Suit – Declaration of title and perpetual injunction – Respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit against the appellants-defendants seeking declaration that they were the owners of the suit property – Trial Court dismissed the suit preferred by the respondents-plaintiffs as they failed to prove the source of their title – However, High Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs placing reliance on the book of endowments as maintained by the Endowment Department which showed the boundaries of a Temple adjacent to the suit property – On appeal, held: After perusing evidence on record, the respondents-plaintiffs in order to prove their title had relied upon several permissions of the municipality and tax receipts to prove their title – But the aforesaid documents might imply possession but they cannot be relied to confer title upon the holder – Further, book of Endowment alone was not sufficient to claim the title over the suit premises as it was only intended to demarcate the temple premises – On the contrary, appellant had put forth an earlier order passed by the Deputy Commissioner involving the same suit property – It was categorically held therein, that the suit property was related to the temple, and plaintiff no.1 (predecessor-in-interest of respondent no.1 to 6) was staying therein to perform his duty as “pujari” – Aggrieved, Plaintiff no.1 had filed O.S. No. 134/77 which was dismissed for default, hence earlier order had attained finality – Therefore, instant suit involving the same property seeking similar relief as O.S. No.134/77 was barred by time – Respondents-plaintiffs had failed to discharge their burden of proof by being unable to furnish necessary documentary and oral evidence to prove their claim – Thus, Judgment of the High Court untenable in law as it is based on erroneous appreciation of evidence.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The plaintiffs in order to substantiate their claims placed on record documentary evidences comprising of permissions granted by the municipality, property tax assessment papers, tax receipts and extract of the Book of Endowments of Ram Mandir. After perusing evidence on record, the respondentsplaintiffs in order to prove their title has relied upon several permissions of the municipality and tax receipts. But while, the aforesaid documents might imply possession but they cannot be relied to confer title upon the holder. Further, the respondentsplaintiffs have strongly relied upon the book of endowments as maintained by the Endowment Department which shows the boundaries of the temple. In any case, this document alone is not sufficient to claim the title over the suit premises as it was only intended to demarcate the temple premises. [Para 17] [1178-G-H; 1179-A-C]
2. On the contrary, the appellant-defendant no.4 has put forth the earlier order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, involving the same suit property. It was categorically held therein, that the suit property is related to the temple, and the plaintiff no.1 is staying therein to perform his duty. The earlier order also stated that, the suit property was originally granted as Inam to the forefathers of the plaintiffs for the conducting pooja and to feed the brahmins. In the aforesaid order, it also noted that, the plaintiff had removed the idols from the suit temple to meet his personal needs. Aggrieved, by the aforementioned order of Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff no.1 thereafter had filed O.S. No.134/77, before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court which came to be dismissed for default, hence has attained finality. Therefore, the present suit involving the same property seeking similar relief as O.S. No.134/77 is barred by time. However, the defence has also clearly averred that since the plaintiffs and their forefathers were working as pujaris in the Ram Temple, the endowment department in order to demarcate the Ram Mandir itself, mentioned the suit property as the adjoining premises. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the plaintiffs have failed to produce any evidence to counter the case put forth by the appellant-defendant no.4. [Para 18][1179-B-F]
3. In the present case, the respondents-plaintiffs failed to discharge their burden of proof by being unable to furnish necessary documentary and oral evidence to prove their claim. But, the High Court without appreciating the aforesaid evidences and claims made by the appellant (defendant no.4), decreed the suit in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs by solely relying on the entry made in the book of endowments department stating the boundaries of the temple. The aforesaid judgment of the High Court is untenable in law as it is based on erroneous appreciation of evidence. [Para 20][1180-B-D]
Corporation of City of Bangalore v. Zulekha Bi and Ors. (2008) 11 SCC 306 : [2008] 5 SCR 325 ; Parimal v. Veena (2011) 3 SCC 545 : [2011] 2 SCR 648 –
referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.