Courts must frame issues on disputed material propositions, regardless of the plaintiff’s burden of proof.

The petitioner and other plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 368/2023 seeking a declaration of ownership and consequential reliefs concerning land in Sy. No. 463/B, measuring 7 acres 33 guntas, at Manvi.

Defendant No. 4’s written statement asserted, among other things, that portions of the land had been acquired and that the plaintiffs were not owners of the land claimed.

The plaintiffs sought additional issues under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the burden of proving ownership rested on the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the trial court erred in refusing to frame additional issues concerning the defendant’s pleaded assertions that the land had been acquired and was unavailable for the relief sought.

Whether the plaintiffs’ burden to prove ownership justified refusing to frame issues arising from material assertions and denials in the pleadings.

Order XIV Rule 1 CPC provides that an issue arises when one party affirms, and the other denies, a material proposition of fact or law; the court must frame issues on which the correct decision depends.

Order XIV Rule 2 CPC generally requires judgment on all issues, subject to the limited discretion to try first an issue of law concerning jurisdiction or a legal bar to the suit.

Order XIV Rule 5 CPC empowers the court to amend or strike out issues and to frame additional issues where necessary.

Relying on Sri T.N. Thimmarajachar v. Sri K.R. Sathyanarayana and Others, W.P. No. 8980/2021, decided on 11 January 2022, the Court reiterated that material issues arising from the pleadings must be framed; the allocation of the burden of proof does not displace that duty.

Defendant No. 4’s written statement specifically disputed the plaintiffs’ claim by asserting acquisition of the land and the plaintiffs’ lack of ownership. Those were material propositions requiring adjudication, and the trial court’s focus on the plaintiffs’ burden of proof did not answer whether the pleadings raised issues for trial.

Applying Order XIV CPC and the cited precedent, the Court held that the trial court erred by refusing to frame the additional issues. The application had been made soon after the original issues were framed, and adding the issues would cause no prejudice to the defendants.

It allowed IA No. 4 and directed the trial court to frame the additional issues sought by the plaintiffs. No order as to costs was made.