2014 (1) TMI 1950 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking a declaration of title over land comprising 6 acres 30 guntas and recovery of the vacant possession - whether the Plaintiff has got ownership and possession over 6 acres and 30 guntas covered by Survey No. 60/1 and 61 of Kakaguda village for which considerable reliance was placed on the settlement record (Setwar Ex. A-3 of 1353 Fasli)? HELD THAT - It is trite law that in a suit for declaration of title burden always lies on the Plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness if any of the case set up by the Defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the Plaintiff. The High Court has taken the view that once the evidence is let in by both the parties the question of burden of proof pales into insignificance and the evidence let in by both the parties is required to be appreciated by the court in order to record its findings in respect of each of the issues that may ultimately determine the fate of the suit. The High Court has also proceeded on the basis that initial burden would always be upon the Plaintiff to establish its case but if the evidence let in by Defendants in support of their case probabilities the case set up by the Plaintiff such evidence cannot be ignored and kept out of consideration. The legal position therefore is clear that the Plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it irrespective of the question whether the Defendants have proved their case or not - even if the title set up by the Defendants is found against in the absence of establishment of Plaintiff s own title Plaintiff must be non-suited. In Corporation of the City of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah and Anr. 1989 (8) TMI 369 - SUPREME COURT held that it is firmly established that revenue records are not documents of title and the question of interpretation of document not being a document of title is not a question of law. A family settlement is based generally on the assumption that there was an antecedent title of some kind in the purchase and the arrangement acknowledges and defines what that title was. In a family settlement-cum-partition the parties may define the shares in the joint property and may either choose to divide the property by metes and bounds or may continue to live together and enjoy the property as common - Both the trial Court and the High Court made a detailed exercise to find out whether the GLR Register maintained under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules 1937 and the entries made there under will have more evidentiary value than the Revenue records made by the Survey Department of the State Government. The Plaintiff has not succeeded in establishing his title and possession of the suit land in question. The appeal is therefore allowed and the judgment of the trial court affirmed by the High Court is set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership and possession of the disputed land.
2. Evidentiary value of settlement records (Setwar) and General Land Register (GLR) entries.
3. Burden of proof in a suit for declaration of title and possession.
4. Relevance of revenue records and family settlement deeds in establishing title.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership and Possession of the Disputed Land:
The primary issue was whether the Plaintiff had ownership and possession over 6 acres and 30 guntas covered by Survey No. 60/1 and 61 of Kakaguda village. The Plaintiff claimed title based on various sale deeds and historical settlement records (Setwar). The Defendants, however, argued that the land belonged to the Defence Department as per the GLR Survey No. 445.

2. Evidentiary Value of Settlement Records (Setwar) and General Land Register (GLR) Entries:
The Plaintiff relied heavily on the Setwar of 1353 Fasli, which showed the land as patta land of their predecessors. The Defendants countered with the GLR, which classified the land as B-4, managed by the Defence Estates Officer. The court noted that revenue records, including Setwar, do not confer title. The GLR entries, while not constituting title, were also scrutinized for their evidentiary value.

3. Burden of Proof in a Suit for Declaration of Title and Possession:
The court reiterated that in a suit for declaration of title, the burden lies on the Plaintiff to establish a clear case. The Plaintiff must succeed on the strength of their own title, not on the weakness of the Defendant's case. The High Court had initially taken the view that once evidence is presented by both parties, the burden of proof becomes less significant. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the Plaintiff must independently prove their title to the suit land.

4. Relevance of Revenue Records and Family Settlement Deeds in Establishing Title:
The Plaintiff's case was based on historical revenue records and a family settlement deed from 1939. The court noted that revenue records like Setwar and Pahani Patrika have evidentiary value but do not confer title. The family settlement deed did not mention the suit land, raising doubts about the Plaintiff's claim. The court highlighted that the absence of the suit land in the family settlement deed cast doubt on the Plaintiff's ownership and title.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the Plaintiff failed to establish their title and possession of the suit land. The appeal was allowed, and the judgments of the trial court and High Court were set aside. The court emphasized that the Plaintiff must succeed on the strength of their own case and not on the weakness of the Defendant's case. The court did not find sufficient evidence to grant the declaration of title and possession to the Plaintiff.