1. Suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of land based on a deed of patta and acknowledgment deed. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 9
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJIV KHANNA, J.K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.
Smriti Debbarma (Dead) Through Legal Representative - Appellant
Versus
Prabha Ranjan Debbarma And Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.878 of 2009
Decided on : 04-01-2023
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Title Declaratory Suit – Weakness of defence cannot be a justification to decree suit – Defendants, being in possession, would be entitled to protect and save their possession unless person who seeks to dispossess them has a better legal right in form of ownership or entitlement to possession.
Title Declaratory Suit – Weakness of defence cannot be a justification to decree suit – Defendants, being in possession, would be entitled to protect and save their possession unless person who seeks to dispossess them has a better legal right in form of ownership or entitlement to possession.
Subject
Property Law - TITLE AND POSSESSION
Act Referred
Headnote
Property Law – Title Declaratory Suit – [Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 101 and 102] – Title Declaratory Suit – Defendants cannot be dispossessed unless plaintiff has established a better title and rights over Schedule ‘A’ property – A person in possession of land in assumed character as owner, and exercising peaceably ordinary rights of ownership, has a legal right against entire world except rightful owner – Decree of possession cannot be passed in favour of plaintiff on the ground that defendants have not been able to fully establish their right, title and interest in Schedule ‘A’ property – Defendants, being in possession, would be entitled to protect and save their possession unless person who seeks to dispossess them has a better legal right in form of ownership or entitlement to possession – Weakness of defence cannot be a justification to decree suit – Plaintiff could have succeeded in respect of Schedule ‘A’ property if she had discharged burden to prove title to Schedule ‘A’ property which squarely falls on her – Will has not been probated and was disputed by defendants before trial court – By impugned judgment by High Court had rightly allowed appeal and set aside judgment and decree of trial court allowing suit of plaintiff – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 30, 31 and 32)
Facts of the case:
There are essentially two interconnected issues which arise for consideration. The first aspect relates to the demarcation of land given on lease vide Deed of Patta and the Ekrarnama on the basis of which the title suit was filed by Smriti Debbarma as the attorney and on behalf of Maharani Chandratara Devi. The second issue relates to the burden of proof and whether the plaintiff has succeeded in discharging the burden by establishing her title for a declaratory decree of ownership and her right to possession of the Schedule ‘A’ property.
Findings of Court:
On the date of filing of the suit plaintiff was not in constructive or actual physical possession of Schedule ‘A’ property.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - A person in possession of land in the assumed character as owner has a legal right against the entire world except the rightful owner (!) (!) . - The burden of proof in a title suit lies on the party asserting the existence of a particular state of facts on which relief is claimed, here the plaintiff (!) . - The plaintiff could have succeeded if she had discharged the burden of proving her title to the Schedule ‘A’ property, which falls on her (!) .
What are the rights of a person in possession of land against persons who claim a better legal title?
What is the burden of proof in a title declaratory suit regarding ownership and possession?
Can a suit for declaratory relief succeed if the plaintiff fails to prove their title to the property?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rauf Rahim, AOR Mr. Ali Asghar Rahim, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) Dr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR Mr. Jitendra Mahapatra, Adv. Mr. A.K. Yadav, Adv. Mr. Priyam Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Apratim Bhattacharya, Adv. Dr. P. V. Saravanaraja, AOR Mr. P. Veerappan, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rauf Rahim, AOR Mr. Ali Asghar Rahim, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) Dr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR Mr. Jitendra Mahapatra, Adv. Mr. A.K. Yadav, Adv. Mr. Priyam Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Apratim Bhattacharya, Adv. Dr. P. V. Saravanaraja, AOR Mr. P. Veerappan, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiff claims title via deed of patta and acknowledgment — Defendants contend ownership by a company and subsequent purchase of portions. (Para 10 , 15 , 17 , 18 , 25 )
3. Survey report and document discrepancies regarding land area and boundaries demonstrate the plaintiff's failure to establish legal title and ownership. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
4. Burden of proof for title rests on the party asserting it — Possession is protected unless the claimant establishes a superior legal title. (Para 30 , 31 )
5. Appeal dismissed — High Court judgment affirming dismissal of the suit upheld. (Para 32 )
6. Who bears the burden of proof in a suit for declaration of title and possession?
The burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the existence of a particular state of things to claim relief, as mandated by Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act. If both parties fail to adduce evidence, the suit must fail. (Para 31 )
