Sample Issues — Practical Examples Across Suit Types

Doctrine becomes useful only when it can be applied to a live record. Having mastered the statutory architecture of Order XIV and the distinction between issues of fact and issues of law, the aspirant must now do what a trial judge does every working day — read a plaint and a written statement, locate the material propositions on which the parties are at variance, and reduce them to a numbered list of crisp, answerable questions. This chapter offers worked sample issues across the suit types that recur in judiciary mains papers: money recovery, declaration and injunction over immovable property, specific performance, partition, tenancy and eviction, mortgage, and matrimonial relief. Each set is anchored to the controlling provisions and to authority verified against the statute and reported decisions, so that you frame issues that survive scrutiny in Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia and are not undone by the omissions that Nedunuri Kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao warns against.

The Method: Reading the Record Before Drafting Any Issue

Before drafting a single issue, the judge performs the exercise that Order XIV, Rule 1(5) commands: after reading the plaint and the written statement, examining the parties under Order X, and hearing the pleaders, the Court ascertains "upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance" and frames the issues "on which the right decision of the case appears to depend." The unit of an issue is therefore not a fact but a material proposition — defined by Rule 1(2) as a proposition of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege to show a right to sue, or which a defendant must allege to constitute a defence. Rule 1(3) then requires that each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other form the subject of a distinct issue.

The practical method has four steps. First, list every material proposition in the plaint — the facts the plaintiff must prove to win. Second, read the written statement and strike out whatever is admitted: an admitted proposition is no longer in dispute and, as the chapter on admissions explains, cannot be the subject of an issue. Third, identify the affirmative pleas the defendant raises — limitation, want of consideration, benami, estoppel — each of which generates its own issue, with the burden falling on the party who asserts it. Fourth, add the residual issue of relief. The Supreme Court in Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia, (2001) 2 SCC 652, emphasised that framing issues is a judicial function the court cannot abdicate to counsel; the presiding judge must "exert himself" to frame issues that are expressive and exhaustive of the controversy.

Suit for Recovery of Money on a Loan

Take the commonest civil suit. The plaintiff pleads that on a stated date he advanced a loan of a stated sum to the defendant, that the defendant promised repayment with interest, that demand was made and refused, and that the suit is within limitation. The defendant in his written statement denies the loan, pleads that any money passed was a personal advance from a third party, raises want of consideration, and pleads that the claim is barred by limitation. The structure mirrors the contested money suit in Iswar Bhai C. Patel v. Harihar Behera, (1999) 3 SCC 457, where the defendant denied any debtor–creditor relationship and the existence of the loan itself became the central issue.

The issue sheet would read: (1) Whether the plaintiff advanced a loan of the suit sum to the defendant as alleged? (2) Whether the said advance was supported by consideration? (3) Whether the defendant agreed to repay the loan with interest at the rate claimed? (4) Whether the suit is within limitation? (5) Whether the plaintiff is a money-lender required to be registered, and if so, whether the suit is maintainable? (6) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? Note the discipline: the existence of the loan (issue 1) and its consideration (issue 2) are affirmed by the plaintiff and denied by the defendant, so the burden on these lies with the plaintiff; limitation (issue 4) and the money-lending bar (issue 5), being affirmative defences, carry a burden on the defendant who pleads them.

Suit for Declaration of Title and Permanent Injunction

Suits over immovable property generate the subtlest issue-framing problems because the relief sought determines whether title itself becomes a live issue. The governing decision is Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594, which holds that where the plaintiff sues for a bare injunction and his possession is not seriously disputed, title need not be tried; but where the plaintiff's title is under a cloud or the defendant asserts a rival title and threatens dispossession, the plaintiff must sue for declaration of title, and an issue on title must be framed and decided. The framing of issues therefore follows the pleadings, not a fixed template.

For a composite suit for declaration and permanent injunction, the issues run: (1) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property as pleaded? (2) Whether the plaintiff was in lawful possession of the suit property on the date of suit? (3) Whether the defendant has threatened to dispossess the plaintiff or interfere with his possession? (4) Whether the defendant has any right, title or interest in the suit property? (5) Whether the suit is properly valued and the court fee paid is sufficient? (6) To what relief is the plaintiff entitled? Issues 1 and 4 together resolve the question of title; issue 2 resolves possession, which in a pure injunction suit would stand alone. As Anathula Sudhakar cautions, a court that decides title without a pleading and an issue raising it acts beyond the suit — a vice the chapter on materials from which issues may be framed develops further.

Suit for Specific Performance of an Agreement to Sell

In a suit for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the plaintiff must plead and prove the agreement, his own continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part, and the defendant's refusal. Readiness and willingness is a statutory condition: the plaintiff is required to aver and establish that he has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract. This is why an issue on readiness and willingness is indispensable, and its omission is a frequent ground of remand.

