MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GWALIOR versus PURAN SINGH ALIAS PURAN CHAND & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 8 S.C.R. 115 · Decided: 02-07-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 8 S.C.R. 115 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GWALIOR 
v. 
PURAN SINGH ALIAS PURAN CHAND & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8605 of 2013) 
JULY 02, 2014 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
A 
8 
Land Laws - Suit for declaration of title over a land and 
permanent injunction by the respondents against the 
C 
Municipal Corporation - Dismissal of, by the trial court holding 
that the land belonged to the Municipal Corporation -
However, the High Court set aside the order passed by the 
trial court on basis of the revenue entries - Justification of -
Held: Order passed by the High Court not justified - Mutation 
D 
entries do not confer title - High Court erred in reversing the 
well reasoned judgment and decree passed by the trial court 
by relying upon Khasaras entries even without properly 
appreciating that Khasara entries do not convey title of the 
suit property as the same is only relevant for the purposes of E 
paying land revenue and it has nothing to do with ownership 
-Since the ancestors of the respondents did not belong to one 
family, but three different families belonged to three different 
castes, claim of joint ownership and joint possession of the 
land could not be accepted - Also, the High Court failed to 
appreciate that there was no document of title/ownership on 
record placed by the respondents and there were no 
pleadings in this regard as such no finding of title or 
ownership can be given in favour of respondents. 
F 
The respondents filed suit against the appellant-
G 
Municipal Corporation seeking dec:aration that land was 
owned and possessed by them and permanent 
injunction against the appellant on the ground that 
115 
H 
116 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 
A Municipal authorities tried to interfere with their 
possession. The trial court held that the respondents are 
not the owners of the disputed land and the disputed 
land is the property within the continued ownership and 
possession and management of the Municipality. In the 
B First Appeal, the High Court set aside the judgment' 
passed by the trial court. Hence, the instant appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is settled that for joint possession and 
C ownership over any property, firstly the respondents are 
required to plead the same and the said fact should be 
reflected in the plaint itself There is a concept of joint 
family amongst the Hindus but that is required to be 
'pleaded and proved. As the ancestors of the respondents 
D do not belong to one family, but three different family 
having three different castes, the joint possession of the 
respondents cannot be accepted. The High Court failed 
to notice the said fact while allowing the appeal of the 
respondents. The High Court gravely erred in law as well 
E as on facts in connecting RM with the respondents even 
though they have utterly failed to prove any connection 
with him and the pleadings are lacking regarding their 
particulars and even their names do not appear in Ext. 
P.11. [Para 18, 17] [124-D-F] 
F 
1.2. 'CK' widow of 'SB'-PW-1 and 'PS'-PW-2 stated 
that they are joint owners and are in joint possession 
based on revenue records. The names of 'M', 'G' and 'SB' 
were shown. However, the name of·ancestors of plaintiff 
No.2, 'SB' is not recorded, but the name of 'SB' himself 
G is recorded therein. In the original plaint, it was not 
pleaded as to how 'SB' along with 'M' and 'G' were in joint 
possession over the land in dispute. In this background, 
the trial court rightly held that the respondentg failed to 
give necessary details of their origin and ownership 
H 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GWALIOR v. PURAN SINGH ALIAS 
117 
PURANCHAND 
·rights. The High Court failed to appreciate that there was 
A 
no document of title/ownership on record placed by the 
respondents and there )Nere no pleadings in this regard 
as such no finding of title or ownership can be given in 
favour of respondents. The evidence of PW-1 and other 
evidence on record including map were enclosed in the 
plaint. Nothing was shown to suggest that 'SB' was in 
B 
·actual possession of the land in the plaint or in the map 
and no pleading as the existence of a- pataur, toilet and 
pond (Haudi) in the suit land was made. Therefore, the 
trial court was correct in holding that the plaintiff-'SB' was c 
not in -possession of land. The trial court on appreciation 
of the entries and its genuineness which. is to be 
presumed under the provisions of Section 117 of 

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