1. Claim of ownership versus assertion that land is a public street and shamlat deh, not private property. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
Back
Next 
2006 Supreme(SC) 1231
S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju
Avtar Singh and Ors. PETITIONER
versus
Gurdial Singh and Ors. RESPONDENT
Appeal (civil) 5654 of 2006
Decided on: 04/12/2006
Under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, admissions are the best evidence and admitted facts need not be proved. An admission that land is common village land ('shamlat deh') establishes its nature as public property, precludeing it from being treated as private property.
Headnote:(A) Evidence Act - Section 58 - Admissions - Nature of land as common village land ('shamlat deh') admitted - Admitted facts need not be proved - Admission forms the best evidence regarding the nature of the property, although it may not create title - Land identified as common village land cannot be private property. (Paras 11-14)
(B) Civil Procedure - Findings of fact - Where evidence and admissions clearly establish the nature of the land as a public street, appellate courts should not interfere with the findings of the lower courts.
Facts of the case:
Dispute arose between parties regarding a piece of land where both sides filed suits for permanent and mandatory injunctions. The First Appellate Court found that the land in question formed part of a public street and common village land, noting that electric wires and poles passed through the site and that witnesses admitted the land was common village land.
Findings of Court:
The land in question is a public street and cannot be treated as private property. The appellants failed to prove they had acquired any right, title, or interest in the disputed site.
Issues: Whether the disputed land was a public street and whether the appellants had encroached upon it.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, facts admitted need not be proved. The court held that admissions constitute the best evidence. Since the appellants' own witnesses admitted that the land was common village land ('shamlat deh'), this admission was sufficient to establish the nature of the land, regardless of whether official records from state or local authorities were produced.
Result: The appeals are dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
ownership and title
- shamlat deh (Para 13)
-
easements and public rights
- public street
-
ownership and title
-
practice and procedure
-
evidence
- admission
- burden of proof
-
evidence
Table of Contents
2. Can land that is shamlat deh be privately owned?
No. Shamlat deh land is not private property and cannot be sold by a private person. (Para 13 )
JUDGMENT
S.b. Sinha, J.
Leave granted.
Both these appeals involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
The dispute between the parties arise in respect of a land situated at village Nardu, Teshil Rajpura butted and bounded as follows:
"North : House and compound of Avtar Singh and Jatinder defendants.
South :Kacha Passage
East : Kacha Passage and shamlat land
West :House and compound of Gurdial Singh"
Suit No. 283-T93/12.9.91 was filed by the respondents herein. Suit No. 28T/98/8.10.91 was filed by the appellants herein. Whereas the respondents filed a Suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, the appellants herein filed a Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defedants from interfering or dis-possessing them from the suit land, the description whereof was given and whereafter a site plan was filed. Whereas the suits of the respondents were dismissed by the learned trial Judge, the Suit of the appellants was decreed.
The parties preferred respective appeals from the said judgments and decree. The Appellate Court inter alia held that the land in question form part of a public street and the appellants before us have failed to prove that they had acquired any right, title and interest. Although in the Suit filed by the respondents herein the Appellate Court posed a wrong question as regard onus of proof but keeping in view the fact that in the Suit filed by the appellants an admission was made by him that the land in question was a Shamlat deh, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case and for the reasons stated hereinafter, whether we should interfere with the impugned judgments.
We would like to set out here the findings of fact arrived at by the learned First Appellate Court:
"...11. PW1. Harchand Singh and PW2 Rajinder Singh have admitted in their cross-examination that a door, two windows and on parnala of the house of Gurdial Singh defendant open towards the site in dispute. Both of them have also admitted that electric wires also pass through the disputed land. PW.2 has also stated that an electric pole is there in the site in dispute. PW2 has gone to the extent to state that the site shown in site plans Exs. P1 and P2 was shamlat deh.
12.PW4 Jatinder Singh who has appeared as special attorney of no.2 has stated in his cross-examination that Gurdev Singh was having document of title with him. If that is so, then it can be said that the plaintiff have
withheld the best evidence available with them regarding the ownership of the disputed site and adverse inference must be drawn against them.
13.As per the admission of PW2, the site shown in site plans Exs. P1 and P2 was shamlat deh. If that is so them it can be said that side could not be sold by a private person. Case of the defendants is also that part of the site purchased by the plaintiffs was shamlat deh. And they have shown it to be so in their site plan. Remaining portion of the site purchased by the plaintiffs was a passage common chowk.
14.The above discussion would lead to the conclusion that the trial court fell in error while holding that the plaintiff are able to prove their title over the site in dispute. In the connected appeal i.e. civil appeal No. 159-T of 20.3.99/15.2.99, the title Gurdial Singh and Ors. v. Avtar Singh and Ors., decided by this Court, appeal has been accepted and judgment and decree passed by the trial Court have been set aside and suit of the plaintiffs (defendants in the present case) have been decreed and the defendants (plaintiffs in the present case) have been directed to remove the encroachment made by them in the site in suit."
The question which arose for consideration in the said suit is as to whether the appellants have encroached upon a public street. The nature of the land being `shamlat deh', indisputably could not have been a private property. Even from the boundaries of the suit land it appears that one side thereof is shamlat deh land and on
