Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INDIRA BANERJEE, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Telangana & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
B. Rangaswamy (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.4669 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.6898 of 2021), Civil Appeal No.4670 of 2022 @ SLP(C) No.7610 of 2021)
Decided on : 11-07-2022
ADVERSE POSSESSION - TITLE - IDENTITY OF PROPERTY - BURDEN OF PROOF - LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - ARTICLE 58 - ANDHRA PRADESH AND BOUNDARIES ACT, 1923 - SECTION 14 - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - ORDER 41 RULE 27 - AP LAND ENCROACHMENT ACT, 1905 - SECTION 14 - SALE DEED - BOUNDARIES - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 115 - ADMISSION - REVENUE RECORDS - SURVEY - RESURVEY - TOWN SURVEY - GOVERNMENT PROPERTY - POSSESSION - MUTATION PROCEEDINGS - ASSESSMENT FOR TAX - MESNE PROFITS - REGULARISATION OF ENCROACHMENT - ALLOTMENT OF GOVERNMENT LAND - RIGHT TO PROPERTY - CIVIL SUIT - DECREE - APPEAL - HIGH COURT - JUDGMENT - SUPREME COURT - APPEAL - DISMISSAL - RESTORATION OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT - COSTS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and identity of property, claiming it to be located within the boundaries of a particular survey number. The defendants, claiming to be aggrieved, appealed to the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
1. The suit is not barred by limitation as it was filed within the period of three years from the date when the cause of action arose, as provided under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 2. The suit is maintainable for not filing the suit on behalf of the partnership firm. 3. The documents sought to be produced by the defendants at a belated stage cannot be permitted by exercising the plenary power of this court in a matter where the right of the parties relating to immovable property is to be determined and when there was ample opportunity earlier. 4. The plaintiff failed to prove the identity of the property with reference to the land which is purportedly purchased as land located in Survey No.129/73 under another sale deed. 5. The plaintiff was required to show that from the easternmost point of Survey No.129/56 which was available with the vendor of the plaintiff, the sequential sale made to the other purchasers and despite such sale he would have been left with the extent of the property which was sold to the plaintiff No.2 in Survey No.129/56 itself. 6. The plaintiff's failure to produce the necessary documents to establish the identity and correctness of the suit schedule property led to the dismissal of the suit by the trial court. 7. The High Court erred in drawing an adverse inference against the defendants for not producing the original documents and in decreeing the suit.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable for not filing the suit on behalf of the partnership firm? 3. Whether the documents sought to be produced by the defendants at a belated stage can be permitted? 4. Whether the plaintiff proved the identity of the property with reference to the land which is purportedly purchased as land located in Survey No.129/73 under another sale deed? 5. Whether the plaintiff was required to show that from the easternmost point of Survey No.129/56 which was available with the vendor of the plaintiff, the sequential sale made to the other purchasers and despite such sale he would have been left with the extent of the property which was sold to the plaintiff No.2 in Survey No.129/56 itself? 6. Whether the plaintiff's failure to produce the necessary documents to establish the identity and correctness of the suit schedule property led to the dismissal of the suit by the trial court? 7. Whether the High Court erred in drawing an adverse inference against the defendants for not producing the original documents and in decreeing the suit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove the identity of the property and the correctness of the plaint schedule. 2. The plaintiff failed to prove the identity of the property which was required to be proved under issues 1 and 2, and hence the suit was rightly dismissed by the trial court. 3. The High Court erred in drawing an adverse inference against the defendants for not producing the original documents and in decreeing the suit.
Final Decision: The appeals are allowed. The judgment dated 01.04.2021 passed by the High Court for Telangana at Hyderabad in CCCA No.22 of 1999 is set aside. The judgment dated 10.11.1998 passed by the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S. No.609 of 1981 is restored. The parties shall bear their own costs.
JUDGMENT :
A.S. Bopanna, J.
Leave granted.
2. The Appellants-State of Telangana through its Principal Secretary as appellant No.1 and District Collector as appellant No.2 are before this Court in the Appeal bearing No.4669/2022 (arising out of SLP 6898/2021), assailing the judgment dated 01.04.2021 passed by High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in CCCA No.22/1999. The appellant in Appeal No. 4670/2022 (arising out of SLP No.7610/2021), is also assailing the same judgment insofar as cancellation of a portion (298 sq.yards) of the suit subject land allotted in his favour. The consequence of the result of the main appeal will befall on the appellant in the said appeal, due to which there is no need to consider the same in detail.
3. Through the judgment dated 01.04.2021 the High Court has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 10.11.1998 passed by the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S. No.609/1981. Consequently, the suit has been decreed declaring the respondents in the main appeal as owners and restraining the appellants herein from interfering with their possession. The appellant in the connected appeal has been directed to restore possession to the extent of 298 Sq. yards, i.e., a portion of the suit schedule property which has been allotted to him during the pendency of the lis.
4. The case has a chequered history. The suit filed in 1981 was at the first instance dismissed on 24.09.1982 after detailed consideration. The respondents herein filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court, after consideration, through its judgment dated 26.06.1995 set aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh determination. It is after such determination the suit was once again dismissed by the Trial Court on 10.11.1998, which was carried in appeal and resulted in the impugned judgment, which is presently assailed herein. The appellants herein were defendants No.1 and 2 in the suit. The respondents No.1 to 12 herein are the legal representatives of plaintiff No.2 who had instituted the suit and respondent No.13 was the plaintiff No.1 in the suit. The parties would be referred to as per their rank in the suit before the Trial Court for the ease of reference, convenience and clarity.
5. The brief facts leading to the present case are; the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 along with one Smt. B. Saroja Devi are partners in the business carried on in the name and style ‘Bhagyanagar Studio’ which has its office at Road No.14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The second plaintiff claims to have purchased the property measuring 2 acres 10 guntas under a registered sale deed dated 03.09.1964. The property is claimed to be a part of Survey No.129/56 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Smt. B. Saroja Devi, one of the partners, in the plaintiff No.1 studio claims to have purchased the property bearing Survey No.129/73 situated in Banjara Hills, Hyderabad admeasuring 5 acres 38 guntas, under a sale deed dated 03.09.1964. The plaintiffs contend that the said extent of the property situated in Survey No.129/56 and Survey No.129/73 are adjacent to each other. Being a contiguous block of land, the plaintiffs undertook the construction of the studio over the said lands. It is the pleaded case of the plaintiffs that in such circumstance the plaintiff No.1 is in possession of 7 acres and the plaintiff No.2 is in possession of about 3000 sq. yards which he retained for himself. The plaintiff asserts that the said 3000 sq. yards is not government land. It is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs are in continuous possession and enjoyment beyond the statutory period adverse to the interest and to the knowledge of one and all. It is therefore alternatively contended that they have become absolute owners in respect of the suit land by adverse possession and by virtue of title.
6. It is averred in the plaint that the defendant/Government at that stage was trying to interfe
The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove the identity of the property and the correctness of the plaint schedule.
Point of law: The principle of lis pendens is still settled principle of law. In this connection, the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Peary, AIR 1978 All 318] has considered the scope o....
Boundaries specified in a sale deed prevail over measurements when determining property ownership.
Plaintiff can amend the plaint to claim possession based on a Survey Commissioner's report when the title of the defendant is not obstinate against clear evidence.
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
