9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etermine 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... struction of quarters for the Defence Accounts Department, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that an opportunity be given to the Appellants to provide alternative suitable extent of land in lieu of the scheduled suit land, for which eight months' time was granted from the date of the judgment. Aggrieved by the same, the Union of India and others have filed the present appeal. FACTS 2. The Plaintiff's case is that it had purchased the land situated in Survey Nos. 60, 61 and 62 of Kakaguda Village from Pattedar B.M. Rama Reddy and his sons and others during the year 1981-82. The suit land in question forms part of Survey Nos. 60 and 61. The suit land in question belonged to the family of B. Venkata Narasimha Reddy consisting of himself and his sons Anna Reddy, B.V. Pulla Reddy and B.M. Rama Reddy and Anna Reddy's son Prakash Reddy. Land in old Survey No. 53 was allotted to Rama Reddy vide registered family settlement and partition deed dated 11.12.1939 (Ex. A2). In the subsequent re-settlement of village (Setwar of 1353 FASLI), the land in Survey No. 53 was re-numbered as Survey No. 60, 61 and 62. Ever since the allotment in the family partition of the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 of Kakaguda village are patta lands as per the settlement records and vacant, abutting Tirumalagiri village boundaries to Military Pillars and not partly covered in Survey No. 60. Plaintiff later filed an application for issuing of a certificate as per the plan prepared by the Revenue Records Under Section 19(v) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Plaintiff further stated that pending that application, officers of Garrison Engineers, on the direction of the 3rd Defendant, illegally occupied land measuring 2 acres and 29 guntas in Survey No. 60 and 4 acres and 01 guntas in Survey No. 61. Thus, a total extent of land 6 acres and 30 guntas was encroached upon and construction was effected despite the protest by the Plaintiff. Under such circumstances, the Plaintiff preferred the present suit, the details of which have already been stated earlier. 5. The 3rd Defendant filed a written statement stating that an area of land measuring 7 acres and 51 guntas, out of Survey No. 1, 60 and 61 of Kakaguda village comprising G.L.R. Survey No. 445 of Cantonment belongs to the first Defendant, which is locally managed and possessed by Defendant No. 3 being local representative of Defendant No. 1 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tas and if that be so, after sub-division the extent of sub-divided survey numbers would also remain the same, but the extent of sub-divided Survey Nos. 60, 61 and 62 were increased to 41 acres and 32 guntas in the revenue records without any notice to the Defendants which according to the Defendants, was fraudulently done by one Venkata Narasimha Reddy, the original land owner of Survey No. 53 of Kakaguda village, who himself was the Patwari of Kakaguda village. Further, it was the stand of the Defendants that in exercise of powers under The Secunderabad and Aurangabad Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1930, the G.L.R. of 1933 was prepared by Captain O.M. James after making detailed enquiries from the holder of occupancy rights as well as general public. Further, it is also stated that certain land within the villages were handed over by the then Nizam to British Government for military use. Land in question measuring 7 acres and 51 guntas in G.L.R. 1933 at Survey No. 581 was used by the British Government as murram pits and it was classified as Class-C land vested in the Cantonment Authority. G.L.R. 1933 was re-written in the year 1956 in view of the provisions of Rule 3 of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectly appreciated and understood the legal position and correctly discarded the entries made in the G.L.R. Learned senior Counsel submitted that the correctness and evidentiary value of G.L.R. entries have to be appreciated in the context of the history of the Secunderabad Cantonment. Reference was made to the provisions of Cantonment Act, 1924 and it was pointed out that the Secunderabad and Aurangabad Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1930 do not apply to the Kakaguda village. Learned senior Counsel have also referred to Ex. A6, the Sesala Pahani for the year 1955-58, of Kakaguda village, Ex. A7, the Pahani Patrika for the year 1971-72, Ex. A8, the Pahani Patrika for the year 1972-73 and submitted that they would indicate that Methurama Reddy, the predecessor in title, was the Pattedar of Survey Nos. 60 and 61 of Kakaguda village. It was pointed out that the entries made therein have evidentiary value. Learned Counsel pointed out that the Settlement Register prepared under the Statutes and Pahanies maintained under the Hyderabad Record of Rights in Land Regulations of 1358, Fasli have considerable evidentiary value. Further, it was also pointed out that the land in question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. We are of the view that 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. 16. We notice that the trial court as well as the High Court rather than examining that question in depth, as to whether the Plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing their title on the scheduled suit land, went on to examine in depth the weakness of the Defendants title. Defendants relied on the entries in the GLR and their possession or repossession over the suit land to non-suit the Plaintiffs. The court went on to examine the correctness and evidentiary value of the entries in the GLR in the context of the history and scope of Cantonment Act, 1924, the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1925 and tried to establish that no reliance could be placed on the GLR. The question is not whether the GLR could be accepted or not, the question is, whether the Plaintiff could prove its title over the suit pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We are of the view that these entries, as such, would not confer any title. Plaintiffs have to show, independent of those entries, that the Plaintiff's predecessors had title over the property in question and it is that property which they have purchased. The only document that has been produced before the court was the registered family settlement and partition deed dated 11.12.1939 of their predecessor in interest, wherein, admittedly, the suit land in question has not been mentioned. 21. Learned senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that the land in question is pot kharab and since no tax is being paid, the same would not normally be mentioned in the partition deed or settlement deed. The A.P. Survey and Settlement Manual, Chapter XIII deals with pot kharab land, which is generally a non-cultivable land and if the predecessors in interest had ownership over this pot kharab land, the suit land, we fail to see, why there is no reference at all to the family settlement and partition deed dated 11.12.1939. Admittedly, the predecessor in interest of the Plaintiff got this property in question through the above-mentioned family settlement and partition deed. Consp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Anr. (2012) 8 SCC 148, Union of India and Ors. v. Kamla Verma (2010) 13 SCC 511, Chief Executive Officer v. Surendra Kumar Vakil and Ors. (1999) 3 SCC 555 and Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Andhra Circle, Secundrabad v. Mohd. Mohiuddin and Ors. (2003) 12 SCC 315. 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. In our view, such an exercise was totally unnecessary. Rather than finding out the weakness of GLR, the Courts ought to have examined the soundness of the Plaintiff case. We reiterate that the Plaintiff has to succeed only on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the case set up by the Defendants in a suit for declaration of title and possession. 23. In such circumstances, we are of the view that 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, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
