Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 87

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.
POONA RAM – APPELLANT
VERSUS
MOTI RAM (D) TH. LRS. & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4527 OF 2009
Decided On : 29-01-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.Sushil Kumar Jain, Adv. For Ms.Pratibha Jain, AOR
For the Respondent: Ms. K.V.Bharathi Upadhyaya, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
Distinction between Possessory title and proprietary title.
Plaintiff has to prove his case to the satisfaction of the court. He cannot rely on weaknesses of the defendant.
High Court in second appeal is bound by finding of fact by the first appellate court.

Headnote:(a) Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 64 – Possessory title as distinguishable from proprietary title – If title suit is not brought within 12 years by the title holder, ‘settled possession’ or effective possession of a person without title entitles him to protect his possession as if he were a true owner – Petitorium (a proprietary suit) and possessorium (a possessory suit) – a person who asserts possessory title over a particular property will have to show that he is under settled or established possession of the said property – The possession must be continuous and to the knowledge of the owner; and not intermittent or stray – Occupation of a property by a person as an agent or a servant acting at the instance of the owner will not amount to actual legal possession – The possession should contain an element of animus possidendi – Instantly respondent-plaintiff claiming possession of the entire plot merely on basis of an old motor body lying at the boundary of the plot in question and the adjoining plot – Held, respondent-plaintiff failed to prove his settled possession. (Para 8, 13, 16)
       (b) Administration of justice – Plaintiff has to prove his case to the satisfaction of the court – He cannot rely on weaknesses of the defendant. (Para 17, 19)
       (c) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – High Court in second appeal is bound by finding of fact by the first appellate court. (Para 18)
       Facts of the case:
       Respondent no. 1 filed a suit for declaration of title and for possession.
       The Trial Court decreed the suit and the First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court.
       High Court dismissed the second appeal.
       Finding of the Court:
       High Court wrongly interfered with the judgment and order of the first appellate court.
       Result: Suit dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Principles on Possessory Title vs. Proprietary Title

Possessory title is distinct from proprietary title and arises from "settled possession" or effective possession without title, entitling the possessor to protect possession against the world (except true owner with better title), provided a suit for possession based on previous possession (not title) is filed within 12 years of dispossession under Section 64 of the Limitation Act, 1963. [1000629170007][1000629170012] (!)
Settled possession must be effective, undisturbed, continuous (not intermittent, stray, or casual), to the knowledge of the true owner (without concealment), and include animus possidendi; occupation as an agent or servant of the owner does not qualify as legal possession. [1000629170012]
A person asserting possessory title bears the burden to prove settled or established possession over the property for a sufficiently long period, acquiesced to by the true owner; mere stray acts of trespass or casual possession do not confer such rights and can be obstructed by the true owner even with reasonable force. [1000629170012][1000629170015]

Burden of Proof and Evidence

The plaintiff must prove their case to the satisfaction of the court with positive evidence of settled possession; they cannot succeed merely by pointing to weaknesses or discrepancies in the defendant's case. [1000629170016] (!) (!)
Doubtful or cursory evidence, such as a rent note without clear boundaries or identification of the plot, or a small object (e.g., part of an old motor vehicle body) lying on a boundary, does not establish continuous or settled possession of the entire property. [1000629170014][1000629170015]

Appellate Jurisdiction

In a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court is bound by findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court, provided they are based on evidence on record and not perverse; the High Court cannot interfere with such findings or re-appreciate evidence. [1000629170017][1000629170018] (!) (!)

Application to Facts

Where defendants prove proprietary title through valid sale deeds establishing prior possession, and plaintiff fails to demonstrate settled possession (relying only on inconclusive indicators like a boundary object spanning adjacent plots), the suit for declaration of title and possession based on possessory title must be dismissed. [1000629170002][1000629170004][1000629170005][1000629170006][1000629170013][1000629170016][1000629170018]

JUDGMENT

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

The judgment dated 28.08.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in Civil Second Appeal No. 97 of 1984 and the concurrent judgment dated 10.10.2006 in Civil Review Petition No. 18 of 2006, dismissing the same, are called in question in this appeal by the unsuccessful defendants.

2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:

A suit came to be filed for declaration of title and for possession by Respondent No. 1 herein. Undisputedly, the plaintiff Moti Ram had no document of title to prove his possession, but claimed possessory title based on prior possession for a number of years. However, according to the plaintiff, he had been wrongly dispossessed by defendants on 30.04.1972, which was within the 12 years preceding the filing of the present suit. The Trial Court decreed the suit and the First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court dismissed the said suit on the ground that the defendants had proved their title and possession over the suit property.

3. As mentioned supra, the plaintiff did not have any title deed with respect to the suit property. He based his claim mainly on his alleged long possession over the property, and claimed that there was nobody with better title over it than him. Per contra, the defendants relied on two sale deeds, viz., Ex. A-6 dated 06.02.1956, executed by the original owner Khoom Singh in favour of Purkha Ram, and Ex. A-2 dated 21.06.1966, executed by Purkha Ram in favour of the appellant/Defendant No. 1. It was also not disputed that the plaintiff did not have possession as on the date of filing of the suit, inasmuch as he has alleged that he was wrongly dispossessed by the defendant on 30.04.1972, prior to filing the suit.

4. The only questions to be decided in this appeal are whether the plaintiff had better title over the suit property and whether he was in settled possession of the property, which required dispossession in accordance with law.

5. Ms. Christi Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Defendant No. 1, taking us through the material on record, contends that there is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff was in possession of the property at any point of time, much less for a longer time lawfully. There is no material to show that the plaintiff has possessory title over the suit property. Additionally, she argues that the sale deeds mentioned supra relied upon by the defendants would clearly reveal that the defendants were in possession of the property as owner thereof, from the date of purchase of the suit property.

6. Undisputedly and as duly admitted by both parties, the property in question originally belonged to Jagirdar Khoom Singh of Barmer. The property in question is part of a larger property under the Jagirdari system, a few parts of which were rented out or sold. After the system of Jagirdari was abolished, these jagirs were resumed in the year 1955-56. While a few persons continued in illegal possession, others had purchased parts ofthe land from the Jagirdar, and the remaining land vested in the State Government and municipalities. After the resumption of the jagir, it seems that the Barmer Municipality established a planned and well-managed colony named Nehru Nagar on the said land. Ex.12, Ex. 13 and Ex. 14 are the survey maps of the Municipality. A perusal of Ex. 12 (first survey) reveals that Moti Ram was in possession of the land, the plot to the east of which was possessed by Nawala Harijan and in the east of Nawala Harijan's plot, possession of Purkha Ram (to recall, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants) on the site has been indicated. Further, the possession of Purkha Ram has also been indicated on a plot to the south of the land duly possessed by Moti Ram. Thus, it is clear that the plots of land owned by Khoom Singh, in possession of these persons, were not uniformly situated. However, after the Municipality took over possession

Click Here to Read the rest of this document