Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Balakrishnan S/o Attassery Veettil Raman Vaidyar – Appellant
Versus
Afsal S/o Kinattingal Veettil – Respondent
R.S.A. No. 92 of 2024
Decided On : 21-03-2024
Presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act - Property Dispute - Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the provisions of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the presumption as to documents of thirty years old. The court analyzed the ingredients of Section 90 and explained the conditions under which the presumption applies to a document that is thirty years old. The court applied this provision to the case to establish the authenticity of a gift deed and to determine the title and possession of the property.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from trespassing upon a property. The defendants claimed rights over the property based on a prior document, while the plaintiffs relied on a Marupattam sale deed. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, and the appellate court concurred with the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs had established title and possession over the property, and the defendants' contentions did not weaken the plaintiffs' case. The court also discussed the application of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act to establish the authenticity of a thirty-year-old document, which supported the plaintiffs' claim.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of title and possession of the property in a dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Additionally, the court addressed the application of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act to establish the authenticity of a thirty-year-old document.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act to establish the authenticity of a thirty-year-old document and determine the title and possession of the property. The court also emphasized that mere tax payment in the name of a transferor after transferring the property does not confer any right or title upon the transferor.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, finding it meritless and without any substantial question of law. All interlocutory applications pending in the appeal were also dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
1. This regular second appeal has been filed under Section 100 read with Order XLII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2020 in A.S. No. 90/2014 on the files of the Additional District Court, Ottapalam, arose out of the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2014 in O.S. No. 190/2012 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Pattambi. Appellants herein are the defendants in the above Suit. Respondents herein are the plaintiffs.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the defendants/appellants on admission. Perused the verdicts of the trial court and the appellate court along with the records.
3. I shall refer the parties in this regular second appeal as 'plaintiffs' and 'defendants' for convenience.
4. Plaintiffs instituted a suit seeking the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, they obtained the plaint schedule property on the strength of a Marupattam sale deed No. 1191/2012 of SRO, Pattambi and have been in absolute ownership and possession thereafter. As on 25.11.2012, the defendants made attempt to encroach upon the same, though they had no right to do so.
5. The defendants filed written statement, inter alia, contending that the plaintiffs have no right over the plaint schedule property, on the strength of Marupattam sale deed No. 1191/2012 since the prior document, viz. gift deed No. 1452/1973 of SRO, Pattambi, executed by Chakkiema in favour of Panchali not came into existence. According to the defendants, the first defendant is still occupying the plaint schedule property as one among the legal heirs of Chakkiema who got the same as per deed No. 842/1972 of SRO, Pattambi.
6. The trial court recorded evidence. PW-1 examined and Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. Exts. B1 to B12 and Exts.C1 and C2 were also marked.
7. The trial court addressed the contention raised by both sides, where the defendants relied on Exts.B1 to B11 tax receipts to contend that they are having right and possession over the plaint schedule property.
8. It was noted by the trial court that as per Exts.A11 and A12, the plaintiffs paid tax for the years 2013 and 2014 and the plaintiffs relied on Ext.A5 certificate to contend that resurvey number of the property shown as 139/9 is an error and the real number is 139/15 as per Tandaper No. 1854. Finally, the trial court decreed the suit, granting the relief of prohibitory injunction. Though an appeal was filed before the Additional District Court, Ottapalam, challenging the said verdict, the learned appellate Judge also concurred the finding of the trial court.
9. In this matter, the specific case of the plaintiffs is that they got title over the plaint schedule property on the strength of Marupattam sale deed No. 1191/2012, marked as Ext.A1. Exts.A3 and A4 are tax receipts in the name of the plaintiffs as on 15.11.2012 and 22.04.2009. Ext.A9, gift deed No. 1454/1973 of SRO, Pattambi, is the prior document of Ext.A1. The first plaintiff, who was examined as PW-1, deposed title on the strength of Ext.A1 and also possession thereof. In this matter, both sides would admit that Chakkiema obtained the plaint schedule property as per partition deed No. 842/1972 of SRO, Pattambi. Ext.A9 is the gift deed executed by Chakkiema in favour of Panchali. Though the defendants would contend that Ext.A9 was not acted upon and the same was a namesake document, as of now Chakkiema and Panchali (donor and donee) are no more. It is relevant to note that Ext.A9 is a document beyond the period of 30 years when it was tendered in evidence before the trial court.
10. Thus the question poses for consideration is, what is the special status of a document proved to be thirty years of old? In this connection, Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is relevant and the same deals with presumption as to documents of thirty years old. As
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act to establish the authenticity of a thirty-year-old document and determine the title and po....
The court affirmed that a registered sale deed establishes title, while failure to comply with statutory notice requirements under tenancy law renders claims voidable.
The validity and consequences of a sale deed, including the transfer of title and possession, must be raised and challenged within the statutory time limit to be considered valid.
In a suit for declaration of title, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish a clear case for granting such relief, not on the weaknesses of the defendant's case.
In injunction suits, the plaintiff must establish possession and title; revenue records are not conclusive proof of ownership.
The jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals is limited to substantial questions of law, and it will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless such questions arise.
A second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC requires the formulation of a substantial question of law; otherwise, it cannot be maintained.
The plaintiff must prove lawful possession to obtain a permanent injunction; mere possession without title is insufficient.
Title and ownership claims in property disputes necessitate credible documentation; statutory presumptions apply to documents over 30 years old.
Patta and title deed pass books issued under the Act, 1971 carry a presumption of title and possession, and this presumption can only be rebutted through an appeal, revision, or by a court of law.
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