The issues would be framed as: (1) Whether the agreement to sell dated [date] was executed between the parties as alleged? (2) Whether the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement? (3) Whether the plaintiff paid the earnest money / part consideration as pleaded? (4) Whether time was the essence of the contract, and if so, whether the plaintiff committed default? (5) Whether the defendant committed breach by refusing to execute the sale deed? (6) Whether specific performance ought, in the discretion of the court, to be granted, or whether the plaintiff should be relegated to damages? (7) To what relief is the plaintiff entitled? Issue 2 distils a doctrine confirmed repeatedly by the Supreme Court — readiness denotes the plaintiff's capacity, including financial capacity, to perform, while willingness relates to his conduct evincing an intention to perform — and both must subsist from the date of the contract to the date of decree.

Suit for Partition of Joint Family Property

A partition suit illustrates the rule that every party with an interest is in substance a plaintiff seeking allotment of his share. The plaintiff pleads the existence of joint family property, the genealogy establishing his coparcenary status, his entitlement to a defined share, and a denial of partition having already taken place. A contesting defendant may plead a prior partition, self-acquisition of certain items, or that particular properties are not joint. The mandatory character of issue-framing in such suits was underscored in Kashibai v. Parwatibai, (1995) 6 SCC 213, where the Supreme Court reiterated that it is the trial court's obligation to frame all issues arising from the pleadings and that the omission to frame a necessary issue may vitiate the trial.

A model issue sheet: (1) Whether the suit properties are joint family / coparcenary properties as alleged? (2) Whether there has already been a partition of the joint family properties, as pleaded by the defendant? (3) Whether items [x] and [y] are the self-acquired properties of the defendant and excluded from partition? (4) What is the share of the plaintiff in the joint family properties? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits, and if so, for what period? (6) To what relief, including a preliminary decree, is the plaintiff entitled? The plea of prior partition (issue 2) and of self-acquisition (issue 3) are affirmative defences; the party asserting them bears the burden, a principle developed in the admissions chapter.

Suit for Eviction of a Tenant

Eviction suits are governed by State rent-control statutes overlaying the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the issues turn on the statutory ground invoked. Where the suit is for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement, the landlord pleads the existence of the tenancy, the rate of rent, the arrears, valid termination of the lease (where applicable, by notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act), and the bona fide need. The tenant typically denies the arrears, disputes the relationship, or contests the bona fides of the requirement.

The issues would read: (1) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant subsists between the parties? (2) Whether the defendant is in arrears of rent for the period claimed, and if so, whether he is a wilful defaulter? (3) Whether the tenancy was validly terminated by notice as required by law? (4) Whether the plaintiff bona fide requires the suit premises for the pleaded purpose? (5) Whether greater hardship would be caused to the tenant by passing a decree than to the landlord by refusing it? (6) To what relief is the plaintiff entitled? Issue 3 is frequently a mixed question — the sufficiency of a notice is an issue of law on admitted facts, but whether the notice was served is an issue of fact, a distinction the fact-and-law chapter treats at length.

Suit on a Mortgage for Sale or Foreclosure

A suit by a mortgagee under Order XXXIV of the Code requires issues that track the elements of the mortgage transaction and the defences peculiar to security instruments. The plaintiff pleads the execution of the mortgage deed, the advance of the mortgage money, the default, the sum due on a stated date with interest, and entitlement to a preliminary decree for sale. The mortgagor may deny execution, plead discharge or partial repayment, dispute the rate of interest as penal, or plead that the transaction is a usufructuary mortgage where no personal decree lies.

The issues: (1) Whether the defendant executed the mortgage deed dated [date] in favour of the plaintiff for the sum pleaded? (2) Whether the mortgage money was advanced as alleged? (3) Whether the defendant has repaid any part of the mortgage debt? (4) What is the amount due to the plaintiff on the date of suit by way of principal and interest? (5) Whether the rate of interest claimed is penal or excessive and liable to be reduced? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary decree for sale under Order XXXIV, Rule 4? (7) To what relief is the plaintiff entitled? Issue 1, going to execution, is the pivot; the plea of discharge (issue 3) is an affirmative defence on which the mortgagor carries the burden. The accounting issue (issue 4) ordinarily requires the court to take accounts before a final decree.

Matrimonial Petition for Divorce on the Ground of Cruelty

Matrimonial petitions, though governed by personal-law statutes and tried in a quasi-civil manner, are framed on issues no less than ordinary suits. In a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, the petitioner pleads the valid solemnisation of the marriage, the specific acts constituting cruelty, that the parties have not condoned the conduct, and that there is no collusion. The respondent denies the cruelty, may plead condonation, or set up the petitioner's own conduct as a bar.

