 SCC Online Pat 28, it is held as follows:

  • “6. Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the CPC provides that the documents, which have not been produced along with the written statement, cannot be produced to the court later on without the leave of the court. Thus, if a document is to be produced by a defendant, the same is to be produced with the written statement. Subsequent production of document can be done only if the court is satisfied with the grounds explained for non-production of the documents at the time of filing of the written statement.”

Late Production & “Good Cause”

In S. Rathinaswamy v. S. Bhanumathi, AIR 2006 Mad 221; 2006-3 MLJ 593, R. Banumathi, J. found as under:

  • “18. The main object of Or. 7 R. 14(3) C.P.C conferring the power upon the Court to receive the documents in genuine cases is to receive the documents if good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non-production of the documents at the earlier stage. The Courts are expected to receive the documents and give an opportunity to the parties.”

Law on Sufficient Cause

In Kasthuri v. C. Mohan, 2007-1 (Mad) LW 560 (V. Ramasubramaniam, J.), pointed out the difference between the language in the provisions of Order VII Rule 14 Sub Rule 3, after the amendment by Act 46 of 1999 and the provisions of Order XIII Rule 1 and 2 (1), as under:

  • “13. But it is not so. The Amendment Act 22 of 2002 has introduced a new Sub-rule (3) to Rule 14 of Order VII, in the place of the Sub-rule (3) substituted by Amendment Act 49 of 1999. The new Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order VII, after the Amendment of 2002 reads as follows:
  • Substituted by Act 22 of 2002 w.e.f. 1.7.2002 – (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.
  • Thus the deletion of the provision, enabling to production of documents “at any subsequent stage of the proceedings” under Order XIII Rule 2 as it stood before amendment, has been compensated by the introduction of Sub-rule (3) under Rule 14 of Order VII under Amendment Act of 2002. Therefore, the right of a party to file a document at the time of hearing of the suit, if he has not already filed such document along with the plaint, is retained by the Amendment of 2002. All that is required under such circumstances, is that the plaintiff should take “the leave of the Court“. Even the words “good cause” that appeared under Order XIII Rule 2(1) before the amendment are absent in the newly introduced Sub Rule 3 of Rule 14 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure. As a matter of fact, even in the judgment cited by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Madanlal v. Shyamlal, 2002 (1) SC 535, the Apex Court observed that the power under Order XIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure(before amendment) should be exercised liberally and that “good cause” requires lesser decree of proof than that of “sufficient cause”. Therefore, in view of the provisions contained in Order VII Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act 22 of 2002, the respondents were entitled to file the documents in question, with the leave of the Court, which is what they have done in this case. The power of the Court to grant leave for a plaintiff to file additional documents under Order VII Rule 14 (3) is not even circumscribed by words such as “good cause” that were found in Order XIII Rule 2 before Amendment.”

In Hindustan Unilever Limited, Chennai v. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd., 22 Mar 2018(Mad), after referring to Kasthuri v. C. Mohan, 2007 (1) LW 560 (Mad), it was observed as under:

  • “8. The sum and substance of the conclusions of the learned Judge is that on a comparative reading of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, regarding the receipt of documents as they stood prior to the amendment in 1999 and after the amendment would show that the power of the Court to receive documents is much more wider and liberal than what it was prior to the amendment of the Code.
  • In S. Rathinaswamy v. S. Bhanumathi, reported in 2006 (2) CTC 491, this Court had considered the scope of Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, again after referring to the amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, introduced in the year 1999 and 2002, it was held that the main object of Order VII Rule 14(3), conferring the power of the Court to receive the documents in genuine cases is to receive the documents if good cause, is shown to the satisfaction of the Court, for the non-production of the documents at an earlier stage. It was also pointed out that after all the procedure is only a handmaid of justice and Courts should always attempt to do complete justice between the parties, based on the evidence that is produced and not shut out the evidence.”

Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Usha Kiran Saxena v. Amit Maheshwari, Jan 8, 2025 (Ramesh Phadke, J.) stated as follows:

  • “11. Whenever documents are sought to be adduced as a corroborative evidence in support of the claim made in the plaint rigor of the rules can be said to be relaxed. Order 7 Rule 14 (3) C.P.C. enables the Court to receive the documents which are not filed along with the plaint in genuine cases and obviously the reason behind this is to avoid delay and when the documents are necessary for adjudication of the matter in dispute then the application can be allowed even if it is belatedly filed.”

The  Madhya Pradesh High Court relied on the Apex Court decision in the case of Rani Kusum v. Kanchan Devi Rani, AIR 2005 SC 3304; 2005-6 SCC 705, which laid down as under:-

  • “No person has a vested right in any course of procedure. He has only the right of prosecution or defence in the manner for the time being by or for the Court in which the case is pending, and if, by an Act of Parliament the mode of procedure is altered, he has no other right than to proceed according to the altered mode. (See Blyth v. Blyth (1966 (1) All E.R. 524 (HL). A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory, the procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be followed. (See Shreenath and Anr. v.Rajesh and Ors. (AIR 1998 SC 1827) Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice.”

Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a subsequent decision, Usha Kiran Saxena v. Amit Maheshwari (Anand Pathak, J.), July 27, 2023, held as under:

  • “7. …. Although documents were filed but not accompanied with the application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC. Objection was raised by the petitioner but once the trial Court allowed the application preferred by respondent No.1 under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC then objections of petitioner were impliedly considered and rejected. Even otherwise, it is bi-parte order, therefore, all the parties were given opportunity to advance arguments.
  • 8. Procedures are handmaid to Justice and not Master of it and taking such hyper technical approach does not lead to justice.”

The Delhi High Court in Pradeep Bailey v. Gilma Daniel (18 June, 2025, Ravinder Dudeja, J.) after quoting Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, said as under:

  • “11. A plain reading of Order 7 Rule 14 CPC makes it clear that plaintiff has to present the relevant documents with the plaint. Subsequently, such documents cannot be presented without the leave of the court. The provision thus creates a bar on production of additional documents if the same have not been mentioned in the list of documents annexed to the plaint and produced at the time of filing the same, unless the leave of the court is sought. This principle was reiterated by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Polyflor Limited Vs. Sh. A. Goenka & Ors. in OA No. 84/2016 CS (OS) 504/2016.
  • 12. The Coordinate Bench of the this Court in Haldiram (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that it is a discretionary power of the court to allow belated filing of a document. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:
  • “21. In any event, both under the old Order 7 Rule 18 sub-rule (1) and new Order 7 Rule 14 sub-rule (3) CPC a new document can certainly be produced on behalf of plaintiff at the final hearing of suit, but the same has to be done with leave of the Court. It is not that the plaintiff has a legal vested right to file a document at a belated stage i.e. at the final hearing of the suit. The said provision gives a discretionary power to the Court, which needless to say has to be exercised in a reasonable and legal manner. In fact, this power has to be exercised sparingly and for some overpowering reason and not as a matter of routine. If petitioners‟ interpretation of Sub Rule 3 is accepted, it would make it impossible for the trial court to conclude the hearing of any suit.”
  • 13. It is no more res-integra that the rules of procedure are handmaid of justice and should not come in the way of delivering substantial justice. In the case of Sugandhi (dead) by Lrs. & Anr. Vs. P. Rajkumar, represented by his power agent Imam Oli(2020) 10 SCC 706, the Apex Court discussed the factors which must be considered while granting permission to produce additional documents under Section 8 Rule 1-A CPC. It was observed that procedure is handmaid of justice. If the procedural violation does not cause prejudice to the adversary party, procedural and technical hurdles should not come in the way of the courts while doing substantial justice. Thus, the courts should take a lenient view while deciding an application under Order 8 Rule 1-A CPC.
  • 14. In Mrs. Nalini Lal Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Others, TEST.CAS.22/2009, a Coordinate Bench of this Court while allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC, held that the said provision allows for the submission of additional documents if the Court grants leave and if such documents are necessary for resolving the real issues between the parties. It was again emphasized that procedural rules should not hinder substantive justice.
  • 15. In the case of Mohanraj Vs. Kewalchand Hastimal Jain &Ors. AIR 2007 Bom. 69, the Bombay High Court discussed the object of Order 7 Rule 14 CPC and observed that the provision is enacted to assist the parties and the courts in the manner of production of documentary evidence while adjudicating the disputes, to arrive at an appropriate decision on the matter. In this regard, the provision is to be construed liberally and a pedantic approach should not be taken while enforcing the provision of law. A documentary evidence which is relevant and material for the just and appropriate decision should be allowed to be produced and merely because the party failed to enter the same in the list annexed to the plaint, it should not be ignored unless the plaintiff can show that there would be real prejudice caused if such permission is granted.

Finally the High Court held as under:

  • “21. The documents referred to in the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC are for the purpose of showing that petitioner was not sitting idle and was indulging in work and was earning income, as also for showing that he has been making the payment of house tax of the property since after its purchase and was making payment of electricity and water bills and was also looking after his mother. The trial court failed to appreciate that additional documents sought to be placed were relevant to counter the averments of the respondent, as mentioned in the written statement. Undisputedly, the documents are relevant. Some of the documents are, in fact public documents. The authenticity and genuineness of the documents can be considered after granting an opportunity to the petitioner to prove the same. The contention of the petitioner that Wills dated 19.09.2000 & 24.08.2000 were not in his possession and he received them from his sister in law at a later stage, and therefore, being filed belatedly, cannot be disbelieved at this stage. The learned trial court disbelieved the argument of the petitioner that documents could not be filed due to negligence of the previous counsel of the petitioner. Be that as it may, even if it was a mistake on the part of the petitioner, as per the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Nishant Hannan (supra), the parties do make the mistakes in the conduct of their cases and therefore such mistakes should be allowed to be corrected unless there is a great prejudice to the other side. The trial is still at an initial stage. The parties are yet to lead evidence, and therefore, no great prejudice shall be caused to the respondent in case the documents are allowed to be taken on record.
  • 22. The procedural rules under the CPC are intended to ensure substantive justice and exclusion of the documents in the present case would amount to elevating procedural technicalities over substantive justice, thereby, defeating the very purpose of fair adjudication.
  • 23. In view of the above, I find that the impugned order suffers from gross illegality and perversity in disallowing the petitioner/plaintiff from filing the additional documents by dismissing the application of the petitioner/plaintiff.”

