2016 (3) TMI 1394 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking declaration of title and joint possession over the said suit property - Whether the High Court has erred in upsetting the findings of facts by reversing the judgment and decree of the first appellate court? - HELD THAT - The High Court has erred in reversing the judgment and order passed by the first appellate court. The High Court should have noticed that the Plaintiffs/Appellants are the owners of the suit land by way of registered sale deed. The non-application of mind on the part of the High Court on the aforesaid vital aspect of the case is erroneous in law as it is not based on the correct appreciation of facts and evidence on record. Whether the plea taken by deceased Respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 being in possession as a lessee could claim the alternate plea of adverse possession taken by Respondent No. 1 or vice-versa? - HELD THAT - Respondent No. 1 has no right to claim ownership over the suit property on the ground of adverse possession by taking a plea of sham transaction. This plea of the Respondent is not only prohibited by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, but makes the Appellants absolute owner. In the case of Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand and Ors. 1993 (8) TMI 317 - Supreme Court , this Court held that the entries in jamabandi are not proof of title in respect of an immoveable property. In the case of Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh and Ors. 1993 (9) TMI 370 - Supreme Court , this Court observed that entries made by patwari in official record are only for the purpose of records and do not by itself prove the correctness of the same nor can statutory presumption be drawn on the same, particularly, in the absence of corroborative evidence. The Respondent cannot claim to have acquired title over the suit property by pleading adverse possession only in the absence of the name of the Appellants in the revenue records. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is erroneous in law and suffers from infirmity and is required to be interfered with by this Court - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of judgment setting aside decree in favor of Appellants
2. Claim of ownership through adverse possession

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of judgment setting aside decree in favor of Appellants
The case involved a dispute over ownership of land between the Appellants and the Respondent. The Appellants had purchased land through registered sale deeds, while the Respondent claimed ownership through adverse possession. The trial court dismissed the Appellants' suit, but the first appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the Respondent had not acquired legal ownership through adverse possession. However, the High Court set aside the first appellate court's judgment, ruling in favor of the Respondent. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in reversing the first appellate court's decision. It emphasized that the Appellants were the rightful owners based on the registered sale deeds, and the High Court's failure to consider this crucial fact was a legal error.

Issue 2: Claim of ownership through adverse possession
The Respondent attempted to claim ownership over the land through adverse possession, arguing that the sale deeds were sham transactions. However, the Supreme Court rejected this claim, stating that such a plea was prohibited by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The Court emphasized that the Appellants were the absolute owners of the land based on the registered sale deeds. Additionally, the Court noted that the Respondent had not disclosed crucial facts, such as being a lessee on the land prior to the sale deeds, which further weakened the claim of adverse possession. The Court cited previous judgments to support its conclusion that mutation of entries in revenue records does not confer title and that adverse possession requires more than mere possession over time.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and reinstating the first appellate court's decision in favor of the Appellants. The Court emphasized the importance of considering registered sale deeds in determining ownership and rejected the Respondent's claim of adverse possession based on the prohibition of sham transactions. The judgment highlighted the need for parties to disclose all relevant facts and provided legal precedent supporting the decision.