THE STATE OF A.P. & ORS. versus M/S. STAR BONE MILL & FERTILISER CO.

Citation: [2013] 4 S.C.R. 394 · Decided: 21-02-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 4 S.C.R. 394 
THE STATE OF A.P. & ORS. 
v. 
MIS. STAR BONE MILL & FERTILISER CO. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6690 of 2004) 
FEBRUARY 21, 2013 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
Property Law - Ownership and title -
Suit filed by 
C respondent in 1974 on basis of registered sale deed dated 
11-11-1959 for declaration of title - Trial court decreed the 
suit, holding that appellant-Government was not the owner of 
the suit property, and that the respondent had a better title over 
it- Order upheld by High Court- On appeal, held: The Courts 
o below erred in ignoring the revenue record, particularly, the 
documents showing that the Government was the absolute 
owner of the suit property since at least 1920 - Unless Mis A 
(the vendor of respondent) had valid title, the respondent 
could not claim any relief whatsoever from court - There was 
E 
clear admission by respondent in its letter dated 22-5-1970 
to the Chief Minister of the State to the effect that it had been 
cheated by Mis. A which had no title over the suit property, 
and had executed sale deed in favour of respondent by way 
of misrepresentation - Documents on record established that 
F 
Mis A was merely a lessee of the appellant-Government -
Sale deed relied upon by the respondent thus invalid and 
inoperative - Suit filed by respondent accordingly dismissed 
- Maxims - Nemo dat quid non habet and Nemo plus juris 
tribuit quam ipse habet. 
G 
Evidence Act, 1872 - s.90 - Purpose of- Held: Is to do 
away with strict rules, as regards requirement of proof, which 
are enforced in the case of private documents, by giving rise 
to a presumption of genuineness, in respect of certain 
documents that have reached a certain age - The period is 
H 
394 
STATE OF A.P. & ORS. v. STAR BONE MILL & 
395 
FERTILISER CO. 
to be reckoned backward from the date of the offering of the 
A 
document, and not any subsequent date, i.e., the date of 
decision of suit or appeal - Deeds and documents - Ancient 
documents - Admissibility of. 
Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 110 - Presunption of title as a 
8 
result of possession - Held: Can arise only where facts 
disclose that no title vests in any party. 
On 21.5.1943, a lease deed had been executed by the 
appellant-Government in respect of the land in question 
in favour of Mis 'A'. The appellant-Government asked Mi C 
s 'A' to vacate the land. However, Mis. 'A' remained in 
possession. On 11.11.1959, the partners of Mis. 'A' 
executed a sale deed in favour of the respondent for 
money consideration. The respondent filed a petition 
seeking permanent lease of the land in his favour D 
whereupon an order was passed by the Ministry for 
recovery of arrears of rent The respondent then wrote a 
letter to the Chief Minister of the State, stating that he had 
been cheated by Mis. A as it had executed a sale deed in 
his favour, even though it had no title, and a very high 
E 
rate of rent was fixed by the department, which should 
be reduced. The application/petition was rejected. The 
respondent filed a Writ Petition. The High Court disposed 
of the writ petition, asking the respondent to approach 
the appropriate forum, or to make a representation to the 
F 
State Government. The appellants then served notice 
upon the respondent under Section 7 of the Land 
Encroachment Act. The matter was adjudicated under 
Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, and the 
respondent was directed to vacate the suit land. The 
G 
respondent filed another Writ Petition before the High 
Court, however, the same was dismissed, after giving 
liberty to the respondent to approach the civil court. 
The respondent thereafter filed suit for declaration of 
title and for injunction, restraining the appellants from 
H 
396 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 4 S.C.R. 
A evicting the respondent from the property in dispute. The 
City Civil Court decreed the suit, holding that the 
Government was not the owner of the suit land, and that 
the respondent/plaintiff had a better title over it. 
Aggrieved, the appellants preferred appeal before the 
B High Court, which was dismissed. 
In the instant appeal, the appellants inter alia 
contended that the courts below misdirected themselves 
and did not determine the issue as regards, whether the 
vendor of the respondent had any title over the suit 
C property which was necessary to determine the validity 
of the sale deed in favour of the respondent; and that the 
courts below erred in applying the

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