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 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][372H; 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 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 Schedule ‘A’ property which squarely falls on her. This would be the true effect of Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, it follows that the plaintiff should have satisfied and discharged the burden under the provisions of the Evidence Act, failing which the suit would be liable to be dismissed. [Para 31][373-C-E; 374-A-C] Poona Ram v. Moti Ram (Dead) through Legal
Representatives and Others (2019) 11 SCC 309 : [2019]
1 SCR 671; Nair Service Society Limited v. Rev. Father K.C. Alexander and Others, AIR 1968 SC 1165 : [1968]
3 SCR 163; Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558 : [2006] 1 Suppl. SCR 659;
R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu
Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and Another (2003) 8 SCC 752 : [2003] 4 Suppl. SCR 450; Union of India and Others v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Others (2014) 2 SCC 269 : [2014] 1 SCR
180 and Sebastiao Luis Fernandes (DEAD) Through LRs. And Others v. K.V.P. Shastri (DEAD) Through LRs. and Others (2013) 15 SCC 161 : [2013] 11 SCR 1076 – relied on.
Addagada Raghavamma and Another v. Addagada
Chenchamma and Another AIR 1964 SC 136 : [1964]
2 SCR 933 – 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.