NARAIN PRASAD AGGARWAL (D) BY LRS. versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 414 · Decided: 18-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
NARAIN PRASAD AGGARWAL (D) BY LRS. 
v. 
STATEOFM.P 
MAY 18,2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882: 
ss.105 and 107-Suit property purchased in auction by ancestors of 
C appellant-Record of rights show that property belongs to Government and 
was given on lease to ancestors of appellant-Trial Court held that 
Government is the owner of suit property by relying on entries made in 
record of rights-Held, not correct as execution of title deed has not been 
proved-Entries made in revenue record of rights cannot defeat the ltru-ful 
D title acquired by auction purchaser. 
E 
F 
Title of same nature cannot e.xist in two different persons where their 
claims are opposite. 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
s.35-Record of right is not a document of title-Entries made therein 
in terms of s.35 although are admissible as relevant evidence and may also 
carry presumption of correctness but such presumption is rebuttable. 
Words and Phrases: Nazul Land-Connotation of 
The suit property was put in auction in or about 1859 by the ancestors 
of 'R'and 'G'. They became the owner of the said land, and remained in 
possession till their death. On or about 24.3.1986, the said land was purchased 
by 'F' from 'R' and 'G'. He died about the year 1920. His \life 'P', being his 
sole heir became the o\\'ner of the said land. She expired on 8.5.1961. She did 
G not have any issue and the plaintiff-appellant-and defendant No. 2 inherited 
the said property as her heirs being sons of the brother of 'F'. 
H 
The property was somehow recorded as belonging to Government in 
record of rights and widow of 'F' began paying lease money to Government 
414 
NARAIN PRASAD AGGARWAL (D) BY LRS. v. STA TEOF M.P 
415 
The appellant filed suit for declaration of title on the ground that the A 
said land was never given on lease by Government to 'P' or anyone of her 
ancestors. The Trial Judge by a queer process of reasonings, and only having 
regard to the entries made in the revenue records, came to a contradictory 
and inconsistent findings that the State has also shown that it is the owner of 
the suit plot, although it was clearly opined that the plaintiff and the defendant B 
no. 2 had proved their title and possession. The High Court affirmed the order 
of triai Judge. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The findings of the Trial Judge are self-contradictory. The c 
land in question was put to auction as far back as in the year 1859. The plaintiff 
. and the defendant No. 2 and their predecessors in interest had all along been 
in possession thereof. While it may be true that the land in question in the 
revenue records of rights had been shown as Nazul land and 'P' filed an 
application for grant of a lease or paid rent to the State, it is evident from the 
order passed by the Commissioner of Settlements dated 30.10.22 that no such D 
deed of lease was available on record. The property in question must be held 
...) 
by her and her predecessor in interest as a perpetual lessee. The Trial Judge, 
while arriving aHhe finding that 'P' obtained a lease for a period of 30 years, 
did not refer to any documentary or oral evidence produced by the State. If a 
deed of lease was executed by the Collector in favour of 'P', the same should E 
have been produced. In fact, the Settlement Commissioner arrived at a positive 
finding that the Collector had not executed any deed oflease. The correctness 
of the said order passed by the Settlement Commissioner has never been put 
in issue, thus, became final and binding on the revenue authorities, the 
question could not have been permitted to be reopened only because another 
officer of the Revenue Department took a contrary view. 
F 
[Para 16) (424-H; 425-A-D] 
2. The Trial Judge, could not have ignored the title derived by the 
predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 2 which was 
acquired as far back as in the year 1859 being the subject matter of an auction. 
No document has been brought on record to show as to what was the nature G 
of the interest which the original owner had in the land. 
[Para 17] [425-E] 
" 
..- " 
3. It is one thing to say that the proprietary interest of all the proprietors 
and under tenure holders having vested in the State, the plaintiff and the 
H 
defendant No. 2 were bound to pay rent to the State, but it is another thing to 
416 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 7 S.C.R. 
A say that the State was the o

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