Company suit authority and proof of title required; mutation records alone cannot establish ownership or possession claims.

A company suit must be instituted by a duly authorised person, and restoration of the company or limitation compliance does not cure the absence of valid authority. The Court also held that title over immovable property must be proved by reliable evidence of execution of the sale deed; mutation entries and revenue records alone do not establish ownership. As the plaintiff failed to prove valid institution, right, title and interest, and entitlement to possession, the claim for recovery of possession and consequential reliefs also failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit was maintainable, including the effect of restoration of the company and the authority of the person who instituted it; (ii) whether the plaintiff proved right, title and interest over the suit land; (iii) whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession and the consequential reliefs.

Issue (i): Whether the suit was maintainable, including the effect of restoration of the company and the authority of the person who instituted it.

Analysis: The company was treated as restored to active status on account of the later order restoring its name, and the suit was also held to be within limitation on the facts proved. However, the Court found that the plaint had not been instituted by a duly authorised person of the company. The board resolution and the company records did not establish authority in favour of the deponent to institute the suit, and no sufficient ratification by other directors was proved.

Conclusion: The suit was not maintainable for want of valid institution by an authorised person, though the company's existence and limitation plea were decided in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff proved right, title and interest over the suit land.

Analysis: The plaintiff relied on a registered sale deed and mutation entries, but failed to prove execution of the sale deed by admissible and reliable evidence. The Court held that examination of the scribe and attesting witnesses was necessary in the facts of the case, and that the presumption available to old documents did not assist the plaintiff because the document had not crossed the required period when tendered in evidence. Revenue entries and mutation were held insufficient to establish title.

Conclusion: The plaintiff did not prove right, title and interest over the suit land.

Issue (iii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession and the consequential reliefs.

Analysis: The defendant's possession over the suit land was evidenced by revenue records, possession certificate, land revenue receipts, and construction permission, while the plaintiff failed to establish title. In a suit for recovery of possession based on title, failure to prove title disentitled the plaintiff to recover possession. The consequential reliefs also could not survive once the substantive claim failed.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to recover possession or to the consequential reliefs.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the cross-objection succeeded to the extent of setting aside the finding on title, and the decree against the plaintiff was maintained in substance because the suit was held not maintainable and the claim to title and possession failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit by a company, valid institution by an authorised person must be proved, and in a suit for possession based on title, the plaintiff must establish title by reliable proof of execution of the sale deed; mutation or revenue entries alone do not confer title.

---