Possession is prima facie proof of title, and a person in possession of property, however imperfect his title may be, has good title as against the whole world, except the true owner.

Headnote:
PROPERTY LAW - GIFT - VALIDITY - BHET PATRA - REQUIREMENTS - ADMISSIBILITY IN EVIDENCE - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - SECTIONS 122, 123 - HINDU LAW - ENDOWMENT - DEDICATION OF PROPERTY FOR CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS PURPOSES - VALIDITY - POSSESSION AS EVIDENCE OF TITLE - TRESPASS - RIGHT TO POSSESSION - JUSTERTII AS A DEFENCE.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, a registered society, filed a suit against the defendants, claiming ownership and possession of the ground surrounding a temple. The plaintiff based its claim on a Bhetpatra (deed of gift) executed by the Panch Jain Agarwals of Udaipur in favor of the Sakal Digambar Jain Panchas. The defendants challenged the validity of the gift, arguing that it did not comply with the requirements of Sections 122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and that the plaintiff had no right to bring the suit.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Bhetpatra was not a gift within the meaning of Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, but rather an endowment or dedication of property for charitable and religious purposes according to Hindu law. The court found that the Panch Jain Agarwals had completely divested themselves of their rights in the property and had reserved the right of management only if the Sakal Digambar Jain Panchas failed to undertake the management. The court also held that the plaintiff, as the de facto manager of the property, had sufficient title to bring the suit, even if it could not prove a perfect title.
Issues: 1. Whether the Bhetpatra was a valid gift under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 2. Whether the plaintiff had the right to bring the suit. 3. Whether the plaintiff had sufficient title to the property to maintain the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Bhetpatra was not a gift within the meaning of Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, but rather an endowment or dedication of property for charitable and religious purposes according to Hindu law. The court found that the Panch Jain Agarwals had completely divested themselves of their rights in the property and had reserved the right of management only if the Sakal Digambar Jain Panchas failed to undertake the management. 2. The court held that the plaintiff, as the de facto manager of the property, had sufficient title to bring the suit, even if it could not prove a perfect title. The court relied on the principle that possession is prima facie proof of title and that a person in possession of property, however imperfect his title may be, has good title as against the whole world, except the true owner.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the trial court, which had issued an injunction in favor of the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT

1. :- The facts giving rise to this appeal have already been stated in our order dated 20th of October, 1955,*deciding the preliminary objection of the respondents, and, therefore, they need not be repeated. This judgment may be read in continuation of the said order.

* See 1956 Raj 166 (AIR V 43).

2. The trial court had framed the following issues on the basis of the pleadings :

(1) Whether the ground of the Chowk on the southern, western and northern sides of the temple is in ownership of the plaintiff.

(2) Whether the Bhetpatra is illegal, inoperative and inadmissible in evidence.

(3) Whether the plaintiff alone is entitled to bring the suit.

(4) Whether the actions of the defendants cause inconvenience to the plaintiff.

(5) What relief the plaintiff is entitled to.

3. The trial court decided all the issues in the plaintiff's favour and decreed the suit.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has attacked the finding of the trial court on the first three issues. It is urged that the plaintiffs have based their suit on the Bhetpatra Ex. p. 22, but it is void and inoperative for several reasons and, therefore, it could not effect a valid gift in, their favour. It has been pointed out that the Bhetpatra Ex. P. 22 was not verified by the Registrar from all the executants thereof.Moreover, the donee in this case was not an ascertained person and there was no valid acceptance on behalf of the donee. It is, therefore, contended that the gilt was invalid according to Sections 122 and 123, Transfer of Property Act. It has been further urged that even if it be taken for granted that the Parch Jain Agaruals of Udaipur had made a gift in favour of the Sakal Digambar Jains, the title would pass only to the Sakal Digamber Jains and they alone could bring the suit, but the Mahamantri of Shri Parshvanath Digamber Jain Vidyalaya had no right to do so.According to learned counsel, the plaintiff was unable to prove that Sakal Digambar Jains had passed a valid title in favour of the Vidyalaya and, therefore, the present suit was incompetent. It is also urged that the trial court had committed an error in recognising the title of the plaintiff over the disputed property on the basis of adverse possession and that the trial court should not have gone into this matter because the plaintiff had not claimed title on the basis of adverse possession in the suit.Lastly, it has been urged that the Mahamantri alone had, at any rate, no right to bring the present suit and for that reason alone, it should have been dismissed. It may be mentioned here that the trial court had decided issue 3 first and issues 1 and 2 together thereafter and it seems proper to deal with the matter in the same sequence.

5. Regarding issue 3, it would suffice to say that the objection of the learned counsel for the appellants is more technical than substantial. He has tried to read the plaint as if the suit had been instituted by Shri Gulabchand son of Shivlal Taya of Udaipur with the designation of Mahamantri Shri Parshvanath Digambar Jain Vidyalaya. In fact, however, it is not so.A careful perusal of the plaint shows that the suit has been filed by the registered Society which goes by the name of Shri Parshvanath Digambar Jain Vidyalaya, Mewar and the name of its secretary Shri Gulabchand Taya has been mentioned because the plaint is signed by him. This is apparent from the very first para of the plaint in which it has been stated by the plaintiff that their institution was Shri Parshvanath Digambar Jain Vidyalaya Merwar which was registered as society No. 6 under the Merwar Societies Registration Act (Act No. 7 of 1941). This para has been admitted as true by the defendants in their written statement.Section 7, Mewar Societies Registration Act (Act No. 7 of 1941) provided that the society registered under that Act would be a legal entity and that its president, chairman, secretary, trustee or any other person appointed by its executive committee for the purpose would be able

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1955 Supreme(Raj) 381

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTWanchoo, Dave, JJ.Deeplal and others - AppellantVersusParshwanath Digambar Jain Vidyalaya Mahamantri Shri Gulabchand - RespondentFirst Appeal No. 64/1951,Decided On : 30-11-1955

Possession is prima facie proof of title, and a person in possession of property, however imperfect his title may be, has good title as against the whole world, except the true owner.

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Wanchoo, Dave, JJ.
Deeplal and others - Appellant
Versus
Parshwanath Digambar Jain Vidyalaya Mahamantri Shri Gulabchand - Respondent
First Appeal No. 64/1951,
Decided On : 30-11-1955