The issues would be: (1) Whether the marriage between the parties was validly solemnised as pleaded? (2) Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty within the meaning of the governing statute? (3) Whether the petitioner has condoned the acts of cruelty alleged? (4) Whether the petition is presented in collusion with the respondent or is otherwise barred? (5) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce? Statutory bars such as condonation and collusion (issues 3 and 4) must be enquired into by the court even where not strenuously pressed, because the matrimonial statutes cast a duty on the court to satisfy itself of the absence of these bars before granting relief — a feature that distinguishes matrimonial framing from ordinary adversarial framing.

Preliminary Issues of Law Across Suit Types

Order XIV, Rule 2, as amended in 1976, requires the court ordinarily to pronounce on all issues, but permits the trial of an issue of law first where it relates to the jurisdiction of the court or a bar created by a law for the time being in force, and where its decision may dispose of the whole suit. Across the suit types above, the recurring candidates for a preliminary issue of law are: the bar of limitation when it turns on admitted dates; res judicata when the prior judgment and pleadings are on record; want of jurisdiction; and the bar under a special statute such as a rent-control act or the bar to a second suit. A judge framing issues should mark these as legal issues so that the question of taking them up first under Rule 2 can be considered.

The pre-1976 latitude to decide on a preliminary issue any issue of law, including one of limitation requiring evidence, has been narrowed; the current rule confines the preliminary-issue route to jurisdiction and statutory bars and only where those can be decided on the admitted facts without recording evidence. Where limitation is intertwined with disputed facts — for instance, whether a part-payment or acknowledgment extended the period — it cannot be tried as a preliminary issue and must be framed as a composite issue of fact and law to be decided with the rest of the suit.

Reading Burden of Proof Off the Issue Sheet

A well-framed issue sheet silently allocates the burden of proof. The general rule is that the party who would fail if no evidence were led on a proposition bears the burden on the issue raising it. Thus on the issue "whether the loan was advanced," the plaintiff bears the burden; on the issue "whether the suit is barred by limitation," framed at the instance of the defendant's plea, the defendant bears the initial burden of showing the bar, whereupon the plaintiff may discharge the onus of bringing the suit within time by acknowledgment or part-payment. The leading exposition of how courts read pleadings, issues and judgment together to fix what was "directly and substantially in issue" is Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai v. Mohd. Hanifa, AIR 1976 SC 1569, which, though decided in the context of res judicata, lays down the method of construing an issue sheet that every trial judge applies.

The practical consequence is that the wording of an issue matters. An issue framed as "whether the plaintiff has proved his title" places the burden squarely on the plaintiff; an issue framed neutrally as "who is the owner of the suit property" leaves the allocation ambiguous and is poor drafting. Judiciary answer-writing rewards candidates who frame issues that both capture the controversy and, by their phrasing, locate the onus correctly.

When Defective or Missing Issues Are — and Are Not — Fatal

Not every error in framing vitiates a trial. The settled rule comes from Nedunuri Kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao, AIR 1963 SC 884, where the Supreme Court held that although no issue had been framed on a point and the issue that was framed could have been more elaborate, the absence of an issue was not fatal because the parties went to trial fully knowing the rival case and led all their evidence both in support of their own contentions and in refutation of the other side's. There was, in the Court's words, no "mistrial which vitiates proceedings." The touchstone is therefore prejudice: an omission to frame an issue is curable where the parties knew the case they had to meet and met it.

The converse is equally settled. Where a party is taken by surprise because a material proposition was never put in issue, or where the court decides a question — most often title — that was neither pleaded nor made the subject of an issue, the trial is vitiated and the appropriate course is a remand for retrial after framing the proper issues. Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia treats the framing of issues as the very foundation of a fair trial and condemns the casual or mechanical framing of issues as a serious irregularity. The lesson for the draftsman is to err on the side of completeness: frame an issue wherever there is a genuine variance, however the court may ultimately answer it.

Additional Issues, Amendment and the Continuing Duty

Framing is not a once-and-for-all act. Order XIV, Rule 5 empowers the court at any stage before passing a decree to amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy, and to strike out any issue that appears wrongly framed or introduced. This makes the duty to frame issues a continuing one. If evidence at trial reveals a controversy not captured by the original issues — say, a plea of adverse possession that emerges from the defendant's testimony and pleadings — the court should frame an additional issue rather than decide the point without one.

The power under Rule 5 is the safety valve that, read with Nedunuri Kameswaramma, allows trials to proceed without being defeated by initial imperfection. But it is not a licence to spring new cases on parties at the close of trial: where an additional issue is framed late, the affected party must be given an opportunity to lead evidence on it, failing which the requirement of a fair trial in Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia is breached. Aspirants should treat the issue sheet as a living document, returning to it whenever the pleadings are amended or the evidence discloses a fresh material proposition. For the doctrinal foundations underlying every example in this chapter, revisit the framing of issues hub and the introductory chapter.