1. Suit for possession of land used for a public hospital — Alleged donation of land — Dispute over ownership and limitation period. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 586
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
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 upon him – 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.
(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 upon him – 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.
Subject
Property Law - Adverse Possession
Act Referred
Headnote
(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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sanjay Hegde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Ms. Bhakti Pasrija, D.A.G.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Supriya Juneja, AOR
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sanjay Hegde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Ms. Bhakti Pasrija, D.A.G.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Supriya Juneja, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Possession based on title versus adverse possession — Bar of limitation under Article 65, Limitation Act — Burden of proof under Section 110, Evidence Act. (Para 11 , 13 )
3. Plaint lacked material particulars to circumvent limitation — Evidence established donation and long-term possession — Revenue records do not confer absolute title. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
4. Under Section 110, Evidence Act, the burden of proving non-ownership lies on the person challenging the ownership of the party in possession. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — First Appellate Court judgment dismissing the suit for possession confirmed. (Para 33 , 34 )
6. Who bears the burden of proof when the ownership of a person in possession is challenged?
According to Section 110 of the Evidence Act, 1872, when the question is whether any person is the owner of something of which they are shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that they are not the owner lies on the person who affirms they are not the owner. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 )
7. What is the limitation period for filing a suit for possession of immovable property based on title?
Under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for a suit for possession of immovable property based on title is twelve years from the time the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. (Para 11 , 23 , 24 , 27 )
8. Do revenue records such as Jama Bandis confer absolute title to a property?
No, revenue records like Jama Bandis are primarily entries for the purpose of realizing taxes by Municipal Corporations or land revenue by Gram Sabhas and do not automatically confer title upon the person named. (Para 27 )
9. Can a plaintiff avoid the law of limitation through clever drafting of a vague plaint?
No, a plaintiff cannot circumvent the provisions of the limitation law by means of clever drafting to avoid mentioning circumstances that would otherwise bar the suit by law of limitation. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
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: -
"1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit land? OPP
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:
(i) As the defendant had raised the plea of adverse possession, therefore, they admitted the ownership of the plaintiffs;
(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:
(i) The fact that the Veterinary Hospital had been established in 1958-59 and it was being run ever since then, the filing of the suit after more than four decades was barred by time.
(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
