STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus NOMI SINGH AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2015] 3 S.C.R. 798 · Decided: 24-03-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2015] 3 S.C.R. 798 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
v. 
NOMI SINGH AND ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No. 3050 of2015) 
MARCH 24, 2015. 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Evidence- Onus to prove title an~ possession - Plaintiff 
claiming to be Bhumiswamis of the land in question on the 
C basis ofkhasra entry-After losing the case in the first round 
from trial court, plaintiff amended the plaint taking plea of 
adverse possession - Matter remanded by first appellate 
court - In second round also suit dismissed and the order 
was confirmed by first appellate court- High Court in second 
D appeal decreed the suit - On appeal, held: Plaintiff has to 
stand on his own legs to prove his case - The plaintiffs have 
failed to prove their case either on the claim as Bhumiswamis 
or on the ground of adverse possession - High Court wrongly 
E decreed the suit by placing onus of proof of title and 
possession of plaintiffs on defendant - Suit liable to be 
dismissed. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1. High Court has erred in law in allowing the 
second appeal and setting aside the decree passed by 
the first appellate court. In respect of relief claimed by a 
plaintiff, he has to stand on his own legs by proving his 
case. The High Court has erroneously placed onus of 
G proof of title and possession of the plaintiffs, on 
defendant. The High Court has completely ignored the 
fact that the plaintiff after losing case in the first round 
from trial court, got amended the plaint and took plea of 
H adverse possession, on which, matter was remanded 
798 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. NOMI SINGH 
799 
to the trial court, and after hearing the parties, the suit A 
was again dismissed, which was upheld by the first 
appellate court. The above approach of the High Court 
is against the law and it erred in law in reversing the 
decree passed by the trial court and that of the first 
appellate court by shifting burden of proof on the B 
defendant. [Paras 10, 12 and 15] [802-G; 803-F-H] 
2. Though the plaintiffs have pleaded that the 
predecessor in interest was granted oral patta by 
erstwhile Zamindar, but it has not been averred in the C 
plaint as to in which year or Samvat such an oral patta 
was given. First appellate court has rightly taken note 
of the fact that if the respondents (plaintiffs) were 
Bhumiswamis, they could have filed the receipts of D 
payments of land revenue (Lagaan), or the receipts of 
crop profi~ paid to the Zamindar. Though the plaintiffs 
did file some documentary proof in the form of khasra 
entry in respect of some of the plots in question, for the 
period of 1950-1952 (i.e. when admittedly land was E 
allotted for one year to predecessor in interest of the 
plaintiff), but the subsequent entries for period Samvat 
2013 to Samvat 2018 disclosed that the land in question 
was part of industrial area and recorded in favour of the 
Commercial Department of the State. To succeed on the F 
plea of adverse possession, the plaintiffs should have 
disclosed and proved as to when the adverse 
possession started and when it was perfected by them, 
particularly when they were declared encroachers way 
back in the year 1978 by the Tehsildar. As such, the G 
plaintiffs have failed to prove their case on the grounds 
taken by them in the plaint. [Paras 13 and 14] [804-A-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
H 
800 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
3050 of2015. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.05.2011 of the 
High Court of M. P. at Gwalior in SA No. 256 of 2005. 
B 
S.K. Dubey, G.D. Singh, Sakshi KakkarfortheAppellant. 
c 
Vikas Upadhyay, Nitin Gaur, Ananya Mishra for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered b'y 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal is directed against 
judgment and order dated 30.5.2011, passed by the High Court 
of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, in Second Appeal No. 
256 of 2005 whereby said court alloVl(ed the second appeal 
D and set aside the decree passed by VIII Additional District 
Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Appeal No. 5A of 2005, and the one 
dated 30.11.2004 passed by the trial court 01 Civil Judge Class 
II, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No. 189Aof 2004). 
E 
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 
papers on record. 
3. Briefly stated, case of the appellant (defendant) is that 
land in question bearing survey Nos. 376 to 400 and 401 to 
F 411, measuring 45 bigha 10 biswa situated at village Dinapur, 
Tehsil and District Gwalior, w

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