Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for State of Haryana VS Amin Lal (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs...
State of Haryana VS Amin Lal (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs - 2024 8 Supreme 659 : A plaintiff without documentary proof of title can still establish ownership through continuous, peaceful, and open possession supported by revenue records (jamabandi entries) from 1904-05 to 2019-20, especially when the defendant does not specifically deny the plaintiff''''s title. In such cases, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove adverse possession, which requires hostile, continuous, and uninterrupted possession for the statutory period. The court held that mere possession without hostile intent—such as permissive possession under a conditional arrangement (e.g., ''''Bikhar Bahali Kaza'''')—does not constitute adverse possession. Revenue records are admissible as evidence of ownership, and their continuous entries over time can establish title even in the absence of sale deeds, provided the plaintiff''''s claim is not rebutted by the defendant with valid proof of adverse possession.Checking relevance for State of A. P. VS Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Co. ...
State of A. P. VS Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Co. - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 182 : Yes, a plaintiff can prove title in a suit even without documents if possession is in their favor. Under Section 110 of the Evidence Act, 1872, possession may prima facie raise a presumption of title. The courts have held that possession, especially when prima facie lawful, can lead to a rebuttable presumption of title, particularly when there is no clear proof of ownership on either side. The principle is based on public policy to prevent breach of peace. However, this presumption is not absolute and can be rebutted by the defendant establishing circumstances showing trespass or encroachment. Importantly, a revenue record is not a document of title but only raises a presumption of possession. Thus, if the plaintiff has possession, they can rely on the presumption of title under Section 110 of the Evidence Act, provided they establish continuous possession and the defendant fails to prove a better title.Checking relevance for Nazir Mohamed VS J. Kamala...
Checking relevance for Naganna (Dead) By Lrs. / Smt. Devamma VS Siddaramegowda (Since Deceased) By Lrs. ...
Naganna (Dead) By Lrs. / Smt. Devamma VS Siddaramegowda (Since Deceased) By Lrs. - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 508 : A plaintiff cannot prove ownership in a title suit solely based on possession without documentary evidence, as reliance on revenue records alone is insufficient to establish title. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to demonstrate lawful possession, and mere possession without credible evidence or title deeds does not suffice to establish ownership. Furthermore, while lawful possession is required to claim an injunction, it must be substantiated with credible evidence—possession without documents is not enough to prove title.Checking relevance for Yerikala Sunkalamma VS State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue...
Yerikala Sunkalamma VS State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 532 : Yes, a plaintiff can prove title in a suit even without documents if possession is prima facie lawful and the opposing party has no title. Under Section 110 of the Evidence Act (now Section 113 of the BSA), possession of property raises a rebuttable presumption of ownership. This presumption applies when the possession is not prima facie wrongful and the defendant has not established its title. The law recognizes that possession may prima facie raise a presumption of title, but this presumption can only arise when facts disclose no title in either party. Thus, if a plaintiff is in possession of land and the defendant fails to prove a superior title, the plaintiff may succeed in establishing title based on possession alone, even in the absence of documentary proof. This principle was affirmed in multiple judgments, including Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of A.P. vs. Collector (2003) 3 SCC 472, where the Court held that the presumption under Section 110 applies when possession is prima facie lawful and the contesting party has no title.Checking relevance for R. V. E. Venkatachala Gounder VS Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V. P. Temple...
R. V. E. Venkatachala Gounder VS Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V. P. Temple - 2003 8 Supreme 193 : In a suit for recovery of possession based on title, it is for the plaintiff to prove his title and satisfy the Court that he, in law, is entitled to dispossess the defendant from his possession over the suit property and for the possession to be restored with him. However, once the plaintiff has created a high degree of probability so as to shift the onus on the defendant, it is for the defendant to discharge his onus, and in the absence thereof, the burden of proof on the plaintiff is held to have been discharged, amounting to proof of the plaintiff''''s title. This principle applies even in the absence of documentary evidence, as possession and other circumstantial evidence (such as rent receipts, attornment, and maintenance of accounts) can collectively establish title when supported by credible testimony and corroboration.
