LexCORPORATION OF CITY OF BANGALORE versus ZULEKHA BL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 325 CORPORATION OF CITY OF BANGALORE A v. ZULEKHA Bl & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1299 of 2002) MARCH 24, 2008 B .., (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND ~ AFTAB ALAM, JJ.) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; s.96: - c Right, title and interest over suit property - Claim of, by appellant and respondent No. 1 - Onus to prove - Held: Plaintiff has to prove the title - The conclusion arrived at by the High Court, that it is for the Corporation to prove the title, not sustainable - No tax paid receipt produced by respondent No. 1 to substantiate her claims for title over the property - D .> t Acknowledgment issued by the authority for having received an application from respondent No. 1, by no stretch of imagination, could be considered to be a document proving title over the property - Since the first appeal was disposed of in casual manner, the matter remitted to High Court for E consideration afresh - Directions issued. One 'R' allegedly sold his share in the joint family property to respondent No.1- plaintiff. When she was raising construction, defendant prevented her from raising construction and interfered with the peaceful F ,Ii possession of the property by her. Respondent No.1 filed a title suit, which was dismissed by the trial Court. Appeal filed thereagainst by respondent No.1 was allowed by Single Judge of the High Court. Hence the present appeals. G Allowing the appeals, the Court __ _, HELD: 1.1 There are several infirmities in the High Court's judgment. The High Court in Para 10 of the 325 H 326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R. A judgment concluded that since the appellant was claiming 'f- title in respect of suit property, it was for the Corporation to prove the title by production of document in their possession. This ce>nclusion is not sustainable because it is the plaintiff wlho has to prove her title. (Para - 7) B [330-A, BJ c 1.2 It has been rightly pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that there was no Khata extract or tax paid receipt produced by the plaintiff to substantiate her claim for title over the property. (Para - 8) [330-B, CJ 1.3 The High Court referred to Exh.P6 which was an acknowledgment purported to have been issued from the office of the Revenue Officer. The High Court concluded that the same established that the plaintiff's vendor had got title over the property. The conclusion is clearly without D any foundation in law. The Single Judge of the High Court himself noted that EJ<h. P6 is the acknowledgment issued for having received application from plaintiff by the Corpc:>ration on 24.4.1981 and the same was returned on 15.6.1981 requiring the plaintiff to submit further E information and to show the spot to the Revenue Inspector and to p1roduce the plan. By no stretch of imagination same can be considered to be a document proving title over 1the property. The fallacies in the conclusions of Single Judge of the High Court are too F numerous to be referred to in detail. (Paras - 9 & 10) [330-C, D, E, FJ . 2. Since the First Appeal has been disposed of in the most casual manner, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for a fresh , G consideration in accordance with law. (Para -11) [330-F, GJ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1299 of 2002. From the final Judgment and Order dated 02.12.1999 of the . H High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in RF.A. No. 430of1994. I CORPORATION OF CITY OF BANGALORE v. 327 ZULEKHA Bl & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] WITH A Civil Appeal No. 1300 of 2002. Vikas Rojipura, F.C. Vidya Sagar, A.T.M. Sampath, T.S. Shanthi, V. Balaji and Legi for the Appellant. B.V. Deepak (for M/s. T.T.K. Deepak & Co.) for the B ,, Respondents. ~ The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the c Karnataka High Court allowing the First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC'). The respondent No.1 was the plaintiff and was appellant beforethe High Court. The case set out in the plaint is as follows: 2. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule D property, having purchased it from M.N. Rudrappa under registered sale deed dated 9-2-1981 and is in possession of it since that date. The schedule property is the joint family of the plaintiffs v
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.