AVTAR SINGH AND ORS. versus GURDIAL SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 33 · Decided: 04-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A VTAR SINGH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
GURDIAL SINGH AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 4, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
Section 58-Admission as to nature of land-In suit filed by appellants, C 
admission by them that suit land was public land-Appellate authority 
arriving at finding that the land was not private property of appellant and 
High Court upholding same-Held, In view of admission of appellant in their 
own suit, interference with the findings of facts not called for. 
The dispute related to the suit land situated on the north of house of D 
appellants and west of house of respondents. Respondents filed suit for 
permanent and mandatory injunction while appellants filed suit for permanent 
injunction restraining respondent from interfering or dispossessing them 
from suit land. Trial Court dismissed the suit of respondent and decreed the 
suit of appellants holding that appellants have proved their title over suit land E 
and thus have not encroached over public land. Appellate court held that the 
suit land formed part of public street and appellants have failed to prove that 
they had acquired any right, title and interest therein. The High Court upheld 
the findings of appellate authority. Hence these appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the suit filed by appellant an admission was made by him 
that the land in question was shamlat deh. The nature of the land being 
'shamlat deb', indisputably could not have been a private property. Even from 
F 
the boundaries of the suit land it appears that one side thereof is sham lat deb 
land and on two sides there exist katcha passage. All other attributes of a G 
public street e.g. laying down of the electric wire was found. (36-C] 
2.1. Admission forms the best evidence. It may be that admission does 
not create any title, but the nature of the land can form subject matter of 
admission. Section 58 of the Evidence Act postulates that things admitted need H 
33 
34 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
A not be proved. (36-D-E] 
2.2. It may be that in their suit the respondents did not call for the records 
from the State or the local authorities to show that the land in question was 
a public street but keeping in view the fact that the appellants' witnesses have 
admitted the said fact in their own Suit, the findings of fact arrived at by the 
B First Appellate Court and affirmed by the High Court need not be interfered 
with. (36-E-Fl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5654 of2006. 
C 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2004 of the High Court 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 4400/2002. · 
Ms. Shikha Ray, S.K. Pubbi and S.K. Sabharwal for the Appellants. 
Anis Ahmed Khan, Anees Ahmad Khan and Shoaib Ahmad Khan for 
D the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted. 
E 
Both these appeals involving common questions of law and fact were 
taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common 
judgment. 
F 
G 
The dispute between the parties arise in respect of a land situated at 
village Nardu, Teshil Rajpura butted and bounded as follows: 
"North: 
South : 
East: 
West: 
House and compound of A vtar Singh and Jatinder 
defendants. 
Kacha Passage 
Kacha Passage and shamlat land 
House and compound of Gurdial Singh" 
Suit No. 283-T93/l 2.9.9 I was filed by the respondents herein. Suit No. 
28T/98/8.I0.91 was filed by the appellants herein. Whereas the respondents 
filed a Suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, the appellants herein 
H filed a Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defedants from interfering 
or dis-possessing them from the suit land, the description whereof was given 
/· .. 
... 
• 
A VT AR SINGH v. GURDIAL SINGH [S.B. SINHA, J.] 
35 
and whereafter a site plan was filed. Whereas the suits of the respondents A 
were dismissed by the learned trial Judge, the Suit of the appellants was 
decreed. 
The parties preferred respective appeals from the said judgments and 
decree. The Appellate Court inter a/ia held that the land in question form part 
of a public street and the appellants before us have failed to prove that they B 
had acquired any right, title and interest. Although in the Suit filed by the 
respondents herein the Appellate Court posed a wrong question as regard 
onus of proof but keeping in view the fact that in the Suit filed by the 
appellants an admission was made by him that t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.