7. Can a party in possession be dispossessed if they cannot fully prove their own title?
No. A person in peaceable possession as an owner has a legal right against the world except the rightful owner. They cannot be dispossessed unless the plaintiff establishes a better legal title and right to possession. (Para 30 )
8. Does a weak defense by the defendants justify a decree in favor of the plaintiff?
No. The weakness of the defense cannot be a justification to decree the suit. The plaintiff must independently discharge the burden of proving their title to succeed, regardless of the strength of the defendants' case. (Para 31 )
9. What is the legal presumption regarding documents over thirty years old?
Under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, the court may presume that a document thirty years old, produced from proper custody, was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed. (Para 25 )
JUDGMENT :
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
On 19.06.1986, Smriti Debbarma, as an attorney and on behalf of Maharani Chandratara Devi, had filed Title Suit No. 66 of 1986, inter alia praying for declaration that Maharani Chandratara Devi is the owner of the property known as ‘Khosh Mahal’, described in Schedule ‘A’ to the original plaint, as under:
| “SCHEDULE-A. | |
| Old Dar Tashkishi Taluk No. 178 (now Agartala Town Sheet No. 3), Khatian No. 4882, Dag Nos. 13142, 13144, 13176/26261 and 13144/51733, commonly known as “Khosh Mahal”, within this land measuring One Kani five Gandas two karas, three kranta and ten dhurs only.” | |
Other reliefs included a declaration that any transfer/conveyance for and on behalf of the plaintiff made by late Bikramendra Kishore Debbarma1[Alias “Bidurkarta”.] and his legal representatives, impleaded as defendant nos. 1 to 7 to the civil suit, should be declared illegal and void, and that the defendants and their agents should be restrained from entering, selling or alienating the Schedule ‘A’ property. In addition, the plaintiff had prayed that she has right, title and interest in Schedule ‘B’ property, namely the shares and business of M/s. Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited, Agartala.
2. Post recording of the statement of witnesses, and the report of the Court Surveyor dated 20.01.1995, marked as Exhibit-I, the plaint was amended, and the land mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ was substituted and increased to 2 Kanis 8 Gandas 3 Karas and 8½ Dhurs. Paragraphs 26(A) to 26(D) and paragraphs 27(A) to 27(C) to the plaint were added. The prayer clause was amended to include a direction to the Survey and Settlement authority to delete/expunge the record of rights standing in the name of defendant nos. 8 to 12 as void and inoperative. Prayer for direction to the Director of Settlement and Land Records to issue a record of rights in the name of the plaintiff for the Schedule ‘A’ property, and to confirm the possession of the plaintiff of the Schedule ‘A’ property was made.
3. Earlier, defendant nos. 8 to 12 were impleaded as defendants in the Title Suit vide order dated 15.09.1989. These defendants had purchased portions of land vide the sale deeds executed by the Managing Director of M/s. Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited. The sale deed in favour of the defendant no.8, marked as Exhibit-E, dated 17.07.1985, is prior to the institution of the suit in question, which was filed on 19.06.1986.
4. Maharani Chandratara Devi was the sixth wife of the late Maharaja Birendra Kishore Debbarma. She was not survived by her children who had predeceased her. Maharani Chandratara Devi did not enter the witness box and depose as a witness. Maharani Chandratara Devi had expired soon after filing of the suit on 27.12.1988.
5. Smriti Debbarma was substituted as the plaintiff, as the legal representative of Maharani Chandratara Devi, who had inherited the Schedule ‘A’ property and other properties in terms of the Will, marked as Exhibit-4, dated 15.10.1985 of Maharani Chandratara Devi. The Will has not been probated, and was disputed by the defendants before the trial court2[The trial court accepted the genuineness of the will propounded by Smriti Debbarma. It appears this finding was challenged in the first appeal filed before the High Court of Gauhati and the appeal was allowed, albeit the question of the genuineness of the will has not been examined.]. Smriti Debbarma, had expired during the pendency of the present appeal and is now represented by her legal representatives.
6. By judgment dated 23.11.1996, the suit was decreed holding that the plaintiff had right, title and interest in the Schedule ‘A’ property, as amended, and the plaintiff was entitled to khas possession of the Schedule ‘A’ property after evicting all the defendants and was entitled to remove all obstructions. Further, any transfer and/or conveyance of any portion of the Schedule ‘A’ property made by late Bidurkarta and defendant nos. 1 to 7 was illegal and void. Direct
