Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.F. NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
Iqbal Basith and Others – Appellants
Versus
N. Subbalakshmi and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1725 of 2010
Decided On : 14-12-2020
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 38 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 90 and 114(e) – Suit for Permanent Injunction – Appellants were seeking relief of permanent injunction only – Their title to suit property was not disputed by respondents – Two reports of Pleader Commissioner also confirmed possessory title of appellants along with property tax registers and municipal tax receipts – Appellants had more than sufficiently established their lawful possession of suit property – Appellants produced photocopies of all other resolutions, government orders and sale deed in favour of their vendor by Municipality – Failure to produce originals or certified copies of other documents was properly explained as being untraceable – Documents were more than 30 years old, were produced from proper custody of appellants along with explanation for non-production of originals, but they were rejected without any valid reason – There shall be presumption that all official acts have been regularly performed – Onus lies on person who disputes the same to prove otherwise – Conclusion by Courts below that appellants had failed to establish title and could not be said to be in lawful possession is perverse and unsustainable – Trial Court and High Court both posed unto themselves wrong question venturing to decide title of appellants and arrived at an erroneous conclusion – Orders of Trial Court and High Court dismissing suit, set aside. (Paras 12, 14, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs are in appeal against the concurrent findings by two courts, rejecting their plaint seeking the relief for permanent injunction. The suit was initially dismissed. R.F.A. preferred by the appellants was allowed by High Court. The order was set aside by this court in C.A. and the matter was remanded to High Court.
Findings of Court:
Conclusion by the courts below that the appellants had failed to establish title and therefore could not be said to be in lawful possession is therefore held to be perverse and unsustainable. Similarly, the conclusion that the identity of suit property was not established is also held to be perverse in view of letter dated 16.04.1956 from the municipality. Contention of the respondents feebly seeking to question the title of the appellants was rejected holding that they had nothing to do with the suit schedule property and that their conduct was questionable. Yet the appellants were wrongly denied the relief of permanent injunction. Trial Court and the High Court both posed unto themselves the wrong question venturing to decide the title of appellants, and arrived at an erroneous conclusion.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - There is a presumption that all official acts have been regularly performed, and the onus is on the person who disputes this to prove otherwise (!) (!) . - Possessory title supported by reports of Pleader Commissioner, property tax registers, and municipal tax receipts cannot be ignored by the Court, and the appellants had more than sufficiently established their lawful possession (!) . - Documents more than thirty years old produced from proper custody may be presumed genuine under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, and this presumption may be raised for official documents (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
NAVIN SINHA, J.
1. The plaintiffs are in appeal against the concurrent findings by two courts, rejecting their plaint seeking the relief for permanent injunction. The suit was initially dismissed. R.F.A. No. 116/1990 preferred by the appellants was allowed by the High Court. The order was set aside by this court in C.A. No. 2072/2000 on 22.07.2004 and the matter was remanded to the High Court.
2. Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the respondents had no concern with the suit property no. 44/6, ad measuring 90 ft. x 110 ft. situated on the J.C. Road in Bangalore. The respondents were the owner of property bearing no. 42, at a distance of 103 ft. with intervening properties also. The respondents illegally attempted to encroach on the appellants property on 10.02.1974 by dumping bamboo and other construction materials, compelling the appellants to institute the present suit. Shri Patil relied upon the reports of the Pleader Commissioner appointed by the Trial Court, and again by the High Court, to submit that the appellants were found to be in possession of the property coupled with the entries in the property tax register and the municipal tax receipts in name of the appellants. The respondents did not claim any title in themselves to the suit property, but feebly sought to question the appellants title in a vague manner. O.S. No. 3334/1984 filed by the respondents was allowed to be dismissed in default. The suit filed by the appellants was only for grant of permanent injunction. No issue with regard to title was therefore framed. The lawful possession of the appellants stood established from Ex.D1 dated 07.09.1946, filed by the respondents, vesting title in their vendor, O.A. Majid Khan by the Bangalore City Municipality (hereinafter referred to as “the Municipality”) under Section 41(2) of the Mysore City Municipalities Act, 1933 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) over an area of 75 ft. x 110 ft. and the subsequent sale-deed dated 27.09.1962 by the Municipality in favour of the appellants mother for the remaining area of 15 ft. x 110 ft.
3. Both the Courts held that the respondents had no concern with the suit property, yet ventured to decide that the appellants had failed to establish title and dismissed the suit. The conclusion of the High Court that the identity of the suit property had not been established is perverse and contrary to the evidence on record.
4. Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the appellants failed to establish the identity of the suit property, the boundaries having changed from time to time. The appellants also failed to establish title in favour of their vendor. It was therefore rightly held that they could not establish lawful possession. No original documents of title were produced, but only photocopies which were inadmissible in evidence. The property tax register entries for the years 1950-51 to 1954-55 are irrelevant, as the appellants claimed acquisition of title from O.A. Majid Khan on basis of sale-deed dated 10.07.1956. The suit was therefore rightly dismissed.
5. Shri Tripathi however fairly conceded that the respondents were in possession of property bearing no. 42 which was at a distance of 103 ft. from the suit property bearing no. 44/6 and that there were intervening properties also. He further, with all fairness, acknowledged that the respondents never claimed any title to the property bearing no. 44/6.
6. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and are of the deliberated opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed, for reasons to be enumerated hereinafter.
7. The suit property bearing no. 44/6 in J.C. Road, Bangalore measures totally 90 ft. x 110 ft. The property originally belonged to the municipality, identified as site no. 10 and 17 J.C. Road, 6th Division, Bangalore. On 08.08.1945, the City Municipal Council resolved to sell 75 ft. x 110
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
