Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 377
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
Madan Singh & Others
Versus
Ladli Pershad Jaiswal (Through LRs) & Others
RSA Nos. 48-50 of 2006 & 45-47 of 2006
Decided On : 04-02-2014
For the Appellants:P.K. Bhardwaj, P.N. Bhardwaj, Advocates.
For the Respondents:B.K. Sood, Advocate.
The burden of proof in establishing adverse possession and the importance of hostile title in proving such a claim.
Headnote:
Adverse Possession - Property Dispute - Evidence Act - [Section 91, Section 92] - [1956, 1959, 1974] - The court discussed the issue of adverse possession and the burden of proof on the defendant to establish their claim. The court relied on documentary evidence such as house tax receipts and demolition notices to determine the ownership of the property. The court emphasized the importance of hostile title and the commencement of adverse possession. The appellants failed to prove adverse possession, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents/plaintiffs sought possession of property No.476, which the appellants/defendants had allegedly encroached upon. The appellants claimed ownership through adverse possession, but the courts found in favor of the respondents/plaintiffs based on documentary evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The courts found that the respondents/plaintiffs had proved their ownership of the property through property tax documents and demolition notices. The appellants' claim of adverse possession was dismissed due to the lack of evidence of hostile title over the property.
Issues: The main issue was the claim of adverse possession by the appellants/defendants and the burden of proof in establishing such a claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence, the concept of hostile title in adverse possession, and the burden of proof on the defendant to establish their claim.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
Valmiki J. Mehta, J (Oral)
RSA No.48-50/2006 and C.M. No.1955/2006 (stay)
1. This Regular Second Appeal impugns the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 31.1.2000 and the appellate court dated 16.9.2005; by which the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs for possession with respect to property bearing No.476, Haveli Haider Quli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi has been decreed.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs were the owners of the adjoining property bearing No. 477, Haveli Haider Quli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. That the appellants are tenants of the respondents/plaintiffs in this property bearing No.477 is not in dispute. Appellants are said to have illegally encroached upon the suit property bearing No.476, and therefore the subject suit for possession came to be filed.
3. The only defence of the appellants/defendants was that they had become the owners of the suit property by means of adverse possession and with respect to which the trial court framed the issue No.2. In fact, issue Nos.2 and 3 are connected because decisions on those entitle the respondents/plaintiffs to possession of the suit property or entitle the appellants/defendants to succeed in their claim of adverse possession.
4. The trial court with respect to issue Nos.2 and 3 has held as under:-
“ISSUE NO. 2
The onus to prove this issue was upon the deft. Deft. In this connection relied upon the testimony of DW 1, DW 2 and DW 3. DW 1 inter-alia submitted that as regards 476 is concerned, he is tenant 1ua the suit property. However, the suit property in this case, before this court comprises of a portion of a property no. 476 old no. 260 which is adjacent to the property no. 477, old no. 261.
The onus to prove this issue was upon the deft. The pltf. On the other hand has relied upon the house tax receipts and house tax survey report where in the said property shown to be a “KHANDAR” in this year 1956 vide Ex. PW 3/4 and further in 1959 vide Ex. PW 3/5.
The deft. on the other hand submits that he has been occupying the said property since 1935. On the other hand, the pltf. Has submitted that the suit property was demolished in 1945 and in this connection, the record of Municipal Corporation of Delhi seeking the demolition charges is relied upon by the pltf. Which is Ex. PW 3/1. It is a well settled preposition of law that once a tenant onwards remain a tenant and tenant cannot claims himself to be owner in any event. I am also conscious of the fact that the suit property is in the tenanted portion It is a well settled preposition of law that in the face of documentary evidence and the oral evidence, the documentary evidence is to be relied and the oral testimony to explain the contents of the said documents is barred vide Section 91 & 92 of the Evidence Act. I, accordingly, of the opinion, as the demolition charges has been claimed by the M.C.D. and the property was lying demolished since 1945 and now the deft. was the tenant of the adjoining property which was 477, old no. 261 and however, only an access to the suit property would not ipse facto make the pltf. in possession over the same. The stand of the pltf. is that pltf. came to know about the possession of the deft. in July-August 1974 only and not prior to that. On the other hand the stand of the deft. is that deft. Was in occupation of the suit property since 1935 and the suit property was lying in the same condition since 1935. As the landlordship/ownership of the pltf. has been held to be correct by him and as per the findings of issue no. 1, the deft. cannot be heard to deny the title of the pltf. qua the adjoining property. Even otherwise the property is lying in the demolished condition as per the report of the M.C.D., various house tax receipts and house tax survey and therefore, there is no question that anybody is possessing the land in question as the same is incapable of being used.
Accordingly, this issue is decided against the deft. and in favour of the
