Ownership of Plaintiffs over the Suit Property – Not specifically denied:
Held: In their written statement before the Trial Court, the appellants did not specifically deny the plaintiffs' ownership of the suit property – Instead, they primarily relied on the plea of adverse possession – Under Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, allegations of fact not denied specifically are deemed to be admitted – By asserting adverse possession, the appellants have impliedly admitted the plaintiffs' title. [Para 8] Relevance of Revenue Records as evidence in title dispute: Held: The jamabandi for the year 1969-70 records the name of Shri Amin Lal as owner to the extent of half share – Revenue records are public documents maintained by government officials in the regular course of duties and carry a presumption of correctness under Section
35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – While it is true that revenue entries do not by themselves confer title, they are admissible as evidence of possession and can support a claim of ownership when corroborated by other evidence – Further, Registered sale deeds and mutation records produced by the Respondents establish a chain of title and cannot be ignored – The plaintiffs have established their ownership of the suit property. [Paras 8 and 15] Burden of Proof to establish title – Shifting of: Held: The appellants failed to deny the plaintiffs' title specifically and instead relied on adverse possession, the burden has shifted to the appellants to prove their adverse possession – In the present case, the plaintiffs have sought possession based on their title, which they have established through documentary evidence – The First Appellate Court erroneously placed the burden of proving ownership on the plaintiffs, despite the defendants' admission of their title by pleading adverse possession – The court disregarded the jamabandi entries and other revenue records without valid justification. [Paras 9 and 14]
Adverse Possession by State against a Citizen:
Held: It is a fundamental principle that the State cannot claim adverse possession over the property of its own citizens – In Vidya Devi v. State of H.P ((2020) 2 SCC 569), this Court emphatically held that the State cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession – Allowing the State to appropriate private property through adverse possession would undermine the constitutional rights of citizens and erode public trust in the government. [Paras 10, 11 and 15]
Adverse Possession – Constituents:
Held: The appellants' possession, as evidenced by the Misal Hakiyat of 1879-80, was permissive and conditional – Such permissive possession cannot be the basis for a claim of adverse possession – The acts relied upon by the appellants such as placing bitumen drums, erecting temporary structures, and constructing a boundary wall in 1980 do not constitute adverse possession – Adverse possession requires possession that is continuous, open, peaceful, and hostile to the true owner for the statutory period – In this case, the appellants' possession lacks the element of hostility and the requisite duration. [Paras 11 and 12]
Jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Held: Appellants’ contention that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by reappreciating evidence and interfering with findings of fact has no legs to stand – The High Court found that the First Appellate Court had ignored material evidence and legal principles, leading to a perverse judgment – Therefore, the High Court was justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure – The High Court's judgment is based on sound legal principles and correct appreciation of evidence. [Paras 13 and 15]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Adeeba Mujahid, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv.). 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.