TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Title dispute remanded for fresh trial; plaintiffs can amend claims and present new evidence. Trial Judge to expedite process.</h1> <h3>Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar & Ors Versus Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund & Ors</h3> Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar & Ors Versus Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund & Ors - 2008 AIR 901, 2007 (13) SCR 77, 2007 (13) SCC 565, 2007 (14) SCALE 283 Issues involved:- Dispute over encroachment on property- Validity of title deeds- Appointment of Advocate-Commissioner- Burden of proof on title- Interpretation of revenue records- Decree for injunction without deciding title- Remand for fresh considerationDetailed Analysis:Dispute over encroachment on property:The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants seeking demolition of encroached structures on their property and vacant possession. The defendants were alleged to have encroached upon a portion of the plaintiffs' land. The Trial Judge framed issues, including one questioning the validity of the sale deed through which the plaintiffs claimed ownership of the property.Validity of title deeds:The Trial Judge considered the title dispute, noting that the defendants had purchased the property through registered sale deeds. The High Court affirmed the Trial Court's decision, emphasizing that the suit was for injunction, not a declaration of title. The courts relied on documentary evidence to establish ownership, including the chalta numbers allotted to different portions of the land.Appointment of Advocate-Commissioner:An Advocate-Commissioner was appointed, but objections were raised, and the report could not be cross-examined. The High Court acknowledged this issue but maintained that the question of title could be addressed in a separate suit.Burden of proof on title:The High Court was criticized for placing the burden of proof on the defendants without considering the provisions of Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act. The courts were reminded that a record of right is not a document of title and that the burden of proof lies with the party asserting ownership.Interpretation of revenue records:The courts below considered entries in revenue records, but the Trial Judge proceeded on the assumption that the property might belong to the defendants. The legal principles regarding revenue records and their evidentiary value were emphasized.Decree for injunction without deciding title:The High Court's decision to grant a permanent injunction without resolving the title dispute was questioned. The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of determining ownership before issuing such decrees to avoid legal complications in the future.Remand for fresh consideration:Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the previous judgments and remitted the matter to the Trial Judge for fresh consideration. The plaintiffs were given the option to amend their plaint for a declaration of title and damages. The parties were permitted to adduce additional evidence, and the Trial Judge was advised to expedite the proceedings.This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues involved, the court's reasoning, and the ultimate decision to remand the case for further consideration.
TaxTMI 