Supreme Court of India
AVTAR SINGH AND ORS.versusGURDIAL SINGH AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2006 INSC 948
- Decided
- 4 December 2006
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
The admission that the land is shamlat deh is conclusive, the land is public, and the appellants have no title, leading to dismissal of the appeals.
Summary
The dispute concerned a parcel of land in village Nardu, alleged to be either private property of the appellants or a public street (shamlat deh). The trial court held the appellants had title and dismissed the respondents' injunction suit; the appellate court and the High Court reversed, finding the land to be public and the appellants without title. On appeal, the Supreme Court noted that the appellants themselves admitted in their own suit that the land was shamlat deh. Relying on Section 58 of the Evidence Act, the Court held that such an admission is conclusive as to the nature of the land and need not be proved. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them, leaving the lower courts' findings undisturbed.
Issues considered
- Whether the disputed land is private property or public street (shamlat deh).
- Whether the admission by the appellants that the land is shamlat deh can be taken as conclusive evidence under Section 58 of the Evidence Act.
- Whether the findings of the First Appellate Court and the High Court can be interfered with on the basis of the admission.
Legislation cited
Subjects
admissionEvidence ActSection 58public landshamlat dehtitleinjunctioncivil appealproperty law
Judgment
AVTAR SINGH AND ORS. A
v.
GURDIAL SINGH AND ORS.
DECEMBER 4, 2006
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B
Evidence Act, 1872:
Section 58-Admission as to nature of land-In suit filed by appellants, C
admission by them that suit land was public land-Appellate authority
arriving at finding that the land was not private property of appellant and
High Court upholding same-Held, In view of admission of appellant in their
own suit, interference with the findings of facts not called for.
The dispute related to the suit land situated on the north of house of D
appellants and west of house of respondents. Respondents filed suit for
permanent and mandatory injunction while appellants filed suit for permanent
injunction restraining respondent from interfering or dispossessing them
from suit land. Trial Court dismissed the suit of respondent and decreed the
suit of appellants holding that appellants have proved their title over suit land E
and thus have not encroached over public land. Appellate court held that the
suit land formed part of public street and appellants have failed to prove that
they had acquired any right, title and interest therein. The High Court upheld
the findings of appellate authority. Hence these appeals.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court F
HELD: 1. In the suit filed by appellant an admission was made by him
that the land in question was shamlat deh. The nature of the land being
'shamlat deb', indisputably could not have been a private property. Even from
the boundaries of the suit land it appears that one side thereof is sham lat deb
land and on two sides there exist katcha passage. All other attributes of a G
public street e.g. laying down of the electric wire was found. (36-C]
2.1. Admission forms the best evidence. It may be that admission does
not create any title, but the nature of the land can form subject matter of
admission. Section 58 of the Evidence Act postulates that things admitted need H
33
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R.
A not be proved. (36-D-E]
2.2. It may be that in their suit the respondents did not call for the records
from the State or the local authorities to show that the land in question was
a public street but keeping in view the fact that the appellants' witnesses have
admitted the said fact in their own Suit, the findings of fact arrived at by the
B First Appellate Court and affirmed by the High Court need not be interfered ./·
with. (36-E-Fl
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5654 of2006.
C From the final Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2004 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 4400/2002. ·
Ms. Shikha Ray, S.K. Pubbi and S.K. Sabharwal for the Appellants.
Anis Ahmed Khan, Anees Ahmad Khan and Shoaib Ahmad Khan for
D the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
E Both these appeals involving common questions of law and fact were
taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common
judgment.
The dispute between the parties arise in respect of a land situated at
village Nardu, Teshil Rajpura butted and bounded as follows:
F
"North: House and compound of Avtar Singh and Jatinder
defendants.
South : Kacha Passage
East: Kacha Passage and shamlat land
G
West: House and compound of Gurdial Singh"
Suit No. 283-T93/l 2.9.9 I was filed by the respondents herein. Suit No.
28T/98/8.I0.91 was filed by the appellants herein. Whereas the respondents
filed a Suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, the appellants herein
H filed a Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defedants from interfering
or dis-possessing them from the suit land, the description whereof was given
...
AVTAR SINGH v. GURDIAL SINGH [S.B. SINHA, J.] 35
and whereafter a site plan was filed. Whereas the suits of the respondents A
were dismissed by the learned trial Judge, the Suit of the appellants was
decreed.
The parties preferred respective appeals from the said judgments and
decree. The Appellate Court inter a/ia held that the land in question form part
of a public street and the appellants before us have failed to prove that they B
had acquired any right, title and interest. Although in the Suit filed by the
respondents herein the Appellate Court posed a wrong question as regard
onus of proof but keeping in view the fact that in the Suit filed by the
appellants an admission was made by him that the land in question was a
Sham lat deb, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case and for the reasons C
stated hereinafter, whether we should interfere with the impugned judgments.
We would like to set out here the findings of fact arrived at by the
learned First Appellate Court:
" ... 11. PW l. Harchand Singh and PW2 Rajinder Singh have admitted
D
in their cross-examination that a door, two windows and on parnala
of the house of Gurdial Singh defendant open towards the site in
• dispute. Both of them have also admitted that electric wires also pass
through the disputed land. PW.2 has also stated that an electric pole
is there in the site in dispute. PW2 has gone to the extent to state that
the site shown in site plans Exs. Pl and P2 was shamlat deh. E
12. PW4 Jatinder Singh who has appeared as special attorney ofno.2
has stated in his cross-examination that Gurdev Singh was having
document of title with him. If that is so, then it can be said that
the plaintiff have withheld the best evidence available with them
regarding the ownership of the disputed site and adverse inference F
must be drawn against them.
13. As per the admission of PW2, the site shown in site plans Exs.
Pl and P2 was shamlat deh. If that is so them it can be said that
side could not be sold by a private person. Case of the defendants
is also that part of the site purchased by the plaintiffs was G
shamlat deb. And they have shown it to be so in their site plan.
Remaining portion of the site purchased by the plaintiffs was a
passage common chowk.
14. The above discussion would lead to the conclusion tltat the trial
court fell in error while holding that the plaintiff are able to prove H
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R.
A their title over the site in dispute. In the connected appeal i.e.
civil appeal No. 159-T of20.3.99/l5.2.99, the title Gurdial Singh
and Ors. v. Avtar Singh and Ors., decided by this Court, appeal
has been accepted and judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court have been set aside and suit of the plaintiffs (defendants
in the present case) have been decreed and the defendants
B (plaintiffs in the present case) have been directed to remove the
encroachment made by them in the site in suit."
The question which arose for consideration in ,the said suit is as to
whether the appellants have encroached upon a public street. The nature of
C the land being 'shamlat deh', indisputably could not have been a private
property. Even from the boundaries of the suit land it appears that one side
thereof is shamlat deh land and on two sides there exist katcha passage. All
other attributes of a public street e.g. laying down of the electric wire was
found.
D Admission, it is well know, forms the best evidence. It may be that
admission does not create any title. but the nature of the land can form
subject matter of admission.
Section 58 of the Evidence Act postulates that things admitted need not
be proved.
E
It may be that in their Suit the respondents herein did not call for the
records from the State or the local authorities to show that the land in
question was a public street but keeping in view the fact that the appellants'
witnesses have admitted the said fact in their own Suit, we are of the opinion,
F
the findings of fact arrived at by the First Appellate Court and affirmed by
the High Court need not be interfered with. •
For the reasons aforementioned, we find no merit in these appeals. The
appeals are dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances
of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
G D.G. Appeals dismissed.
.
.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "admission"Sign in to search