2019 Supreme(SC) 424

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.
JAGDISH PRASAD PATEL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANOTHER – Appellants
Versus
SHIVNATH AND OTHERS – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2176 of 2007
Decided on : 09-04-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
Concurrent findings of first appellate court and High Court cannot be interfered unless perverse.
Respondents-plaintiffs cannot isolate few sentences in the written statement and take advantage of only those part of the written statement which are favourable to them.
Court may presume thirty years old documents to be genuine. Mere allegations of fraud would not be sufficient to rebut the presumption.
A document may be accepted as additional evidence by appellate court if referred in materials on record and has a direct bearing on the main issue in the suit.
In the suit for declaration for title and possession, the plaintiffs-respondents could succeed only on the strength of their own title and not on the weakness of the case of the defendants-appellants.
Revenue entries for few Khataunis are not proof of title; but mere statements for revenue purpose. Cannot confer any right or title.
In case of reversal of order of trial court by first appellate court the High Court should weigh and consider the evidence and materials.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Concurrent findings of first appellate court and High Court – Cannot be interfered unless perverse. (Para 10)

       (2009) 11 SCC 141 – Relied upon

       (b) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 58 – Proving of admitted facts – Proviso gives full discretion to courts to require the admitted facts to be proved otherwise than by such admission – Respondents-plaintiffs cannot isolate few sentences in the written statement and take advantage of only those part of the written statement which are favourable to them – The written statement has to read in toto – Burden was upon respondents-plaintiffs to prove continuance of patta-lease in their favour and holding the patta and in continued possession of the suit properties. (Para 15)

       (1974) 1 SCC 242; (2017) 3 SCC 702 – Referred

       (c) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 90 – Document thirty years old – Court may presume it to be genuine – Mere allegations of fraud would not be sufficient to rebut the presumption. (Para 19)

       (d) Property law – Entries in revenue records consistently in favour of appellants – Could not be ignored on basis of entries in favour of respondents only for two years – More so when genuineness of these entries is doubtful. (Para 24)

       (e) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 27 – Bar to adduce additional evidence in the appellate court – Except under three circumstances – Instantly, order of Commissioner, already on record, referring to order of Tahsildar dated 28.07.1971 – Appellant seeking to adduce this document as additional evidence – The same having a direct bearing on the main issue in the suit – Allowed. (Para 28, 30, 31, 32)

       (2012) 8 SCC 148 – Relied upon

       (2002) 10 SCC 315; (1989) 2 SCC 383 – Referred

       (f) Rewa Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1935 – Section 44 – Patta issued by Pawaidar – held valid as Pawaidar was empowered u/s 44 to issue patta – Moreover, by virtue of Section 28 Vindhya Pradesh Abolition of Jagirs and Land Reforms Act, 1952 appellants who were till then the tenants of intermediary/Jagirdar became deemed pattedar tenant. (Para 37, 39)

       (g) Administration of justice – In the suit for declaration for title and possession, the plaintiffs-respondents could succeed only on the strength of their own title and not on the weakness of the case of the defendants-appellants – Plaintiffs are required to establish their title – Revenue entries for few Khataunis – Not proof of title; but mere statements for revenue purpose – Cannot confer any right or title. (Para 41)

       (2014) 2 SCC 269 – Relied upon

       (h) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – Reversal of order of trial court by first appellate court – High Court ought to have weighed and considered the evidence and materials. (Para 42)

       Facts of the case:

       Respondents-Shiv Nath and deceased Vishwanath/predecessor in interest of respondents No.2 to 10 filed a suit for declaration of title over the suit lands and possession against the father of the appellants-Hanuman Din. Ram Sahai and Rameshwar - fathers of the plaintiffs were the joint lessees of the lands and their names were included as 'lessees' of the above lands during the settlement and they kept on cultivating the lands till forty years back when a partition took place between the two and both of them became owners of half part each. Hanuman Din never remained in possession of any part of the lands nor he had any right or entitlement over the suit lands; but the grandfather of the appellants-Gaya Din got a lease in disputed lands of the respondents which according to the respondents is a forged document. Based on the aforesaid lease, Gaya Din got his name entered as khatedar in respect of the khataunis of the disputed lands.

       The trial court dismissed the respondents' suit by holding that Gaya Din has been holding patta-lease in respect of the suit lands and has been in continuous possession of the disputed lands since 1950 and thereafter, Hanuman Din was in possession of the same.

       In appeal, the first Appellate Court set aside the judgment of the trial court and held that the respondents are the owners of the disputed lands and are entitled to get possession of the lands from the father of the appellants.

       In the second appeal, the High Court affirmed the findings of the first Appellate Court.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned order cannot be sustained.

       Result: Appeal allowed.