1. Suit for declaration and possession of land based on a registered sale-deed — Dispute over identity of the land and its classification as government land. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 476
2000(6) Supreme 389
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Saghir Ahmad & Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.
Shreepat -Appellant
versus
Rajendra Prasad & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11634 of 1995
Decided on 2-3-2000
Important Points
In suits for possession where the identity, area, and boundaries of the land are seriously disputed, courts should establish the identity of the property, potentially through a survey commission, instead of relying solely on oral evidence, to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Subject
Land Dispute - Property Ownership
Act Referred
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: O.26
Headnote
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Order XXVI-Suit for declaration-Defendant disputing identity of property-Defence that property not part of Khasra No. ... stated in plaint-Decree only on basis of oral evidence-Not correct-Court should have got identity of property established by issuing survey commission-Decree set aside-Case remanded to trial Court for disposal afresh. (Paras 3 and 4)
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - The court held that identity of the land was disputed and required a survey to establish whether it was part of Khasra 257/3 or 257/1 (!) - The decree was based on oral evidence without establishing property identity, leading to miscarriage of justice (!) - The appeal was allowed, the lower judgments set aside, and the case remanded to trial court for fresh disposal in light of the survey/identity requirement (!)
Question 1?
Question 2?
Question 3?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether oral evidence is sufficient to establish land identity when there is a serious dispute regarding its area, boundaries, and specific plot number. (Para 3 )
3. In cases of serious dispute regarding land identity, area, and boundaries, courts should issue a survey commission to locate the plot rather than relying solely on oral evidence. (Para 4 )
4. Where land identity is seriously disputed, a survey commission is necessary to establish the location and boundaries of the plot to prevent miscarriage of justice. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed — Orders of lower courts set aside — Case remanded to trial court for fresh disposal. (Para 4 )
6. When is a survey commission necessary in a suit for possession of land?
A survey commission should be issued when there is a serious dispute regarding the identity, area, and boundaries of the land in question to accurately locate the plot. (Para 4 )
7. Is oral evidence sufficient to establish land identity in the face of a serious boundary dispute?
Oral evidence alone may be insufficient to establish the identity of land at the spot when there is a serious dispute regarding its area and boundaries. (Para 4 )
8. What is the legal consequence of failing to establish land identity through a survey commission in a disputed land suit?
Failure to establish the identity of the land through a survey commission when such a dispute exists can result in a serious miscarriage of justice. (Para 4 )
ORDER
Respondent No. 1 - Rajendra Prasad had instituted a suit for declaration and possession over land bearing Khasra No. 257/3 against the Appellant on the ground that he had purchased this land from its previous owner - Premnarayan - by a registered sale-deed. It was further pleaded that the Appellant had forcibly taken possession and was trying to construct his house. The suit was resisted by the Appellant on the grounds, inter-alia, that the land in dispute was not part of Khasra Plot No. 257/3, but was part of Khasra Plot No. 257/1 which was the Government land and over which the Appellant was in possession since long, it having been leased out to him. It was also pleaded that he had constructed the house over that land.
2. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit. The decree was affirmed by the lower appellate court and upheld by the High Court in Second Appeal.
3. The principal contention raised by learned Counsel for the Appellant is that though there was a serious dispute with regard to the identity of the land in dispute, whether the land in dispute formed part of Khasra No. 257/3 or Khasra No. 257/1, the courts below did not get the identity established and decreed the suit of the Respondent only on the basis of oral evidence which was not sufficient for he purpose of establishing the identity of the land in dispute at the spot.
4. In our opinion, this contention is correct. Since there was a serious dispute with regard to the area and boundaries of the land in question, especially with regard to its identity, the courts below, before decreeing the suit should have got the identity established by issuing a survey commission to locate the plot in dispute and find out whether it formed part of Khasra No. 257/3 or Khasra No. 257/1. This having not been done has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. We consequently allow the appeal, set aside the order passed by the courts below as affirmed by the High Court and remand the case to the trial Court to dispose of the suit afresh in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law.
(C.R.) Appeal allowed.
****************
