Merely Because Name Of Plaintiff Continued In Revenue Records, It Won’t Confer Any Title Upon Him: Supreme Court
|The Supreme Court in a trespass case, clarified that merely because the name of the plaintiff continued in the revenue records, it would not confer any title upon him.
The Court was deciding an appeal preferred against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by which it allowed the second appeal of the plaintiff and set aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, and restored the judgment of the Trial Court decreeing the suit for possession.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice K.V. Viswanathan said, “Article 65 under the Schedule to the Limitation Act provides limitation of 12 years for filing a suit for possession based on title. In the present case, merely because the name of the plaintiff continued in the revenue records (Jama Bandis), it would not confer any title upon him. Revenue records (Jama Bandis) are only entries for the purpose of realising tax by the Municipal Corporations or land revenue by Gram Sabhas. The plaintiff having failed to claim relief of declaration, the suit itself would not be maintainable. Further, for a suit for declaration, period of limitation would be three years under Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, which in the present case was long lost.”
The Bench emphasised that the lethargy/carelessness on the part of the State in not getting the revenue records corrected on the basis of the gift deed would not take away the rights conferred on the State under the gift deed.
Senior Advocate Sanjay R. Hegde appeared on behalf of the appellants while Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra appeared on behalf of the respondents.
In this case, a land belonged to one predecessor in interest of the respondents and he had donated the land to the appellants for the construction of a Veterinary Hospital in 1958 and also handed over the possession of the same. The State constructed a veterinary hospital over the land between 1958-1959 and the same was functional over the land ever since. During his lifetime, the predecessor never objected or filed any suit alleging trespass or unauthorised occupation by the State, however, after his death, his son filed a suit for possession of the land in 2001, i.e., after almost 43 years of it being donated to the State.
The State denied the plaint allegations and argued that the suit was barred by limitation and also urged that since no relief for declaration was sought and the suit was only for relief for possession, it was not maintainable. The Trial Court decreed the suit in 2003 and the State filed an appeal. The Additional District Judge allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Trial Court, and dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed a second appeal before the High Court which allowed the same, set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court, and restored the Trial Court’s judgment. It was this judgment of the High Court which was under challenge in the appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Apex Court in view of the above facts observed, “The argument that State could not claim adverse possession is not germane to the present case. Fact remains and has been duly established from the record that the hospital had been constructed on the land belonging to the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff sometime in the year 1958-59. At that time, Sri Inder Singh, father of the plaintiff who was the owner of the said land was alive and he did not object to it, which clearly indicates that he had donated the land for construction of Veterinary Hospital in Tehsil, Samana. In those good old times, it used to be a usual practice of big landlords donating their lands for public cause.”
The Court said that it is unfortunate that after 43 years, the predecessor’s son filed the suit for possession without seeking declaration, as in case, he would have sought relief of declaration, the suit would have been further barred by time for the said relief also.
“The defendant having been in possession without any hindrance since 1958, the suit filed would only be a mockery of justice if decreed. If the plaintiff's case was that it was never donated but still the hospital had been constructed, then the plaintiff should have instituted a suit for possession within 12 years. Having not done so, the suit was clearly barred by time for the relief of possession”, it noted.
The Court further noted that in a suit for possession, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and as per Section 110 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proof as to ownership of a property lies on the person challenging the ownership of the person in possession.
“In view of the clear finding that the hospital is functioning on the suit land since 1958, the Trial Court as well as the High Court have wrongly shifted the proof of ownership on the Appellant, whereas it lay on the Respondent by virtue of Section 110 of the Evidence Act”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and confirmed that of the First Appellate Court.
Cause Title- The State of Punjab & Ors. v. Bhagwantpal Singh Alias Bhagwant Singh (Deceased) Through LRs. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 518)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Sanjay R. Hegde, AOR Karan Sharma, and DAG Bhakti Pasrija.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra and AOR Supriya Juneja.