2019 (4) TMI 2176 - SC - Indian Laws

Documentary patta and revenue orders establish title and possession; plaintiffs fail to prove title; decree for defendants restored

Jagdish Prasad Patel (Dead) thr. L. Rs. and Ors. Versus Shivnath and Ors.

SC held that the first appellate court and HC erred in disbelieving documentary evidence of a patta and related revenue orders proving the appellants' ... Legality of grant of patta in favour of the Appellants/Defendants - absence of any order of abandonment or revocation of the patta given to the forefathers of the Respondents-Plaintiff - rights of Appellants-Defendants over the suit properties - HELD THAT:- The first appellate court held that the ownership of Rameshwar and Ram Sahai was not terminated in a legal way and therefore, they are to be treated as owners of the suit properties. The first Appellate Court further held that since the ownership of Rameshwar and Ram Sahai was not terminated in a legal way, the lease deed-Ex. D-20 which has been produced on behalf of Defendant No. 1 cannot be treated to be a proved document and on those findings, set aside the finding of the trial court that Defendant No. 1 is having a legal right of ownership of the disputed lands. The first Appellate Court was not right in doubting the correctness of Ex. D-20 and not right in observing that Defendant No. 1 is not having a legal right of ownership on the disputed lands. The first appellate court and the High Court fell in error in not taking into consideration Ex. D-1-order of the Commissioner dated 17.07.1973 and the order of the Tahsildar dated 28.07.1971 and other documents showing grant of lease/patta in the name of Gaya Din and the continued possession of Gaya Din and his son-Hanuman Din and the Appellants. The first Appellate Court and the High Court erred in brushing aside the findings recorded by the Commissioner dated 17.07.1973 as to the misconduct of the patwari in making entries in the revenue records. In the suit for declaration for title and possession, the Plaintiffs-Respondents could succeed only on the strength of their own title and not on the weakness of the case of the Defendants-Appellants. The burden is on the Plaintiffs-Respondents to establish their title to the suit properties to show that they are entitled for a decree for declaration. The Plaintiffs-Respondents have neither produced the title document i.e. patta-lease which the Plaintiffs-Respondents are relying upon nor proved their right by adducing any other evidence - the revenue entries relied on by them are also held to be not genuine. In any event, revenue entries for few Khataunis are not proof of title; but are mere statements for revenue purpose. They cannot confer any right or title on the party relying on them for proving their title. Observing that in a suit for declaration of title, the Plaintiffs-Respondents are to succeed only on the strength of their own title irrespective of whether the Defendants-Appellants have proved their case or not. Conclusion - The High Court did not appreciate the patta (Ex. D-20) granted in favour of the forefathers of the Appellants by the competent authority in 1929 and the report of the Revenue Inspector dated 05.10.1969. The first Appellate Court and the High Court did not consider Ex. D-1-Order of the Commissioner dated 17.07.1973 and the report of the SDO dated 21.10.1969 and other revenue records showing that the forefather of the Appellants-Defendants namely Gaya Din was given the patta (Ex. D-20) and since then, Gaya Din and Hanuman Din were in possession of the properties. The High Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and materials on record and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. The Suit No. 68-A/75 filed by the Respondents-Plaintiffs is dismissed and the judgment of the trial court shall stand restored. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered were:Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the first Appellate Court's judgment that the grant of patta (Ex. D-20) in 1929 in favor of the Appellants was illegal due to the absence of any order of abandonment or revocation of the patta given to the Respondents' predecessors.Whether the Respondents-Plaintiffs could establish their title to the suit lands and the legality of the patta granted to the Respondents' forefathers.The validity of the patta (Ex. D-20) granted to the Appellants' forefather Gaya Din and the subsequent possession of the suit lands.Whether the suit filed by the Respondents was barred by limitation.The impact of the Vindhya Pradesh Abolition of Jagirs and Land Reforms Act, 1952, and the Rewa Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1935, on the validity of the patta granted to the Appellants.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant legal framework and precedents:The case involved the interpretation of the Rewa Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1935, and the Vindhya Pradesh Abolition of Jagirs and Land Reforms Act, 1952. The Court also considered the applicability of Section 90 of the Evidence Act concerning the presumption of genuineness for documents over thirty years old.Court's interpretation and reasoning:The Court noted that the patta (Ex. D-20) granted to Gaya Din was validly issued by the competent authority in 1929. The Court emphasized that the document's age allowed for a presumption of genuineness under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, which the Respondents failed to rebut. The Court found that the first Appellate Court and the High Court did not properly consider the evidence and documents supporting the Appellants' continuous possession and the legality of the patta.Key evidence and findings:The Court relied on several pieces of evidence, including:Ex. D-20, the patta granted to Gaya Din, which was presumed genuine due to its age.Revenue records showing continuous possession by the Appellants' predecessors.The report of the Revenue Inspector and the order of the Commissioner, which supported the Appellants' claim of possession and the legality of the patta.The lack of evidence from the Respondents to prove their title or to rebut the presumption of genuineness of Ex. D-20.Application of law to facts:The Court applied the presumption of genuineness under Section 90 of the Evidence Act to Ex. D-20, finding that the Respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence to challenge its validity. The Court also considered the historical context of the patta's issuance and the legal framework under which it was granted.Treatment of competing arguments:The Court addressed the Respondents' arguments regarding the alleged forgery of Ex. D-20 and the claim that the patta was issued without proper authority. The Court found these arguments unsubstantiated due to the lack of evidence and the presumption of genuineness afforded to the patta. The Court also dismissed the Respondents' claim that the suit was within the limitation period, noting the continuous possession by the Appellants.Conclusions:The Court concluded that the Respondents failed to establish their title to the suit lands and that the patta (Ex. D-20) granted to the Appellants' forefather was valid and conferred ownership rights. The suit filed by the Respondents was dismissed as barred by limitation.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held that:The patta (Ex. D-20) granted to Gaya Din in 1929 was valid and presumed genuine under Section 90 of the Evidence Act.The Respondents failed to establish their title to the suit lands or provide evidence to rebut the presumption of genuineness of Ex. D-20.The continuous possession of the suit lands by the Appellants' predecessors was supported by revenue records and other evidence.The suit filed by the Respondents was barred by limitation, as the cause of action arose decades earlier.The Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the trial court's decision, dismissing the Respondents' suit and affirming the Appellants' title to the suit lands.