9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (5) TMI 643 - SC - Indian LawsChallenged the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court - Oral Gift of the Property - acquired title by adverse possession - burden of proof - suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rents and also for damages for wrongful use and occupation of the property filed - jurisdiction of the Civil Court - HELD THAT - Respondent No. 3 was admittedly the owner of the property. As his ownership had not been disputed, the burden was on Respondent No. 1 to prove his title. It has, as noticed hereinbefore, claimed title (i) by reason of an oral gift; and (ii) by adverse possession. The High Court although noticed the lease came to an end in the year 1975 and if from the said date or at least from the date of purported oral gift allegedly made in its favour by Respondent No.1. Any change in the nature of its position occurred, it was expected of it to accept the same by its conduct. Why it would pay rent to Respondent No. 3 till October 1976 has not been explained. It is now well-settled that time creates title. Acquisition of a title is an inference of law arising out of certain set of facts. If in law, a person does not acquire title, the same cannot be vested only by reason of acquiescence or estoppel on the part of other. It may be true that Respondent No. 1 had constructed some buildings; but it did so at its own risk. If it though that despite its status of a tenant, it would raise certain constructions, it must have taken a grave risk. There is nothing on record to show that such permission was granted. Although Respondent No. 1 claimed its right, it did not produce any document in that behalf. No application for seeking such permission having been filed, an adverse inference in that behalf must be drawn. It may be true that Respondent No. 3 herein should have examined himself and the learned Trial Judge committed a serious error in drawing an adverse inference in that behalf as against Respondent No. 1. It was, however, so done keeping in view the fact that Respondent No. 3 was evidently not interested in the property in view of the fact that it had suffered a decree. For all intent and purport, even if the submission of Mr. Parasaran is accepted that the appellant is claiming is claiming only by reason of an award, he has transferred the property in his favour. He received a valuable consideration in terms of the award. We are not concerned with the validity thereof. Non-examination of Respondent No. 3 indisputably would give rise to a presumption, as has been held by this Court in Sardar Gurbaksh Singh v. Gurdial Singh 1927 (7) TMI 8 - PRIVY COUNCIL , Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari v. Radhabai Krishnarao Deshmukh 1930 (3) TMI 18 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , and The Ramanathapuram Market Committee, Virudhunagar v. East India Corpn. Ltd., Madurai 1975 (1) TMI 96 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao and Anr. 1999 (3) TMI 655 - SUPREME COURT , but by reason of presumption alone, the burden is not discharged. A title is not created. A claim of title by prescription by Respondent No. 1 again is not tenable. It based its claim on a title. It had, therefore, prima facie, no animus possidendi. In this case, the respondents have raised a plea of title in itself, the question in regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has not been raised, presumably in view of the fact, that ultimately the civil court was bound to determine the question whether the defendant/respondent No. 3 made an oral gift or not being a complicated question, could not have gone into in a suit under the Rent Control Act. In any event, such a question having not been raised, we are of the opinion that the same should not be permitted to be raised before us for the first time. Thus, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the oral gift claimed by Respondent No. 1. 2. Adverse possession claim by Respondent No. 1. 3. Burden of proof regarding the oral gift. 4. Limitation period for filing the suit. 5. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Oral Gift Claimed by Respondent No. 1: The primary issue was whether Respondent No. 3 made a valid oral gift of the property to Respondent No. 1. The Trial Court found against the validity of the oral gift, noting several points: - The burden of proof lay on Respondent No. 1, who failed to provide sufficient evidence. - No declaration was filed before the Urban Land Ceiling Authority in 1976. - No letter confirming the oral gift was produced. - No resolution was passed by the Governing Body of Respondent No. 1 accepting the gift. - No gift tax was paid. - No mutation was effected pursuant to the alleged oral gift. - The witnesses to the oral gift were deemed unreliable as they were closely associated with Respondent No. 1. The High Court, however, reversed this decision, suggesting that the lack of rent demand for ten years implied an oral gift and that the construction of buildings by Respondent No. 1 indicated ownership. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's reasoning was based on surmises and conjectures and reinstated the Trial Court's findings, emphasizing the heavy burden on Respondent No. 1 to prove the oral gift, which it failed to discharge. 2. Adverse Possession Claim by Respondent No. 1: Respondent No. 1 alternatively claimed title by adverse possession. The Trial Court rejected this claim, stating that Respondent No. 1 continued to be a tenant and had not shown any adverse possession. The High Court opined that once the tenancy was determined, the possession would be adverse. However, the Supreme Court held that Respondent No. 1, being a tenant, could not claim adverse possession as it had no animus possidendi (intention to possess). 3. Burden of Proof Regarding the Oral Gift: The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof for the oral gift lay heavily on Respondent No. 1. Despite the High Court's view that non-examination of Respondent No. 3 would give rise to an adverse inference, the Supreme Court held that the burden was not discharged by mere presumption. The Trial Court's detailed analysis of evidence and the demeanor of witnesses was upheld. 4. Limitation Period for Filing the Suit: The issue of limitation was raised, with Respondent No. 1 arguing that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 67 of the Limitation Act, which provides a 12-year period for recovery of possession from a tenant. The Supreme Court held that Article 67 was not applicable as Respondent No. 1 remained a statutory tenant. Instead, Article 65, which provides a 12-year period for possession based on title, was applicable. The suit was filed within this period. 5. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court: Respondent No. 1 raised the issue of jurisdiction, arguing that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to try the suit, which should have been under the Rent Control Act. The Supreme Court noted that this issue was not raised at the trial stage and could not be entertained for the first time at the appellate stage. The Court held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to determine the matter, especially given the complicated question of title involved. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and reinstated the Trial Court's decree in favor of the appellant, holding that Respondent No. 1 failed to prove the oral gift and could not claim adverse possession. The appeal was allowed with no costs.
|
