Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 38710
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K.S. HEMALEKHA, J
ANJUMAN ISLAM SOCIETY – Appellant
Versus
VINODAMMA W/O NAGANAGOUDA PATEL – Respondent
RSA 100688 of 2017
The burden of proof in a suit for declaration lies heavily on the plaintiff, who must establish their claims with sufficient evidence.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34 - Suit for declaration and injunction - Plaintiffs sought to declare a graveyard for the Muslim community and a right of easement for access - Courts below found insufficient evidence to establish plaintiffs' claims - The burden of proof lies heavily on the plaintiffs, who failed to provide corroborative evidence for their assertions. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13)
(B) Burden of Proof - In a suit for declaration of title, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove their title, not on the weakness of the defendant's case. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, representing the Muslim community, claimed a right to use a specific area as a graveyard and sought an injunction against the defendants who allegedly obstructed this use. The defendants denied these claims and asserted their ownership of the land.
Findings of Court:
The trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit due to lack of evidence supporting their claims of ownership and use of the land as a graveyard.
Issues: The main issues included whether the plaintiffs proved their use of the land as a graveyard and their right of easement over the cart-track.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the plaintiffs failed to discharge their burden of proof regarding their claims, and revenue entries alone do not confer title. The courts below were justified in their dismissal of the suit.
Result: The regular second appeal is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defendants' denial of claims (Para 5) |
| 2. trial court's findings (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. burden of proof on plaintiffs (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. appeal dismissed (Para 14) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
Assailing the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below, the plaintiffs are before this Court in regular second appeal, whereby, the suit of the plaintiffs seeking declaration and injunction came to be dismissed.
2. Parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. Suit for declaration to declare that the area mentioned as “EFGH” in the sketch in Sy.No.4 to the extent of 1 acre is used as graveyard by the Muslim community and to declare that the area mentioned as “ABCD” in the said survey number which passes through Sy.Nos.1, 2 and 3, the plaintiffs have acquired the right by way of easement of necessity to carry the dead bodies for the purpose of burial in “EFGH” area and also sought for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession for the use of the said area as graveyard and use of the road for the purpose of taking the dead bodies.
4. Suit is in the form of “representative suit” by the Muslim Community of Ramathirth Village. The area shown as “EFGH” area in the hand sketch is the suit property. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the suit property was originally a pada land and the forefathers of the defendants were doing work of Inam (Inamgiri) in the said land. It is the case of that the plaintiffs are using “EFGH” area as graveyard for the purpose of burial of the dead bodies belonging to the Muslim Community with the consent of the defendants and they are using the graveyard since 60 to 70 years, further, they have acquired the right of easement of necessity in “EFGH” property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Sy.No.4 is totally measuring 5 acres 31 guntas and approximately 1 acre in the said Sy.No.4 the plaintiffs are using as a graveyard and there are many tombs having been buried from the plaintiffs’ community. It is a case of the plaintiffs that after using the land as burial ground, the plaintiffs are also using the land for offering prayers at the eve of festivals and that the defendants had not at all obstructed till filing of the suit for using the “EFGH” area as a graveyard and “ABCD” area as a cart way for carrying dead bodies to the graveyard. But now, the defendant No.1 is obstructing the use of the said portion and hence the suit.
5. On service of notice, the defendant No.2 appeared and filed written statement which was adopted by the defendant Nos.1 and 3 to 6. The defendants specifically denied that the plaintiffs were burying the dead bodies of the Muslim Community and contended that in fact the plaintiffs are burying the bodies near the hill situated at Ramathirth Village towards the Eastern side and there are many tombs. It is the specific case of the defendants that the Sy.No.4 is originally the Patilki Inam land re-granted in the name of the defendants and it is not the graveyard. That Sy.No.4 is having a pot kharab land to an extent of 5 guntas and there are tombs of the forefathers of the defendants in the said area. It is specifically averred by the defendants that the plaintiffs have not at all buried any bodies of their community in Sy.No.4 as contended by the plaintiffs in their plaint. By way of counterclaim, the defendants contended that they have partitioned the suit property among their brothers and that the plaintiffs have no manner of right or title over the suit property. The counterclaim is to the extent that the plaintiffs have not acquired any right of easement over the suit property and the plaintiffs are trying to encroach and dispossess the defendants from the suit property and hence the injunction restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
6. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings, framed the
