Union of India & Anr. vs S. Narasimhulu Naidu (Dead) through Lrs. and Ors.

(ii) whether the appellants have proved their title over the land in question?; (iii) whether appellant is a land grabber within the section 2(d) of the Act – Held: Though the first suit is between the same parties, but the subject matter is not the same – Since the issue in the suit was restricted to 4971.5 sq. yard, the decree would be binding qua that extent only – The issue cannot be said to be barred by constructive res judicata as per Explanation IV as it applies to the plaintiff in a later suit – The appellants have denied the claim of the plaintiffs in the first suit to the extent that it was the subject matter of that suit alone – Therefore, the decree in the first suit will not operate as res judicata in the subsequent matters – Since the land in question was transferred from the State, document of title is not required to be registered in terms of s.17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and/or in terms of Government Grants Act, 1895 – The letter dated 19.03.1958 completes the transfer when the possession of the land measuring 1500 acres and 24 guntas was handed over to Union – Appellants claim possession of 1500 acres and 24 guntas, although appellants have lost claim of 4971.5 sq. yards which is falling as part of 2 acres and 20 guntas, but that would not lead to losing of title of appellants over the entire land measuring 2 acres and 20 guntas – Further, military land register, which is also a public document (s.74 of the Evidence Act) shows possession of the appellants over the land – Appellants are owner of the land – Therefore, appellants are not land grabbers.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The following questions are required to be decided in the present appeals: (i) whether the order passed in the first suit filed by the plaintiff as affirmed by the High Court operate as res judicata?; (ii) whether the appellants have proved their title over the land in question?; (iii) whether appellant is a land grabber within the section 2(d) of the Act? [Para 24][1226C-D]

2. The The applicants have claimed possession from the appellants primarily on the ground that in the suit filed by the plaintiffs on 14.4.1965, the basis of the suit was purchase of land by the plaintiffs from the father of the applicants. Since the plaintiffs have been found to be the owners on the basis of purchase of land from the father of the applicants, therefore, the issue of title decided in the said suit would operate as res judicata. Therefore, the appellants herein are land grabbers having no title over the land in question. It may be reiterated that the plaintiffs had purchased land measuring 4971.5 sq. yards from the father of the applicants whereas the remaining land measuring 7128.5 sq. yards was retained by the applicants. Therefore, the decree in the first suit was only in respect of the schedule property in the first suit i.e. 4971.5 sq. yards. The patta, the basis of title of the applicants had not been produced in evidence before the Tribunal. Thus, the basic document of title had not been produced. [Para 25][1226-E-G]

3. In the first suit, the father of the applicants had not filed any counter claim to assert title or possession over the land in question. The land admeasuring 4971.5 sq. yards was a schedule property and the subject matter of the first suit. The issue no. 1 in the first suit was in respect of the possession of the plaintiffs and their predecessor-in-interest over the ‘suit land’ within 12 years prior to the suit. Therefore, the rights of the plaintiffs were examined in respect of such suit land measuring 4971.5 sq. yards alone, although, to return the finding on possession and title, possession of the father of the applicants over the land purchased by the Plaintiff was clubbed together on the basis of patta claimed to be granted to ‘SA’, though not produced or proved on record. [Para 26][1227-A-C]

4. In the second suit filed by the applicants, the entire basis of suit was the findings returned in the first suit. There is no independent evidence produced in respect of purchase of land by ‘SA’ and the legality or validity of Patta issued to him. Although, applicants have asserted that they have been visiting the land in question to verify their possession but apart from such plea, there is no evidence that there was any covert and overt act on the part of the plaintiffs to assert possession over the land in question. [Para 27][1227-C-D]

5. In fact, the appellants had entered into a settlement with the plaintiffs by which some of the land in possession was given to the decree holder in execution with the leave of the Court on 19.8.1995. Such action would show the assertion of title by the appellants so as to enter into exchange of land in satisfaction of the decree. The father of the applicants was party in the execution proceedings but has not objected to the exchange. It necessarily leads to an inference that the father of the applicants was not in possession and has not asserted the title or possession over the remaining land measuring 7128.5 sq. yards. On the other hand, the appellants have categorically asserted that they are in possession of the land from the date of transfer in the year 1958 when the Collector of Hyderabad handed over the possession to them. The appellants continued to be in unhanded possession over the last 30 years. [Para 28][1227-E-G]

The applicants have not claimed any title to the land which is claimed to be in their possession and the subject matter of the first suit was only 4971.5 sq. yards. Hence, the decree in the said suit is binding qua the land in suit only. [Para 36][1233-F-G]

