Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
The Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust and Another – Appellants
Versus
Ganga Bai Menariya (Dead) through LRs. and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 722, 8977 of 2012, Civil Appeal Nos. 467, 468, 524 of 2013, Civil Appeal No.....of 2024, S.L.P. (C) No. 25200 of 2013
Decided On : 20-02-2024
(A) Injunction – Suit for Permanent Injunction – Suit simpliciter for injunction may not be maintainable as title of property of plaintiff/respondent was disputed by appellants/defendants – It was required for respondent/plaintiff to prove title of property while praying for injunction – It was incumbent on respondents to have proved their title on land which they failed to establish – No revenue record was produced by respondents-plaintiffs to show that land in question was ever mutated in their favour – In evidence led, they were found to be in possession – If respondents-plaintiffs wished to prove contents of document in question, they could very well summon record from Gram Panchayat – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court as well as High Court set aside and that of Trial Court is restored – Suits dismissed. (Paras 17, 18, 21, 21.1, 21.2, 29 and 30)
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 90 – Presumption in respect to 30 years old document – If document is more than 30 years old and is being produced from proper custody, presumption is available to the effect that signatures and every other part of such document, which purports to be in handwriting of any particular person, is in that persons handwriting and in case a document is executed or attested, same was executed and attested by persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested – This does not lead to a presumption that recitals therein are correct. (Para 17.1)
Facts of the case:
Civil Suit was filed by respondents for permanent injunction and for ownership and possession of the suit land. Trial Court dismissed suit, however, First Appellate Court accepted the appeal and decreed suit restraining the defendants therein from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs in the suit land. Appeal preferred before High Court by the present appellants was dismissed. It is aforesaid judgment, which is impugned before this Court.
Findings of Court:
When five different suits were filed by different persons while filing the documents with paper book filed in this Court, it was incumbent upon the appellants to place on record correct copies of Judgments of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court for each of the case.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case:
Case Details * Court: Supreme Court of India * Bench: Vikram Nath, Rajesh Bindal, JJ. * Parties: The Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust and Another (Appellants) vs. Ganga Bai Menariya (Dead) through LRs. and Others (Respondents) * Decided On: 20-02-2024 * Subject: Land Dispute - Property Ownership and Possession [judgement_subject]
Important Legal Principles Established * A suit simpliciter for injunction may not be maintainable if the title of the property of the plaintiff is disputed by the defendants; the plaintiff must prove their title while praying for an injunction (!) . * A document more than 30 years old produced from proper custody carries a presumption of truth regarding signatures and handwriting (Section 90, Indian Evidence Act), but this does not lead to a presumption that the recitals within the document are correct (!) . * If a document is more than 30 years old and produced from proper custody, a presumption is available that signatures and parts purporting to be in a particular person's handwriting are indeed theirs, and if executed/attested, it was done by those persons; however, this does not presume the correctness of recitals (!) .
Facts and Procedural History * The respondents filed a civil suit for permanent injunction, ownership, and possession of suit land (1,330 sq. yards) in Mauja Madri, claiming purchase/lease from Panchayat Titardi on 13.12.1959 (!) . * The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding the respondents in illegal possession and noting the lack of a declaration suit (!) . * The First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court's decision, accepting the appeal and decreeing the suit for permanent injunction (!) . * The High Court upheld the First Appellate Court's judgment, relying on an earlier judgment dated 14.07.2009 (!) . * The appellants argued that the land was government land earmarked for grazing cattle (gochar land), which the Gram Panchayat lacked authority to lease, and that the suit was not maintainable without a declaration (!) . * The respondents argued that the lease deed was more than 30 years old, invoking Section 90 of the Evidence Act for presumption of truth (!) .
Court's Findings and Reasoning * No revenue record was produced by the respondents to show that the land was ever mutated in their favor (!) . * To prove the lease, the respondents produced only two witnesses (PW-4 and PW-5) claiming to be former Panchayat members, but the document did not contain their signatures, only the Sarpanch's attestation (!) . * The respondents failed to summon the record from the Gram Panchayat to prove the contents of the document, despite the appellants challenging its authenticity and the Panchayat's competence to lease the land (!) . * Since the Gram Panchayat was not impleaded, the respondents were required to prove the document and the Panchayat's competence to lease the land themselves, which they failed to do (!) . * Revenue records produced by the appellants showed the land was owned by the Government (Bilanam Sarkar) and reserved for grazing cattle (shamlat deh) (!) . * The respondents failed to establish their title to the land as per their own stand, leading the court to find them to be encroachers (!) . * In a similar bunch of appeals involving other family members, the court found that alleged lease deeds dated 27.08.1985 were executed in contravention of Rule 266 of the 1961 Rules, as the due process for private negotiation was not followed and no reasons were recorded (!) (!) .
