JAGDISH PRASAD PATEL (DEAD) THR. LRS.& ANOTHER versus SHIVNATH & OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 518 · Decided: 09-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
518
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
JAGDISH PRASAD PATEL (DEAD) THR. LRS.& ANOTHER
v.
      SHIVNATH & OTHERS
   (Civil Appeal No. 2176 of 2007)
  APRIL 09, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Suit:
Suit for declaration of title and possession – Filed by
respondents-plaintiffs – Suit contested on the ground that the suit
land was abandoned by respondent-plaintiff and lease was issued
to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants-defendants – Trial
court dismissed the suit holding that patta-lease (Ex.D-20) in respect
of suit land was issued by the Illaquedar to the defendants and since
then they were in possession of the same and also held that plaintiffs
got the entries of their names in the revenue records in connivance
with the patwari – First appellate court doubting the correctness of
Ex.D-20 decreed the suit – In second appeal High Court affirmed
the findings of first appellate court – Appeal to Supreme Court –
Held: In a suit for title and possession, plaintiffs can succeed only
on the strength of their own title and not on the weakness of the
case of the defendants – The burden was on the plaintiffs-
respondents to establish their title – They have failed to produce
title document or any other evidence to prove their title – The oral
and documentary evidence clearly establish that patta-lease (Ex.D-
20) was issued to predecessor-in-interest of the defendents and they
were in continuous possession of the suit land – Trial court had
rightly dismissed the suit.
Constitution of India:
Art.136 – Special Leave Petition – Scope of – Concurrent
finding of fact – Interference with – Held: Concurrent finding of
fact cannot be interfered with, unless warranted by compelling
reasons – When the findings of courts below are perverse,
interference with the findings of fact are warranted.
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 518
   518
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
519
Evidence Act, 1872:
s. 58 Proviso – Admitted facts – Whether need to be proved –
Held: s. 58 postulates that things admitted need not be proved –
However, proviso to s. 58 gives full discretion to  the court to require
the admitted facts to be proved.
s. 90 – Presumption – As to genuineness of a document –
Held: Court ‘may presume’ that the document is genuine – Mere
allegation of fraud would not be sufficient to rebut such presumption.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Or. XLI, r. 27 – Production of additional evidence – When
permissible – Discussed.
Deeds and Documents:
Revenue entries – Evidentiary value – Held: Revenue entries
for few Khataunis are not proof of title, but are mere statements for
revenue purpose.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution
of India, the concurrent findings cannot be interfered with unless
warranted by compelling reasons. When the finding of the first
appellate court and the High Court are shown to be perverse,
this Court would certainly interfere with the findings of fact
recorded by the High Court. [Para 10][530-E]
Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar v. State of Maharashtra
(2009) 11 SCC 141 : [2009] 3 SCR 1122 – relied on.
2. The suit of the respondents-plaintiffs was for declaration
of their title to the suit lands and consequential delivery of the
suit lands.  Having filed the suit for declaration of title, the plaintiffs
could succeed in their suit only by adducing sufficient evidence
to establish their title.  But the plaintiffs have not produced the
patta granted to their fathers. [Para 13][531-D]
3. In the written statement, defendant also admitted that
the plaintiffs-respondents’ fathers were lessees and patta-lease
JAGDISH PRASAD PATEL (DEAD) THR. LRS.& ANR. v.
SHIVNATH & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
520
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
was originally granted in their favour during the settlement period
for cultivation on the basis of Batai/crop-sharing.  [Para 14]
[531-H; 532-A]
Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Iccharam alias Brijram
and Others (1974) 1 SCC 242 : [1974]  2 SCR  544;
Executive Officer, Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koil
Trust, Virudhunagar v. Chandran and Others
(2017) 3 SCC 702 : [2017] 5 SCR 473 – referred to.
4. Section 58 of the Evidence Act, no doubt, postulates that
the things admitted need not be proved.  However, proviso to
Section 58 of the Evidence Act gives full discretion to the court
to require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such
admission.  When the respondents-plaintiffs have filed the suit
for declaration of their title, the respondents-p

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