SMRITI DEBBARMA (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE versus PRABHA RANJAN DEBBARMA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 355 · Decided: 04-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJIV KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
355
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 355
355
SMRITI DEBBARMA (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE
v.
PRABHA RANJAN DEBBARMA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 878 of 2009)
 JANAURY 04, 2023
[SANJIV KHANNA AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Suit – Suit for declaration of title – Burden of proof – Trial
court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff had right, title and
interest in the subject property and was entitled to khas possession
of the property after evicting all the defendants – High Court
reversed the judgment of trial court holding that plaintiff on basis
of evidence and documents placed on record had not been able to
discharge the burden of proof to establish legal ownership and title
to the subject property – Held: High Court rightly set aside the
judgment and decree of the trial court – The plaintiff took
contradictory stands – On the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff
was not in constructive or actual physical possession of the property
– The defendants could not be dispossessed unless the plaintiff
established a better title and rights over the property – The burden
of proof to establish a title in the present case lay upon the plaintiff
–s.101 of the Evidence Act states that burden on proving the fact
rests with party who substantially asserts in the affirmative and not
on the party which is denying it – In terms of s.102 of the Evidence
Act, if both parties fail to adduce evidence, the suit must fail – Onus
of proof, no doubt shifts and the shifting is a continuous process in
the evaluation of evidence, but this happens when in a suit for title
and possession, the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree
of probability to shift the onus on the defendant – The weakness of
the defence cannot be a justification to decree the suit – The plaintiff
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
356
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
could have succeeded in respect of the property if she had discharged
the burden to prove the title to the property which squarely fell on
her – This would be the true effect of ss.101 and 102 of the Evidence
Act – Suit in question liable to be dismissed – Evidence Act – ss.
101 and 102.
Evidence – “Burden of proof” and “Onus of proof” –
Discussed.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. For the plaintiff to succeed, she has to establish
that she has a legal title to the Schedule ‘A’ property, and
consequently, is entitled to a decree of possession. The
defendants cannot be dispossessed unless the plaintiff has
established a better title and rights over the Schedule ‘A’
property. A person in possession of land in the assumed character
as the owner, and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of
ownership, has a legal right against the entire world except the
rightful owner. A decree of possession cannot be passed in favour
of the plaintiff on the ground that defendant nos. 1 to 12 have not
been able to fully establish their right, title and interest in the
Schedule ‘A’ property. The defendants, being in possession, would
be entitled to protect and save their possession, unless the
person who seeks to dispossess them has a better legal right in
the form of ownership or entitlement to possession [Para 30][372-
H; 373-A-C]
2. The burden of proof to establish a title in the present
case lies upon the plaintiff as this burden lies on the party who
asserts the existence of a particular state of things on the basis
of which she claims relief. This is mandated in terms of Section
101 of the Evidence Act, which states that burden on proving the
fact rests with party who substantially asserts in the affirmative
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
357
and not on the party which is denying it. This rule may not be
universal and has exceptions, but in the factual background of
the present case, the general principle is applicable. In terms of
Section 102 of the Evidence Act, if both parties fail to adduce
evidence, the suit must fail. Onus of proof, no doubt shifts and
the shifting is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence,
but this happens when in a suit for title and possession, the plaintiff
has been able to create a high degree of probability to shift the
onus on the defendant. In the absence of such evidence, the
burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and can be discharged only
when he is able to prove title. The weakness of the defence cannot
be a justification to decree the suit. The plaintiff could have
succeeded in respect of the Schedule ‘A’ property if she had
discharged the burden to prove the title to the Sc

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