6. Though the first suit is between the same parties, but the subject matter is not the same. For res judicata to apply, the matter in the former suit must have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly by the other. Since the issue in the suit was restricted to 4971.5 sq. yards, the decree would be binding qua to that extent only. The issue cannot be said to be barred by constructive res judicata as per Explanation IV as it applies to the plaintiff in a later suit. The appellants have denied the claim of the plaintiffs in the first suit to the extent that it was the subject matter of that suit alone. Therefore, the decree in the first suit will not operate as res judicata in the subsequent matters. [Para 37][1233-G-H; 1234A-B]

7. Now, the second question as to whether the appellants have proved their title over the land in question is examined. The appellants claim title over the land in question. Since the land is transferred from the State, document of title is not required to be registered in terms of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and/or in terms of Government Grants Act, 1895. The area of Asafnagar lines is 378 acres 16 guntas. In the appendix to the letter dated 10.10.1956, the details of the land comprising in the area measuring 378 acres 16 guntas is mentioned, which includes

2 acres 20 guntas of Miniature Rifle Range. Such land is reflected as in a Mallapally Area. The total area of Mallapally area and Asafnagar Lines is 378 acres and 16 guntas. The Mallapalli Lines is non-ISF Lines measuring 450 acres and 12 guntas which is distinct from Asafnagar Lines falling in ISF area measuring 378 acres and 16 guntas. Thus, Mallapally area and Mallapalli Lines are two different parcels of the land. The land in question herein is part of Asafnagar Lines handed over to the appellants as ISF Lines. The letter dated 19.3.1958 completes the transfer when the possession of land measuring 1500 acres and 24 guntas was handed over to the Union. [Para 41][1235-D-G]

The appellants claim to be in possession over the land measuring 1500 acres and 24 guntas from the year 1958. Although, the appellants have lost claim in respect of land measuring 4971.5 sq. yards which is falling as part of 2 acres and 20 guntas of land, but that would not lead to losing of the title of the appellants over the entire land measuring 2 acres and 20 guntas. [Para 42][1235H; 1236-A]

8. Therefore, by virtue of the provisions of Government Grants Act, 1895 read with Section 17(2)(vii) of the Registration Act, 1908, transfer of land to the appellant is complete. The appellant is the owner of the aforesaid land. The applicants have not produced any document regarding the patta in favour of Shaik Ahmed. They have not proved the title of their vendor so as to claim a rightful title over the land in question. Further, no patta could be granted to the applicants as the land was transferred by the State in their favour on 19.3.1958 and possession was claimed on the strength of sale deeds executed on 12.12.1959. [Para 43][1236-B-C]

9. Apart from the fact that the transfer of title in favour of the Union is complete when the possession was delivered, but even thereafter, the military land register and general land register produced by the appellants show the possession of the appellants over such land. The military land register and general land register are public documents within the meaning of Section

74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act) containing the records of the acts of the sovereign authority i.e., the Union as well as official body. Still further, Section 114 of the Evidence Act grants presumption of correctness being an official act having been regularly performed. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that such records were not maintained properly, the official record containing entries of ownership and possession would carry the presumption of correctness. In view of the transfer of land on 10.10.1956 followed by delivery of possession on 19.3.1958 and continuous assertion of possession thereof, it leads to the unequivocal finding that appellants are owners and in possession of the suit land. [Para 44][1236-C-F]

10. The third question is to examine whether the appellants are land grabbers and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain a petition under the Act. The objection of the appellants that they are not land grabbers and that the State Legislature will have no jurisdiction over the property of the Union need not to be examined in view of the finding that the appellants are in fact owners of the land in question. [Para 45][1236-F-G] K. Ethirajan (Dead) by LRs. v. Lakshmi & Ors. (2003)

10 SCC 578 : [2003] 4 Suppl. SCR 33 – held

inapplicable.

Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta (2010) 10 SCC

141 : [2010] 11 SCR 756; Daryao & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. AIR 1961 SC 1457 : [1962] SCR 574;

State of Karnataka & Anr. v. All India Manufacturers Organisation & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 683 : [ 2006] 1 Suppl. SCR 86; Ramadhar Shrivas v. Bhagwandas

(2005) 13 SCC 1; Mahboob Sahab v. Syed Ismail and Others (1995) 3 SCC 693 : [1995] 2 SCR 975;

Govindammal (Dead) by LRs & Ors. v. Vaidiyanathan & Ors. (2019) 17 SCC 433 : [2019] 17 SCC 433 –

relied on.

Munni Bibi (since deceased) & Anr. v. Tirloki Nath & Ors. AIR 1931 PC 114 – referred to.