BRIJESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER versus SHARDABAI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 14 S.C.R. 964 · Decided: 01-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NAVIN SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
964
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
BRIJESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER
v.
 SHARDABAI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No.1090 of 2008)
OCTOBER 01, 2019
[NAVIN SINHA AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Adverse Possession: Suit for adverse possession filed by
plaintiff-respondent in 1990 on the ground of possession of lands
for 30 years prior to filing of the suit relying on the Khasra entries
for 1960-1961 as the foundation of the claim – Case of appellants
was that the suit lands was sold by the original owners to ‘UD’ by
way of sale deed dated 11.10.1972 which was subsequently
purchased by appellants; that Khasra entries for 1969-1973 showed
‘UD’ in possession of the lands and that in 1974-1978, the Khasra
entries again showed ‘UD’ as the landlord; that Khasra entries for
1960-1961 and 1974-1978 showing possession of the plaintiff were
interpolations in red color ink while the entries in name of ‘UD’
after purchase were made in blue color ink – Held: Plaintiff-
respondents claimed adverse possession from 1960-1961 – If the
plaintiff’s possession itself originated in 1960-1961, it is difficult
to appreciate how the Khasra entries in its name came to be made
in the very same year – s.115 of the MP Land Revenue Code provides
that if the Tehsildar finds that a wrong or incorrect entry has been
made in the land records prepared under s.114 by an officer
subordinate to him, he shall direct necessary changes to be made
therein in red ink  after making such enquiry from the person
concerned – Plaintiff led no evidence whatsoever when the
application for correction in the khasra entry was made and that
the original land owner was heard before the corrections were made
– Khasra entries in red ink, claimed by the plaintiff in proof of
possession remained unexplained and doubtful – After purchase of
the lands by ‘UD’, her name was entered in the Khasra as landlord
during 1969-1973 along with possession as also during 1974-1978
– Once it is concluded that the red ink entries regarding corrections
in the Khasra showing possession of the plaintiff were suspicious,
based on fraud and forgery, the recordings in the name of the
 [2019] 14 S.C.R. 964
   964
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
965
plaintiff were irrelevant – The name of ‘UD’ was also shown in the
Khasra entries for 1984-1989 in blue ink – Therefore, conclusion
of the first appellate court with regard to possession of the lands
being with ‘UD’ after purchase considered along with the report of
the court commissioner, and who subsequently sold it to the
appellants on basis of a registered sale deed, called for no
interference – Also, the suit land was sold to ‘UD’ before the expiry
of 12 years on 11.10.1972 and she was put in possession and,
therefore, plaintiff’s claim of uninterrupted possession for 12 years
was unsustainable as completely devoid of substance – Plaintiff
failed to establish peaceful, open and continuous possession
demonstrating a wrongful ouster of the rightful owner – The onus
lay on the plaintiff to establish when and how he came into
possession, the nature of his possession, the factum of possession
known and hostile to the other parties, continuous possession over
12 years which was open and undisturbed – Plaintiff failed to
discharge the onus – The order of the High Court is held to be
unsustainable and is set aside.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.  The plaintiff in a suit filed in 1990, asserted
possession of the lands for past 30 years prior to the filing of the
suit, relying on the Khasra entries for 1960-1961. The nature
and origin of the claim for possession was absent in the pleadings.
In his evidence, the respondent deposed that since the original
land owner had failed to return his bullocks and agricultural
equipments borrowed in 1958-1959, he had taken possession of
the lands in 1960-1961. The original plaintiff expired on
26.05.1994. The respondents, who are his legal heirs, then filed
an application on 21.04.1995 to amend the pleadings to bring it
in accord with the evidence. If the plaintiff’s possession itself
originated in 1960-1961 it is difficult to appreciate how the Khasra
entries in its name came to be made in the very same year.
Section 115 of the Code provides that if the Tehsildar finds that a
wrong or incorrect entry has been made in the land records
prepared under Section 114 by an officer subordinate to him, he
shall direct necessary changes to be made therein in red ink  after
making such enquiry from the person concerned

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