Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S. PATEL, J.
Life Insurance Corporation of India - Petitioners
Versus
Ramakant Vaman Varde & Ors. - Respondents
Suit No. 3523 of 2002
Decided On : 05-12-2018
Production of a document - Discharge primary burden - Demonstrating contents correctness - Life Insurance Corporation Act 1956 - Plaintiff is Life Insurance Corporation of India constituted under Act 1956 Plaint seeks, first, a declaration in regard to construction by Defendants of a stone boundary wall, grill gates with doors, an electric meter, a drainage system, toilet block, a pucca shed, cabins and other civil works on properties described thus: second prayer seeks a declaration that a stay order granted by Maharashtra Government’s Revenue and Forest Department to an order of Additional Commissioner Konkan Division confers no right, title and interest on Defendants Nos1 to 4 in these premises - Then there is a prayer for removal of all construction on this property, and finally there is prayer for delivery of possession - According to LIC, by a registered conveyance sold Survey to erstwhile Asian Assurance Company Limited - After constitution of LIC in 1956, all assets and liabilities of various life insurance companies including Asian Assurance where transferred to, and stood vested in, LIC; which claims that it thus became owner of Survey in village –Held, Court do not think that it is possible in a matter like this to pick out one sentence from Written Statement and say that Defendants have admitted existence of conveyance in question - They have disputed correctness of its contents - Production of a document will speak to correctness of its contents but there is no law that says that a document though registered cannot be disproved or its contents shown to be incorrect - That would undoubtedly be a burden that false on Defendants; but that burden would fall on Defendants only if document was produced and marked in evidence to begin with - It is well settled that entries in land revenue records do not confer or extinguish title - Those entries therefore cannot establish LIC’s title and in any case, Plaint itself proceeds on basis that relevant entries in revenue records showing Defendants Nos 1 to 4 as holder of Survey - This, therefore, required LIC to discharge primary burden of establishing its title by producing its original title document, namely its conveyance, and demonstrating correctness of its contents - LIC having failed to do so, Issue No 2 must be answered in negative - Accordingly, Suit is dismissed - No costs - Original documents filed by parties will be returned to them upon these being substituted with a set of photocopies duly authenticated by their respective Advocates in accordance - Suit is dismissed
1. The Plaintiff is the Life Insurance Corporation of India constituted under the Life Insurance Corporation Act 1956 (“LIC”). The Plaint seeks, first, a declaration in regard to construction by the Defendants of a stone boundary wall, grill gates with doors, an electric metre, a drainage system, toilet block, a pucca shed, cabins and other civil works on properties described thus:
“Eksar (Borivali), bearing Survey no. 204, Hissa No. 1 part and bearing CTS No. 2400 and admeasuring 5,218 square yards (equal to) 4,364.6 sq mtrs., and another piece of land bearing Survey No. 204, Hissa No. 1 Part, CTS No. 1446 and admeasuring 2,768 sq yards (equal to) 2,311.4 sq mtrs., and thus making the total area of the entire plot of the suit premises as 7,986 sq yards (equal to) 6,676 sq mtrs.”
2. The second prayer seeks a declaration that a stay order dated 11th April 2002 granted by the Maharashtra Government’s Revenue and Forest Department to an order of 28th October 1991 of the Additional Commissioner Konkan Division confers no right, title and interest on Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 in these premises. Then there is a prayer for removal of all construction on this property, and finally there is a prayer for delivery of possession.
3. According to LIC, by a registered conveyance dated 20th August 1948 one Gurbux Rai Agarwal (“Gurbux Rai”) sold Survey No. 204 Hissa No.1 to the erstwhile Asian Assurance Company Limited (“Asian Assurance”). After the constitution of the LIC in 1956, all assets and liabilities of various life insurance companies including Asian Assurance where transferred to, and stood vested in, LIC; which claims that it thus became the owner of Survey No. 204 Hissa No. 1 in village Eksar, Borivali.
4. The Plaint then goes on to say that in 1968 upon the conduct of a survey under the new City Survey Regime, old Survey No. 204 Hissa No.1 was assigned City Survey No. 1446. The area was reflected in sq mtrs. In paragraph 3 of the Plaint, LIC says that there was a revision in the Revenue Records and old Survey No. 204 Hissa No.1 was bifurcated. Old Survey No. 204 Hissa No.1/2 was assigned CTS No. 2400 with an area of 4364.6 sq mtrs and it showed the 1st Defendant as the “holder”. Old Survey No. 204 Hissa No. 1/1 was assigned CTS No. 1446 of 2311.4 sq mtrs (the two sub-parts equalling to 6676 sq mtrs) and this CTS No. 1446 showed the holder as Asian Assurance, LIC’s predecessor-in-title. A Mutation Entry No. 4560 showing this holding was made by the Revenue Authorities.
5. According to LIC this Mutation Entry No. 4560 showing the bifurcation is erroneous. It claims that the whole of Survey No. 204 Hissa No.1 was always the property of Asian Assurance and, on the formation of LIC, stood vested in LIC. At no point, according to LIC, was any part of old Survey No. 204 Hissa No.1 sold to any of Defendants. LIC avers that showing the 1st Defendant as the holder of CTS No. 2400 (old Survey No. 204 Hissa No.1/2) was a mistake and that it was only LIC that remained the sole and true owner of this property.
6. LIC applied to the City Survey Office for a rectification. That application was rejected. An appeal to the Sub-Divisional Officer was allowed. The 1st Defendant and the husband of the 2nd Defendant and the father of Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 appealed. That appeal was in turn allowed. LIC filed a Second Appeal which came to be dismissed and ultimately LIC then filed Revision Application No. 41 of 1989 before the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division. By his order dated 28th October 1991, the Additional Commissioner Konkan allowed LIC’s Revision Application and directed the cancellation of the Mutation Entry No. 4560. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 filed an appeal against the order in revision and moved an application for stay on 11th April 2002 before the Minster of Revenue and Forest Department of Government of Maharashtra. LIC says tha
SupremeToday
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