Outcome * The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court and the High Court were set aside as they suffered from patent illegality (!) . * The judgment and decree of the Trial Court were restored, resulting in the dismissal of the suits filed by the respondents (!) . * The appellants' appeals were dismissed (!) .
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) No. 25200 of 2013.
2. This order will dispose of a bunch of appeals as common issues are involved.
Civil Appeal No. 722 of 2012
3. In the case in hand, a Civil Suit1 [Civil Suit Case No. 153/99ED] was filed by the respondents for permanent injunction and for ownership and possession of the suit land. The Trial Court2 [Civil Judge (K-Kha) City (South) Udaipur] dismissed the suit, however, First Appellate Court3 [Additional District Judge, Udaipur] accepted the appeal and decreed the suit restraining the defendants therein from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit land. The appeal preferred before the High Court4 [Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur] by the present appellants was dismissed. It is the aforesaid judgment5 [Judgment dated 14.07.2009 in Civil Second Appeal No. 06 of 2009] which is impugned before this Court.
4. The respondents filed the suit on 10.05.1999 for permanent injunction against the appellants and also claimed ownership and possession of the suit land, situated at Mauja Madri, Savina Road, measuring 35 x 38 i.e. 1,330 square yards on which a room measuring 20 x 30 feet had been constructed. It was claimed that the suit land was purchased by the respondents-plaintiffs from Panchayat Titardi on 13.12.1959 and a boundary wall was constructed in the year 1960. The suit was filed as a notice was issued by the appellants under Section 92A of the 1959 Act.6 [Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959]
5. The stand taken by the appellants in the written statement was that the land in question is a Government land (Bilanam Sarkar) earmarked for grazing cattles (gochar land), which was forming part of Khasra No. 1163 (old Khasra No. 838) in village Mauza Madri Menaria, Tehsil Girva. The Gram Panchayat, Titardi was not competent to grant lease in respect to the aforesaid land, especially when it was earmarked for grazing cattles. Notice was issued on receiving information that the respondents-plaintiffs had encroached upon the land. It was also pleaded that Gram Panchayat, Titardi was a necessary party but had not been impleaded. In the revenue record, the land was still shown to be owned by the Government. In case the claim of respondents-plaintiffs was that it was given on lease to them, there was no mutation entered on the basis thereof.
6. The Trial Court framed six issues as extracted below:
2. Whether the defendants forcibly wanted to demolish the plaintiff’s house? Plaintiff
3. Whether the plaintiff has tried to unauthorisedly acquire the land which is in the ownership of Nagar Vikas Pranyas? Defendant
4. Whether in absence of pleading the Gram Panchayat Titardi as necessary party, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? Defendant
5. Whether the Gram Panchayat Titardi was not authorized to issue the patta in favour of the plaintiff, the patta issued in favour of plaintiff is forged? Defendant
6. Whether without declaration suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable? Defendant.”
7. Issues No. 1 to 3 and 5, being inter-related, were decided together. The respondents-plaintiffs had not been able to make out the pleaded case on the basis of evidence led by them and the same were decided against them. Issue No. 4 was decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants and so was the finding recorded on issue No. 6. Finally, the Trial Court found that the respondents-plaintiffs were found to be in illegal possession of the land and were not entitled to the injunction prayed for. It was specifically noticed that the suit had not been filed for declaration as it was merely for injunction and the encroachers on the land were not found entitled to the relief of injunction.
8. In appeal before the First Appellate Court by the respondents, the findings recorded by the Trial Court were reversed
(1) Suit simpliciter for injunction may not be maintainable if title of property of plaintiff is disputed by defendants.(2) A document which is more than 30 years old and is being produced from prop....
Under the relevant statute, a revenue authority is not required to stay summary eviction proceedings upon a mere assertion of title. A stay is only mandatory if the claimant provides prima facie docu....
Possession of land can establish ownership rights, and failure to assert rightful ownership within the statutory period extinguishes those rights.
The court affirmed that prior judgments establishing land ownership create a statutory bar against subsequent claims, emphasizing the binding nature of res judicata.
A public interest litigation challenging the disposal of Gram Panchayat land cannot be entertained when the transaction was approved by competent authorities for public benefit, the petitioner failed....
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
