Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
The State of Punjab & Ors.– Appellant
Versus
Bhagwantpal Singh Alias Bhagwant Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7379 of 2024 Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. ...of 2024 (@ Diary No.17885 of 2020)
Decided on : 10-07-2024
(A) Property Law – Suit for Possession – Title of land in suit had passed on to State after donation and transfer of possession – Merely because name of plaintiff continued in revenue records, it would not confer any title upon him – For a suit for declaration, period of limitation would be three years under Article 58 of Schedule to Limitation Act, which in present case was long lost – Documents exhibited by defendants could not be ignored as they were public documents, copies of which were filed and duly proved – Even if deed was not placed on record but due explanation was given, facts of the case and evidence on record clearly established case of defendant-appellant that land in suit had been donated by father of plaintiff way back in 1958 – Lethargy/carelessness on part of State in not getting revenue records corrected on the basis of gift deed would not take away rights conferred on State under gift deed – Plaintiff having failed to claim relief of declaration, suit itself would not be maintainable. [Articles 58 and 65 of Limitation Act, 1963] (Paras 23, 26, 27 and 28)
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 110 – Burden of proof as to ownership – In a suit for possession, burden of proof lies on plaintiff – As per Section 110 of Evidence Act, 1872, burden of proof as to ownership of a property lies on person challenging ownership of person in possession – Normally, unless contrary is established, title always follows possession – In view of clear finding that hospital is functioning on suit land since 1958, Trial Court as well as High Court have wrongly shifted proof of ownership on Appellant, whereas it lay on Respondent by virtue of Section 110 of Evidence Act. (Paras 30, 31 and 32)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal, by State of Punjab assails correctness of judgment and order dated 14.09.2018 passed in RSA No.447 of 2004 (O & M), whereby High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh allowed second appeal of plaintiff-respondent, set aside judgment and decree of First Appellate Court, and restored judgment and decree of Trial Court decreeing suit for possession.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment of High Court set aside and that of First Appellate Court dismissing suit of plaintiff-respondent is confirmed.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Vikram Nath, J.
Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal, by the State of Punjab assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated 14.09.2018 passed in RSA No.447 of 2004 (O & M), whereby the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh allowed the second appeal of the plaintiff-respondent, set aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, and restored the judgment and decree of the Trial Court decreeing the suit for possession.
4. The dispute relates to land admeasuring 2176.6 sq. yards located in Khewat No.702/1146/Khasra No.116/26/2/15 situated at Samana, Tehsil-Samana, District-Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the "land in suit"). According to the appellant, the land in suit belonged to one Shri Inder Singh, predecessor in interest of the respondents. Shri Inder Singh had donated the land in suit to the appellants for the construction of a Veterinary Hospital in 1958 and had also handed over the possession of the same. The appellant-State constructed a veterinary hospital over the land in suit in 1958-1959. The Veterinary Hospital has been existing and is functional over the land in suit ever since. During his lifetime, Shri Inder Singh never objected or filed any suit alleging trespass or unauthorized occupation by the State. However, after the death of Shri Inder Singh, his son Shri Bhagwantpal Singh (since deceased) filed a suit for possession of the land in suit in the year 2001, that is after almost 43 years of it being donated to the State. The suit was registered as Civil Suit No.98 of 2001 before the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Samana.
5. The appellant filed written statement denying the plaint allegations and also raising plea regarding the suit being barred by limitation and also urged that since no relief for declaration had been sought and the suit was only for relief for possession, it was not maintainable. It was specifically averred in the written statement that the land in suit had been donated by Shri Inder Singh for the purpose of establishing a Veterinary Hospital in the year 1958, and possession was also delivered. The State thereafter, from the funds of the State Government, constructed a Veterinary Hospital soon thereafter in the year 195859, and since then, the same has been functional.
6. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: -
2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for possession of the suit land? OPP
3. Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable? OPD
4. Whether the suit is within time ? OPP
5. Relief."
7. The parties led evidence based on which the Trial Court decreed the suit vide order dated 20.05.2003. The findings recorded by the Trial Court are as follows:
(ii) There being no document regarding the alleged gift, the same does not stand proved;
(iii) The mere resolutions of the Municipal Council are not sufficient to prove that the land had been donated by the father of the plaintiff.
8. The Appellant-State preferred an appeal which was registered as C.A. No.44 of 2003. The Additional District Judge allowed the appeal of the appellant-State setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. The findings recorded by the Appellate Court are as follows:
(ii) The owner of the property having allowed the State to take possession, construct the Veterinary Hospital, and run the same over the land in suit since 1958-59 itself proves that the land had been actually donated by Shri Inder Singh, father of the original plaintiff.
(iii) Shri Inder Singh, during his lifetime, having never agitated about the construction of t
(1) Normally, unless contrary is established, title always follows possession.(2) Suit for Possession – Merely because name of plaintiff continued in revenue records, it would not confer any title up....
It is settled that necessary ingredients of adverse possession are required to be specifically pleaded and necessary factual foundation in support thereof is to be made out. Equally important is nece....
Permissive possession does not mature into adverse without hostile animus known to owner and proof of continuous, open denial of title for 12 years; no re-appreciation of concurrent factual findings ....
The State, as a welfare entity, cannot invoke the doctrine of adverse possession to perfect title over a citizen's private property; any state-led dispossession for public interest must follow due pr....
Adverse possession requires the defendant to prove continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period, which was not established in this case.
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
