2014 Supreme(Raj) 1003
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
R.S.Chauhan, J.
Jitendra Kumar - Appellant
Versus
UIT, Alwar & Anr. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 578 of 2012 (Against The Judgment and decree dated 9.10.2012 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 1, Affirming the judgment and decree dated 26.2.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 1, Alwar).
Decided On : 20-02-2014
Advocates:
For the Appellant:R.K. Daga, Advocate.
For the Respondent:B.K. Sharma, Advocate.
An unregistered exchange deed cannot be relied upon as evidence of title in a claim for adverse possession, and the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish peaceful and uninterrupted possession for thirty years.
Headnote:
ADVERSE POSSESSION - EXCHANGE DEED - UNREGISTERED - EVIDENTIARY VALUE - BURDEN OF PROOF - JAMA BANDI - ORAL EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY - GOVERNMENT LAND - ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - REHABILITATION - NOT APPLICABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff-appellant Jitendra Kumar filed a civil suit for permanent injunction and declaration, claiming adverse possession over a plot of land for over thirty years. He alleged that he had entered into an exchange agreement with Mohanlal in 1993, giving him possession of his plot in exchange for Mohanlal's plot. The UIT, Alwar, planned to construct a road through the plot, prompting the appellant to seek protection from dispossession.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the appellant's suit, holding that the unregistered exchange deed could not be relied upon as evidence of title, and that the appellant had failed to prove peaceful and uninterrupted possession for thirty years. The courts also found that the land was Siwai Chak, belonging to the State, and that the UIT had the authority to construct a road for public benefit.
Issues: 1. Whether an unregistered exchange deed can be relied upon as evidence of title in a claim for adverse possession? 2. Whether the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish peaceful and uninterrupted possession for thirty years in an adverse possession claim? 3. Whether Jamabandi can be contradicted by oral evidence? 4. Whether the UIT must prove the transfer of land from the Collector to establish its authority to construct a road on Government land? 5. Whether the principles of acquisition, compensation, and rehabilitation apply to Government land.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An unregistered exchange deed cannot be relied upon as evidence of title in a claim for adverse possession, as it lacks evidentiary value due to the requirement of registration. 2. The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish peaceful and uninterrupted possession for thirty years in an adverse possession claim. 3. Jamabandi, being an official Government record, can be contradicted by oral evidence. 4. The UIT is not required to prove the transfer of land from the Collector to establish its authority to construct a road on Government land. 5. The principles of acquisition, compensation, and rehabilitation do not apply to Government land.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, upholding the judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court. The stay application was also dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1. - The plaintiff-appellant, Jitendra Kumar, is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26.2.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No.1, Alwar whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the civil suit filed by the appellant. The appellant is equally aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 9.10.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Alwar whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, and has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 26.2.2008.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction and declaration wherein he had claimed that he is resident of Village Devkhera, Tehsil and District Alwar. Mohanlal also lives in the same village. On 21.8.1993, he and Mohanlal had entered into an exchange agreement whereby the possession of the plot belonging to Mohanlal was given to him and in turn, the appellant gave the possession of his plot to Mohanlal. He further claimed that since 1993, he has been in peaceful possession of the said plot. According to the appellant, on 27.5.1980, and on 26.5.1980 Mohanlal's father, Chunnilal, was served with a notice by the Tahsildar, Alwar. However subsequently, the proceedings were dropped by the UIT, Alwar. Therefore, he further claimed that Chunnilal, his son, Mohanlal, and through them, the appellant himself has been peacefully enjoying the possession of the said plot. Therefore, he has been in adverse possession of the said plot for over thirty years. Prior to filing of the civil suit, he had also constructed a house in the plot. But despite his peaceful possession, the defendants, the UIT, Alwar, plans to construct a road through his plot. Therefore, he needs to be protected from being dispossessed and from his land as it is being taken by the UIT. Lastly, that on 13.8.2001, the UIT issued a notice to him directing him to vacate the plot and threatened him that in case he does not, his house shall be demolished. Hence, the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
3. On the other hand, the UIT submitted its written statement and claimed that the plot in question is shown as part of Siwai Chak Abadi land in the revenue records. It further claimed that it has a duty to construct a road for the benefit of the public at large. Since the land is Siwai Chak, it belongs to the Government. Moreover, according to the defendants, the plaintiff has not been able to prove the ownership or the possession over the said land for over thirty years. Thus, he is not entitled to a declaration or permanent injunction.
4. The learned trial court initially framed six issues, including the issue of relief. Subsequently after amendment was made in the plaint, it framed issue No.3A. In order to support his case, the plaintiff examined four witnesses, and the defendants examined two witnesses. Both the sides submitted certain documents. However, after going through the oral and the documentary evidence, by judgment dated 26.2.2008, the learned trial court dismissed the civil suit as mentioned above.
5. Since the appellant was aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, he filed a Regular First Appeal before the learned Judge. But by judgment and decree dated 9.10.2012, the learned Judge has dismissed the first appeal. Hence, this second appeal before this court.
6. Mr. R.K. Daga, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, both the learned courts below have ignored the Exchange Deed dated 21.8.1993 (Ex. 2). The learned courts below have opined that the said deed cannot be looked into as it is an unregistered instrument. However, once the document was exhibited and no objection was taken by the defendants about its admissibility, during the course of the trial, the court should have treated the document as gospel truth, and should have considered the document while passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Moreover, even if it is an unregistered do
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
