Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN & A.K. SIKRI, JJ.
Union of India & Others – Appellants
Versus
Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4702 of 2004
Decided On : 07-01-2014
AIR1959 SC 31; (1995) 3 SCC 426 - Relied upon
(2012) 8 SCC 148; (2010) 13 SCC 511; (1999) 3 SCC 555; (2003) 12 SCC 315 - Distinguished
(b) Property Laws - Title - Entries in revenue records including Jamabandi and conferment of patta - Even entries in the Record of Rights - Do not confer title - Family settlement, not mentioning the suit property is irrelevant. (Paras 17, 18 and 20)
(1989) 3 SCC 612; (1993) 4 SCC 349; (1996) 11 SCC 257; (2007) 8 SCC 361; (1991) Supp. (2) SCC 228 - Relied upon
(c) Property Laws - Survey records - Old and new - Sub-division of old survey plot into many new plots in new survey - Total area and nature would not change. (Para 21)
(d) Property Laws - Family settlement - Antecedent title is presumed - Settlement and partition acknowledges and defines that title apportioning it among the partners. (Para 22)
Fact of the case:
Suit for declaration of title and vacant possession of land on which the Union of India had constructed quarters for the CDA staff was decreed by the trial court.
High Court also affirmed the decree but looking to the large number of quarters constructed by the Union of India directed it to provide alternative plot to the decree holder.
Union of India is in appeal against that order of the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
In a title suit, the plaintiff has to establish his title. Weakness of the defendant's case cannot be a ground for declaring title to the plaintiff.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The burden of proof in a suit for declaration of title and possession lies on the plaintiff to establish its title; weakness of the defendant’s case cannot automatically grant relief to the plaintiff. (!) (!) - A plaintiff must prove its own title; reliance on the defendant’s title or weakness cannot substitute for proving plaintiff’s title. (!) - Revenue records, including GLR entries, and pattas do not by themselves confer title; they have evidentiary value but do not prove title. (!) (!) - A registered family settlement/partition deed does not automatically establish title to the suit land if it does not expressly include the suit land or account for antecedent title. (!) (!) - Settlement records and pot kharab land concepts have evidentiary value but do not independently confer title; burden remains on the plaintiff to show title to the suit land. (!) (!) - The court must evaluate whether the plaintiff has established title over the scheduled land, independent of the defendant’s evidence, to grant declaration and possession. (!) (!)
Judgment :-
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. The Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., the first respondent herein instituted a suit No.794 of 1988 before the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking a declaration of title over land comprising 6 acres 30 guntas in Survey No.60/1 and 61 of Kakaguda village and recovery of the vacant possession from Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 7, the appellants herein, after removal of the structure made therein by them. The plaintiff has also sought for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the above-mentioned land and also for other consequential refliefs. The City Civil Court vide its judgment dated 31.07.1996 decreed the suit, as prayed for, against which the appellants preferred C.C.C.A. No.123 of 1996 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The High Court also affirmed the judgment of the trial Court on 6.9.2002, but noticed that the appellant had made large scale construction of quarters for the Defence Accounts Department, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that an opportunity be given to the appellants to provide alternative suitable extent of land in lieu of the scheduled suit land, for which eight months’ time was granted from the date of the judgment. Aggrieved by the same, the Union of India and others have filed the present appeal.
FACTS
2. The plaintiff’s case is that it had purchased the land situated in Survey Nos.60, 61 and 62 of Kakaguda Village from Pattedar B.M. Rama Reddy and his sons and others during the year 1981-82. The suit land in question forms part of Survey Nos.60 and 61. The suit land in question belonged to the family of B. Venkata Narasimha Reddy consisting of himself and his sons Anna Reddy, B.V. Pulla Reddy and B.M. Rama Reddy and Anna Reddy’s son Prakash Reddy. Land in old Survey No.53 was allotted to Rama Reddy vide registered family settlement and partition deed dated 11.12.1939 (Ex.A2). In the subsequent re-settlement of village (Setwar of 1353 FASLI), the land in Survey No.53 was re-numbered as Survey No.60, 61 and 62. Ever since the allotment in the family partition of the above-mentioned land, vide the family partition deed dated 19.03.1939, Rama Reddy had been in exclusive possession and enjoyment and was paying land revenue. Rama Reddy’s name was also mutated in the Pahanies.
3. Plaintiffs further stated that the first defendant had it’s A.O.C. Centre building complex in Tirumalagiri village adjoining the suit land Survey No.60 of Kakaguda village. The first defendant had also requisitioned 4 acres and 28 guntas in Survey No.60 of Kakaguda Village in the year 1971 along with the adjoining land in Tirumalagiri for extension of A.O.C. Centre. Further, it was stated that 6th Defendant took possession of the above-mentioned land and delivered possession of the same to other defendants. The 3rd Defendant later vide his letter dated 18.12.1979 sent a requisition for acquisition of 4.38 guntas in Surevy No.60 for the extension of A.O.C. Centre. Notification was published in the official Gazette dated 18.09.1980 and a declaration was made on 30.06.1981 and compensation was awarded to Rama Reddy vide Award dated 26.07.1982.
4. The Plaintiffs, as already stated, had entered into various sale deeds with Rama Reddy during the year 1981-82 by which land measuring 13 acres and 08 guntas in Survey No.60, 11 acres and 04 guntas in Survey No.61 and 17 acres and 20 guntas in Survey No.62 were purchased, that is in all 41 acres and 32 guntas. Plaintiffs further stated that the land, which was purchased by it was vacant, but persons of the Defence Department started making some marking on the portions of the land purchased by the plaintiff, stating that a substantial portion of the land purchased by the plaintiff in Survey No.60/1 and 61 belonged to the Defence Department and treated as B-4 in their records. Plaintiff then preferred an application dated 12.09.1983 to the District Collector under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act for demar
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
