Back
Rajasthan High Court
Honble R.R. YADAV, J.
Kanti Lal - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Shanti Devi and Others - Respondents
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 89 of 1980
Decided On : May 28, 1997
In case of violent invasion of possession an aggrieved person has two options. He can file a suit for recovery of his possession within six months from the date of violent invasion of his possession under Sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act. In a suit under Sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act, he is not required to prove his title. He can succeed merely on the basis of his prior possession after establishing that he has been dispossessed otherwise than in accordance with law within six months from the date of filing of the suit. If he fails to exercise his first option by filing a suit under Sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act within six months from the date of his dispossession, he has liberty to file a suit to recover his possession within 12 years on the basis of the his prior possession and can succeed provided the defendant fails to establish that he is entitled to retain possession. In such a regular suit for recovery of possession, a persons possession over the land in question in assumed character of ownership and exercising peacefully the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but the rightful owner. And if the rightful owner does not come forward and assert his title by process of law within the period prescribed by the provisions of the Statute of Limitations applicable to the case, his right is for ever extinguished and the possessory owner acquires an absolute title. (Para 30)
In such suits filed on the basis of possessory title, according to Sec. 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, prior possession of the plaintiff itself would be prima facie evidence of his title against the whole world except the true owner. In other words, a plaintiff has to prove only when he obtained knowledge about violent invasion of his legal possession within 12 years from the date of filing of the suit in order to calculate 12 years limitation under Article 64 of the Indian Limitation Act. Once the plaintiff proves this as stated above, then defendant would be called upon to prove the fact that the land or property was in his possession became known to the plaintiff more than 12 years prior to the suit and he is entitled to retain possession on the basis of his better title. (Para 40)
The defendant- respondents have utterly failed to establish that the land in question has either vested in the Gram Panchayat, Sumerpur or it was palced at its disposal, therefore, giving of Abadi land in question to defendant-respondent No.3 Babu Lal by the Gram Panchayat, Sumerpur on lease in the year 1956 at monthly rent of Rs.1/- does not arise as alleged in their written statement. (Para 73)
The Law of Limitation contemplated under Articles 64 and 65 of the Indian Limitation Act are to be examined. Article 64 of the said Act provides that for possession of immovable property based on previous possession and not on title begins to run from the date of dispossession and the plaintiff is required to file a suit within 12 years from the date of his dispossession whereas under Article 65 of the said Act for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title begins to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff and in such suits the plaintiff is required to file suit within 12 years from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to him. (Para 85)
This Court cannot afford to allow Shri Babu Lal (DW 1), Shri Narain Lal (DW 2), Shri Mohan Raj (DW 3), Shri Ibrahim (DW 4) and Shri Manchha Ram (DW 5) to contaminate, poison and distort the fountain of administration of justice by fabricating false documentary evidence as well as by giving false statements on oath. The aforesaid persons cannot be allowed in a civilised justice system to de-humanise the conceptualisation of humane justice by intentionally fabricating and forging false evidence in judicial proceedings for the purpose of being used in such judicial proceedings giving a chance to a judicial human mind to commit judicial error resulting in miscarriage of justice as has been done in the present case by the learned trial court. (Para 90)
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
Options for Filing Suit for Possession: An aggrieved person has two legal options in case of violent invasion of possession. They may file a suit within six months under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, which does not require proof of title but relies on prior possession. Alternatively, they can file a suit within 12 years based on possessory title, where proof of possession and adverse possession are essential [Para 30].
Burden of Proof: The burden of proof as a matter of law is inflexible and remains on the plaintiff to prove possession within 12 years of the violent invasion. Once the plaintiff establishes possession within this period, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove their entitlement to retain possession based on better title [Para 39][Para 40][Point No. (v)].
Concept of Possession: Possession involves two essential elements—Corpus (physical act of possession) and Animus (intention to possess). Juridical or legal possession exists when both elements coexist, and it signifies denial of the right of others, including the true owner, in legal terms [Para 26][Para 27].
Legal Possession and Evidence: Proof of possession can be established through credible oral evidence, acts of possession, boundary constructions, or other acts indicating control over the property. The nature of the property influences the mode of proof; for example, boundary walls or fencing can establish possession for vacant land or jungle land [Para 34][Para 35].
Admissibility of Evidence: Documents such as sale deeds, even if contested, are admissible under relevant evidence laws, especially when they relate to transactions creating or recognizing rights. The evidentiary value depends on the context and other supporting evidence [Para 19][Para 20].
Ownership and Possession: Long-standing possession (e.g., over 41 years) coupled with peaceful enjoyment and acts of ownership can create a presumption of ownership, even against the true owner, provided the possession is not interrupted or disturbed by force or fraud [Para 22][Para 37].
Jurisdiction and Procedure under Panchayat Rules: The rules governing the settlement and transfer of abadi land by Panchayats require proper maintenance of property registers, resolutions, and adherence to prescribed procedures. Failure to produce such records can lead to adverse inferences regarding the legitimacy of land transfer or lease [Para 68][Para 70][Para 72].
Forgery and Fabrication of Documents: The court found that certain documents presented by the defendant-respondents were forged or ante-dated, and their witnesses provided false statements under oath. Such acts constitute offences under relevant criminal laws, and the court directed criminal proceedings against the involved individuals [Para 73][Para 83][Para 90].
