LexUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus VASAVI CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014) 1 S.C.R. 180 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. VASAVI CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 4702 of 2004) JANUARY 07, 2014 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI JJ.] Suit: c Suit for title and possession - Onus - Held: In a suit for declaration of title and for possession, burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish his case by adducing sufficient evidence and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to D plaintiff - In the instant case, trial court as well as High Court rather than examining in depth, the question, as to whether the plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing their title to the suit land, went on to examine in depth the weakness of defendants' title - Plaintiffs have not succeeded in E establishing their title and possession over the suit land - Judgment of trial court, affirmed by High Court, is set aside. Evidence: Evidence as to title - Held: Revenue records do not F confer title - In a given case, the conferment of Patta as such does not confer title. Respondent no. 1 Co-op. Housing Society filed a suit against defendants-appellantsfor declaration of title over the suit land comprising 6 acres 30 guntas in Survey G No.6011 and 61 and for possession thereof from the appellants-defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 7. The respondent- plaintiff's case was that it had purchased the suit land from the Pattedar during the year 1981-82. The plaintiff H 180 UNION OF INDIA v. VASAVI CO-OP. HOUSING 181 SOCIETY LTD. relied on sale deeds, Setwar of 1353 Fasli (Ext. A-3) and A the family partition and settlement deed dated 11.12.1939 (Ext. A-2) pertaining to the family of the Pattedar. Defendant No. 3 filed a written statement stating that the suit land belonged to defendant no. 1 and it was locally managed and possessed by defendant No.3. The trial B court decreed the suit. The High Court, in appeal, affirmed the judgment and decree, but noticing that the defendants had made large scale construction of quarters for the Defence Accounts Department, afforded an opportunity to them to provide alternative suitable c extent of land in lieu of the suit scheduled land. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is trite law that in a suit for declaration of title, burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and D establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff. The plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession . can succeed only on the strength of his own title and that E can be done only by adducing !iufficient evidence to discharge the onus on him, irrespective of the question whether the defendant has proved his case or not. Even if the title set up by the defendants is found against, in the absence of establishment of plaintiff's own title, plaintiff F must be non-suited.[para 12 and 15] [191-G; 192-G] Maran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira AIR1959 SC 31 Nagar Palika, Jind v. Jagat Singh, Advocate 1995 (3) SCR 9 = (1995) 3 SCC 426 - relied on. 1.2. In the instant case, the trial court as well as the High Court rather than examining in depth, the question, as to whether the plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing their title on the scheduled suit land, went on to examine in depth the weakness of the defendants; G H 182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 1 S.C.R. A title. The defendants relied on the entries in the GLR and their possession or re-possession over the suit land to non-suit the plaintiffs. The court went on to examine the correctness and evidentiary value of the entries in the GLR in the context of the history and scope of B Cantonment Act, 1924 and the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1925 and tried tO establish that no reliance could be placed on the GLR. The question is not whether the GLR could be accepted or not, the question is, whether the plaintiff could prove its title over the suit c property. The entries in the GLR by themselves may not constitute title, but the question is whether entries made in Ext.A-3 (Setwar of 1353 Fasli) relied upon by the plaintiff would confer title on the plaintiff. [para 161 [192-H; 193- A-C] D 1.3. This Court in several Judgments has held that the revenue records do not confer title. Even if the entries in the Record of Rights ca
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.