1972 (5) TMI 79 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal allowed in part: possession confirmed, permanent injunction protecting plaintiff's possession granted; declaratory title claim dismissed

M. Kallappa Setty Versus M.V. Lakshminarayana Rao

The SC allowed the appeal in part: it affirmed the trial and first appellate courts' finding of long continued possession and granted the second relief - ... - ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the plaintiff's possession since 1947 entitles him to a permanent injunction restraining a subsequent claimant from entering upon and disturbing the suit site, notwithstanding failure to establish indefeasible title. 2. Whether the plaintiff has satisfactorily proved title to the suit property so as to obtain a declaratory decree of absolute ownership. 3. What is the legal effect of a rectification deed and subsequent mutation/registry changes on the question of title and priority between competing claimants, where survey numbers in earlier instruments were incorrect. 4. Whether the Court should remand the question of title for fresh decision or keep the question of title open for future litigation between the parties, and the consequences of keeping title open with respect to res judicata and Order II Rule 8. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Possession as ground for injunctive protection against interference by one who does not prove a better title Legal framework - Possession confers a right to protection by injunction against persons who have no better title than the possessor; relief of permanent injunction (possession-based protection) is distinct from declaratory relief of absolute ownership (title-based relief). Precedent Treatment - No prior authorities were invoked by the Court in the judgment; the treatment follows established equitable and possessory principles. Interpretation and reasoning - The trial court and first appellate court found as a question of fact that the plaintiff had been in continuous possession of the suit site since purchase in 1947. That factual finding, being supported by evidence, was entitled to deference. The Court held that such possession is an 'extremely important circumstance' and, on the strength of possession, the plaintiff could obtain injunction relief to prevent interference by a person who has not proved a better title. The High Court erred in treating the plaintiff's possession as irrelevant. Ratio vs. Obiter - Ratio: A possessor in uninterrupted possession since acquisition may obtain a permanent injunction against a claimant who fails to prove a better title; possession supplies a substantive ground for possessory relief even when declaratory title is not established. This is applied as decisive in respect of relief No. 2. Conclusion - The plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction restraining the defendant from unlawfully entering upon, disturbing possession of, or constructing on the suit site; the decree in respect of relief No. 2 is confirmed (allowing the appeal in part). Issue 2: Requirement of satisfactory proof of title for declaratory relief of absolute ownership Legal framework - Declaratory relief of absolute ownership requires satisfactory proof of title; possession alone is insufficient to support a declaration of indefeasible ownership. Precedent Treatment - The Court applied ordinary principles of title-proof without citing specific cases. Interpretation and reasoning - The rectified sale deed and original instruments contained inconsistent survey numbers (1711 in original deed, correct being 1719 / old 1726). Material on record did not permit the Court to conclude satisfactorily that the plaintiff had good title. Consequently, the Court agreed with the High Court's conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish title to entitle him to relief No. 1. Ratio vs. Obiter - Ratio: Declaration of absolute ownership cannot be granted where the claimant has not satisfactorily established title on the record; such deficiency precludes relief No. 1. This was dispositive of the declaratory relief. Conclusion - Relief No. 1 (declaration of absolute ownership) is not granted; the decree below is set aside insofar as it declared title in favor of the plaintiff. Issue 3: Effect of rectification deed, mutation/registry changes, and competing subsequent registry without notice Legal framework - Instruments rectifying earlier conveyances and subsequent mutation/registry changes are relevant to title, but the sufficiency of such documents depends on clarity and proof; incorrect survey numbers and subsequent transfers may cloud title. Precedent Treatment - Not specially addressed; Court assessed the documentary and evidentiary matrix. Interpretation and reasoning - Plaintiff obtained a rectification deed from vendor's son (1960) after vendor's death, and thereafter had revenue records changed to his name. The defendant purportedly purchased from a third person (D.W.5) in 1953 and had registry changed to his name without notice to the plaintiff. The Court emphasized that conflicting registrations and the incorrect survey number in the original deed left title in issue; rectification and mutation alone did not satisfy the burden of proving invincible title on the present record. Ratio vs. Obiter - Obiter/Ratio blend: While rectification and mutation are relevant, they do not automatically establish title where material inconsistencies and competing transfers exist; resolution of such title disputes requires fuller inquiry if parties choose to litigate afresh. Conclusion - The rectification deed and subsequent mutations did not suffice to establish the plaintiff's title for declaratory relief; the title issue is left open for future adjudication. Issue 4: Whether to remand the title question or leave it open for fresh proceedings; consequences regarding res judicata and Order II Rule 8 Legal framework - Courts have discretion to remit issues for fresh determination, but long delay, low value of dispute, and interests of finality may counsel keeping certain questions open; principles of res judicata and Order II Rule 8 bar relitigation only to the extent of matters actually and finally adjudicated. Precedent Treatment - The Court exercised discretion without reference to specific authorities. Interpretation and reasoning - Although ordinarily the Court would remand the matter for fresh trial on title, the litigation had been protracted and the property involved was of small monetary value. The Court therefore chose to confirm the possessory decree (relief No. 2), set aside the declaratory decree (relief No. 1), and expressly kept open the question of title for future proceedings. The Court explicitly held that because title is kept open, neither party nor successors can claim the bar of res judicata or Order II Rule 8 in future suits grounded on title. Ratio vs. Obiter - Ratio: Where practical considerations and the nature of the dispute make remand inappropriate, the Court may decide possessory relief and leave title open, with an express reservation that future suits for title or possession based on title are not barred by the present decision. That reservation prevents the present order from operating as a final adjudication on title for purposes of res judicata and Order II Rule 8. Conclusion - The Court declined to remand; it confirmed the injunction, set aside the declaration of title, kept the question of title open for future litigation, and ruled that neither res judicata nor Order II Rule 8 will preclude future suits on title by either party or their successors. Costs directed accordingly: parties to bear their own costs in the Supreme Court and High Court; defendant to pay plaintiff's costs in trial and first appellate court.