Limitation Period: The suit was filed within the prescribed 12-year period from the date of violent invasion, and the court emphasized that the date of dispossession is crucial in calculating the limitation period. The evidence indicated that possession was violently invaded in the first week of May 1973, and the suit filed in January 1975 was within the statutory time frame [Para 85][Para 86][Para 87].
Entitlement to Mesne Profits: The plaintiff was entitled to recover mesne profits for the period of wrongful possession, and the amount claimed was supported by the evidence, with no rebuttal from the defendant-respondents [Para 89].
Judicial Oversight and Appeal: The appellate court set aside the previous judgment, recognizing the evidence establishing long possession, valid transfer of title, and the wrongful acts of the defendant-respondents. The court ordered the demolition of illegal constructions, recovery of possession, and directed criminal proceedings against those responsible for forging documents and giving false evidence [Para 91][Para 92].
Court's Critique of the Lower Court: The appellate court criticized the trial court for ignoring crucial evidence, particularly the sale deed and documents establishing ownership and possession, and for misapplying legal concepts regarding possession and title. The appellate court emphasized the importance of analyzing all evidence carefully and objectively to uncover the truth [Para 16][Para 64].
Legal Procedure and Evidence Handling: The case highlighted the importance of proper record-keeping by Panchayats, adherence to procedural rules for land settlement, and the necessity of producing authentic records in court. The deliberate withholding or fabrication of records was viewed as a serious misconduct, undermining the legitimacy of the land transfer [Para 68][Para 72][Para 74].
Consequences of Forged Evidence: The court found that forged documents and false statements were used to manipulate the legal process, which not only affected the case outcome but also led to criminal proceedings against the responsible individuals. Such conduct was deemed highly condemnable and detrimental to justice [Para 83][Para 84].
Final Judgment and Directions: The appeal was allowed, with the court ordering the defendant-respondents to demolish illegal constructions, vacate the land, and pay the plaintiff mesne profits. The court also directed the registration of criminal cases against those involved in forgery and false testimony, reinforcing the importance of integrity in judicial proceedings [Para 91][Para 92].
These points collectively underscore the importance of establishing long-standing possession, proper procedural adherence in land transactions, the evidentiary value of documents, and the consequences of fabricating evidence in legal proceedings.
(2). The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant purchased a `Parkota (land closed with boundary wall) affixed with a wooden door from Shri Makna Ji through registered sale-deed Ex.2 on 17.11.65. It is averred in the plaint that Shri Makna Ji was in possession of the land in dispute for the last 41 years from the date of purchase from Jodhpur Darbar in auction for Rs. 150/- in the year 1923. It is further averred that the possession of disputed `Parkota was given to the plaintiff-appellant on the date of sale-deed.
(3). It is also averred in the plaint by the plaintiff-appellant that Shri Himmat Mal telephonically informed to plaintiff at Bombay in the first week fo May, 1973 that his lock had been broken by defendant No.2 Narain Lal and defendant No.3 Babu Lal and they were making construction over his Parkota in question. The plaintiff sent his father from Bombay to Sumerpur. His father came to Sumerpur and made efforts to stop the defendants from raising construction over the disputed land but they refused to yield. Plaintiffs father came with a photographer to have photograph of the land in dispute but defendants No. 2 and 3 threatened to beat them. Plaintiffs father then filed a criminal complaint under Sec. 107/145, Cr.P.C. which was registered under Sec. 107, Cr.P.C. and the same was dropped after ex- piry of six months. Later on, he came to know that defendant No.3-Babu Lal had executed a sale-deed in favour of defendant No.1 Smt. Shanti Devi wife of defendant No.2 Narain Lal. Resultantly, the plaintiff-appellant filed the present suit which was presented before the learned trial court on 13.1.75 and was registered as Original Civil Suit No.3 of 1975 on 16.1.75.
(4). Defendants No.1 and 3 filed joint written statement whereas a separate written statement was also filed by defendant No.2 Narain Lal.
(5). It is averred by defendants No.1 and 3 in their written statement that description of the disputed land is not given correctly in the plaint. Title and actual possession of the plaintiff as well as his predecessor in title was denied. Existence of Parkota of the plaintiff-appellant and his predecessor in title was also denied. It is pertinent to note that it is specifically alleged in the written statement that defendant No.3 Babu Lal took plot on lease from Garm Panchayat, Sumerpur in the year 1956 at the rent of Rs. 1/-. Defendant No.1 Smt. Shanti Devi purchased this house through registered sale- deed from Babu Lal (defendant No.3) on 27.2.73. In additional pleas it is stated that defendant No.3 Babu Lal remained tenant of the disputed land throughout from the date of lease upto execution of the sale-deed on 27.2.73.
(6). Defendant No.2, husband of defendant No.1 Shanti Devi in his separate written statement averred that he has no concern with the suit land. He also reiterated about the execution of sale- deed by defendant No.3 Babulal in favour of his wife Smt. Shanti Devi on 27.2.73.
(7). On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed as many as seven issues focusing the attention of the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims.
(8). In support of his claim plaintiff examined Veerchand as PW 1, Bhabhutmal as PW 2, Faujmal as PW3, Magraj as PW 4 and Faujmal s/o Ami Chand Jain as PW 5. Plaintiff also filed power of attorney executed by him in favour of his fat
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