Pleading and Evidence

In Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College, AIR 1987 SC 1242, 1987-2 SCC 555, it was held as under:

  • “6. … It is well settled that in the absence of pleading, evidence, if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered. It is also equally settled that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it. The object and purpose of pleading is to enable the adversary party to know the case it has to meet. To have a fair trial it is imperative that the party should settle the essential material facts so that the other party may not be taken by surprise. The pleadings however should receive a liberal construction; no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair-splitting technicalities. Sometimes, pleadings are expressed in words that may not expressly make out a case in accordance with a strict interpretation of the law. In such a case the court must ascertain the substance of the pleadings to determine the question. It is not desirable to place undue emphasis on form, instead, the substance of the pleadings should be considered. Whenever the question about lack of pleading is raised the enquiry should not be so much about the form of the pleadings; instead, the court must find out whether in substance the parties knew the case and the issues upon which they went to trial. Once it is found that in spite of deficiency in the pleadings, parties knew the case and they proceeded to trial on those issues by producing evidence in that event it would not be open to a party to raise the question of absence of pleadings in appeal….” (Quoted in: Mohammed Abdul Wahid v. Nilofer, 2023 INSC 1075,  (2024) 2 SCC 144); Mohan Hirachand Shah v. Geeta Kumarchand Shah,19-03-2024)

It is also pointed out in this decision:

  • “Whenever the question about lack of pleading is raised the enquiry should not be so much about the form of the pleadings, instead; the court must find out whether in substance the parties knew the case and the issues upon which they went to trial. Once it is found that in spite of deficiency in the pleadings parties knew the case and they proceeded to trial on those issues by producing evidence, in that event it would not be open to a party to raise the question of absence of pleadings in appeal.
  • In Bhagwati Prasad v. Shri Chandramaul, [1956] 1 SCR 286 a Constitution Bench of this Court considering this question observed:
  • “If a plea is not specifically made and yet it is covered by an issue by implication, and the parties knew that the said plea was involved in the trial, then the mere fact that the plea was not expressly taken in the pleadings would not necessarily disentitle a party from relying upon if it is satisfactorily proved by evidence. The general rule no doubt is that the relief should be founded on pleadings made by the parties. But where the substantial matters relating to the title of both parties to the suit are touched, though indirectly or even obscurely in the issues, and evidence has been led about them, then the argument that a particular matter was not expressly taken in the pleadings would be purely formal and technical and cannot succeed in every case. What the Court has to consider in dealing with such an objection is: did the parties know that the matter in question was involved in the trial, and did they lead evidence about it? If it appears that the parties did not know that the matter was in issue at the trial and one of them has had no opportunity to lead evidence in respect of it, that undoubtedly would be a different matter. To allow one party to reply upon a matter in respect of which the other party did not lead evidence and has had no opportunity to lead evidence, would introduce considerations of prejudice, and in doing justice to one party, the Court cannot do injustice to another.”

Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal (2008) 17 SCC 491:

  • “10(i). No amount of evidence can be looked into, upon a plea which was never put forward in the pleadings. A question which did arise from the pleadings and which was not the subject matter of an issue, cannot be decided by the court.” ….” (Quoted in: Mohan Hirachand Shah v. Geeta Kumarchand Shah,19-03-2024)

Biraji @ Brijraji v. Surya Pratap (2020) 10 SCC 729:

  • “8. …It is fairly well settled that in absence of pleading, any amount of evidence will not help the party….” (Quoted in: Mohan Hirachand Shah v. Geeta Kumarchand Shah,19-03-2024)

Delhi High Court, in Brij Praksh Gupta v. Ashwini Kumar, on 6 February, 2020, Prathiba M. Singh, J., observed as under:

  •  “A party to the suit cannot be permitted to travel beyond his pleadings. If any evidence is tried to be adduced which has no foundation in the pleadings, the Court always has a power to discard such evidence while finally deciding the suit or proceeding.”

Sikkim HC held in Surja Narayan Pradhan v. Jumden Lepcha (May 11, 2022) 03 SIK CK 0021, as under:

  • “It is well settled that in the absence of pleading, evidence, if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered and no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleadings.” 

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “

Read in this Cluster (Click on the Topic)

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Principles and Procedure

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

Recovery of Possession: 

Adverse Possession

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

Land Reform Laws

Power of attorney

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Law on Documents

Documents – Proof and Presumption

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Divorce/Marriage

Negotiable Instruments Act

Criminal

Arbitration

Will

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Religious issues

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

Unknown's avatar

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment