2007 (5) TMI 643 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Overrules High Court, Upholds Trial Court: Oral Gift Invalid, Tenant Status Confirmed, Jurisdiction Affirmed.

M/s Kamakshi Builders Versus M/s Ambedkar Educational Society

M/s Kamakshi Builders Versus M/s Ambedkar Educational Society - 2007 AIR 2191, 2007 (7) SCR 339, 2007 (12) SCC 27, 2007 (7) JT 189, 2007 (7) SCALE 475 Issues Involved:1. Validity of the oral gift claimed by Respondent No. 1.2. Adverse possession claim by Respondent No. 1.3. Burden of proof regarding the oral gift.4. Limitation period for filing the suit.5. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Oral Gift Claimed by Respondent No. 1:The primary issue was whether Respondent No. 3 made a valid oral gift of the property to Respondent No. 1. The Trial Court found against the validity of the oral gift, noting several points:- The burden of proof lay on Respondent No. 1, who failed to provide sufficient evidence.- No declaration was filed before the Urban Land Ceiling Authority in 1976.- No letter confirming the oral gift was produced.- No resolution was passed by the Governing Body of Respondent No. 1 accepting the gift.- No gift tax was paid.- No mutation was effected pursuant to the alleged oral gift.- The witnesses to the oral gift were deemed unreliable as they were closely associated with Respondent No. 1.The High Court, however, reversed this decision, suggesting that the lack of rent demand for ten years implied an oral gift and that the construction of buildings by Respondent No. 1 indicated ownership. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's reasoning was based on surmises and conjectures and reinstated the Trial Court's findings, emphasizing the heavy burden on Respondent No. 1 to prove the oral gift, which it failed to discharge.2. Adverse Possession Claim by Respondent No. 1:Respondent No. 1 alternatively claimed title by adverse possession. The Trial Court rejected this claim, stating that Respondent No. 1 continued to be a tenant and had not shown any adverse possession. The High Court opined that once the tenancy was determined, the possession would be adverse. However, the Supreme Court held that Respondent No. 1, being a tenant, could not claim adverse possession as it had no animus possidendi (intention to possess).3. Burden of Proof Regarding the Oral Gift:The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof for the oral gift lay heavily on Respondent No. 1. Despite the High Court's view that non-examination of Respondent No. 3 would give rise to an adverse inference, the Supreme Court held that the burden was not discharged by mere presumption. The Trial Court's detailed analysis of evidence and the demeanor of witnesses was upheld.4. Limitation Period for Filing the Suit:The issue of limitation was raised, with Respondent No. 1 arguing that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 67 of the Limitation Act, which provides a 12-year period for recovery of possession from a tenant. The Supreme Court held that Article 67 was not applicable as Respondent No. 1 remained a statutory tenant. Instead, Article 65, which provides a 12-year period for possession based on title, was applicable. The suit was filed within this period.5. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court:Respondent No. 1 raised the issue of jurisdiction, arguing that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to try the suit, which should have been under the Rent Control Act. The Supreme Court noted that this issue was not raised at the trial stage and could not be entertained for the first time at the appellate stage. The Court held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to determine the matter, especially given the complicated question of title involved.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and reinstated the Trial Court's decree in favor of the appellant, holding that Respondent No. 1 failed to prove the oral gift and could not claim adverse possession. The appeal was allowed with no costs.