1. Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding land purchased via registered sale deed. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 347
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : G.N.Ray
Shakir Hussain
Versus
Administrator, Nagar Palika, Mandsaur
Case No. : 3164 of 1983
Date of Decision : 3/17/98
Important Points
An adverse inference drawn against a party for withholding documents does not exempt the plaintiff from the primary burden of proving title and possession. Findings of fact by a lower appellate court are not interfered with in a second appeal unless they are perverse.
Subject
Civil Law - Property Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Findings of fact - Interference by High Court - Where the lower appellate court has determined questions of fact regarding title and possession and such determination is not erroneous, no interference is called for in a second appeal. (Para 1)
(B) Evidence - Adverse Inference - Burden of Proof - Even if an adverse inference is drawn against a party for withholding important documents in its possession, the plaintiff cannot succeed unless the plaintiff establishes title to the suit property and possession in respect of the same. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought a declaration of title and permanent injunction for a plot of land, claiming purchase via a registered sale deed and possession evidenced by the existence of a latrine on the property. The lower appellate court dismissed the suit, noting that the boundaries in the sale deed did not match those in the vendor's gift deed and the sale deed did not mention the latrine. The High Court affirmed this decision in a second appeal, holding that the findings were based on questions of fact.
Findings of Court:
The court found that neither the possession nor the title to the suit property had been established by cogent evidence. The discrepancies in the boundaries between the sale deed and the gift deed, and the absence of the latrine's mention in the sale deed, supported the lower appellate court's findings and rendered them non-perverse.
Issues: Whether the plaintiff established title and possession of the suit property and whether an adverse inference against the respondent for not producing records could substitute the plaintiff's burden of proof.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an adverse inference drawn against a party for withholding documents does not relieve the plaintiff of the primary burden to establish their own title and possession through cogent evidence. Furthermore, findings of fact by a lower appellate court are not to be disturbed in a second appeal unless they are perverse.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
(B) Evidence - Adverse Inference - Burden of Proof - Even if an adverse inference is drawn against a party for withholding important documents in its possession, the plaintiff cannot succeed unless the plaintiff establishes title to the suit property and possession in respect of the same. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought a declaration of title and permanent injunction for a plot of land, claiming purchase via a registered sale deed and possession evidenced by the existence of a latrine on the property. The lower appellate court dismissed the suit, noting that the boundaries in the sale deed did not match those in the vendor's gift deed and the sale deed did not mention the latrine. The High Court affirmed this decision in a second appeal, holding that the findings were based on questions of fact.
Findings of Court:
The court found that neither the possession nor the title to the suit property had been established by cogent evidence. The discrepancies in the boundaries between the sale deed and the gift deed, and the absence of the latrine's mention in the sale deed, supported the lower appellate court's findings and rendered them non-perverse.
Issues: Whether the plaintiff established title and possession of the suit property and whether an adverse inference against the respondent for not producing records could substitute the plaintiff's burden of proof.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an adverse inference drawn against a party for withholding documents does not relieve the plaintiff of the primary burden to establish their own title and possession through cogent evidence. Furthermore, findings of fact by a lower appellate court are not to be disturbed in a second appeal unless they are perverse.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Boundary discrepancies explained by time lapse and request for adverse inference against the municipality for withholding records. (Para 2 )
3. Adverse inference for withholding documents does not substitute the necessity for the plaintiff to establish title and possession through cogent evidence. (Para 2 )
4. An adverse inference against a party for withholding evidence does not relieve the plaintiff of the primary burden to establish title and possession. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 2 )
6. Does drawing an adverse inference against a party for withholding documents relieve the other party of the burden to prove their case?
No. Even if an adverse inference is drawn against a party for not producing documents in its possession, the plaintiff cannot succeed unless they independently establish their title and possession through cogent evidence. (Para 2 )
7. When can a High Court interfere with findings of fact determined by a lower appellate court in a second appeal?
Interference in a second appeal is not warranted if the findings of fact determined by the lower appellate court are not erroneous or perverse. (Para 1 , 2 )
8. What is the legal effect of boundary discrepancies between a sale deed and the preceding title document?
Discrepancies in boundaries between a sale deed and the preceding gift deed may indicate a failure to establish title, unless reliable evidence proves the same property was conveyed. (Para 1 , 2 )
(1) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30/6/1982 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High court, Indore bench in Second Appeal No. 208 a of 1982. The plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit being Civil Suit No. 432-A of 1980 in the court of the learned Additional Civil Judge Class II, Mandsaur (M.P.) for declaration of title to the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent-Nagar Palika, Mandsaur from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land. The trial court decreed the said suit and the defendant-respondent thereafter preferred Civil No. 53-A of 1981 in the court of the First Additional Judge, Mandsaur. The lower appellate court by the judgment dated 22/3/1982 allowed the said appeal and dismissed the suit, inter alia, on the finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish title to the suit property and possession of the same. It may be stated here that the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff had purchased an open plot on 22/2/1978 by registered sale deed from Bashir Khan and obtained possession of the same. The plaintiff relied on the title of the suit property on the basis of such purchase by the registered sale deed Ex. P/l and a map also annexed to the sale deed being Ex. P/2. The boundaries were mentioned in the sale deed. The lower appellate court has indicated in the judgment that the boundaries as mentioned in the sale deed, do not tally with the boundaries mentioned in the deed of gift on the basis of which Bashir Khan, the vendor of the plaintiff had obtained the suit property from the admitted owner. In order to establish possession of the suit land the plaintiff stated that in the suit land there was a latrine. The lower appellate court has indicated that in the sale deed existence of a latrine was not mentioned. As the plaintiff failed to establish the title to the suit land and possession in respect thereof by leading convincing evidence, the lower appellate court dismissed the said suit. The plaintiff-appellant thereafter preferred the said second appeal before the High court and as aforesaid, the appeal was dismissed. The High court held that whether the suit property had been purchased or not and whether or not the plaintiff had possessed the same, were questions of fact. Such questions of fact had been determined by the lower appellate court and since such determination by the lower appellate court was not erroneous, no interference against finding of fact in second appeal was called for.
(2) MR Bagga, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the names of the owners of boundary lands mentioned in the deed of gift and such names in the sale deed differed because of a long lapse of time. The present neighbours were examined by the plaintiff for the purpose of establishing that the plaintiff had owned and possessed the suit property. He has also submitted that the municipality was in possession of the records showing the lands owned and possessed by the municipality and also the records showing municipal rates and taxes paid by different owners. In the aforesaid circumstances, it was the duty of the municipality to produce such records and the municipality not having done so, an adverse inference should have been drawn against the municipality. In support of such contention, Mr Bagga has referred to the decision of this court in Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohd. Haji Latif. It has been held in the said decision that even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party, the court a may draw an adverse inference if such party withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts in issue. It has also been indicated in the said decision that it is not a sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of affairs to withhold from the court the best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to r
