Supreme Court of India
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.versusBHAGWANTPAL SINGH ALIAS BHAGWANT SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 518
- Decided
- 10 July 2024
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- VIKRAM NATH
Holding
The suit for possession is barred by the 12‑year limitation period, the burden of proving ownership rests on the plaintiff, and a revenue‑record entry does not confer title, leading to the allowance of the appeal.
Summary
The State of Punjab claimed that a 2176.6 sq. yard parcel of land had been donated by Shri Inder Singh in 1958 for a veterinary hospital, which the State built and has occupied ever since. The plaintiff, Bhagwantpal Singh, son of the donor, filed a suit for possession in 2001, alleging that the State had no title. The Supreme Court examined whether the suit was barred by the 12-year limitation period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and held that the State's possession began in 1958, making the suit time‑barred. It also clarified that the burden of proving ownership rests on the challenger under Section 110 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and that a name in revenue records does not confer title. The Court found the plaint vague and deliberately drafted to evade limitation, and rejected the plaintiff's claim of adverse possession. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court judgment and confirming the dismissal of the suit.
Issues considered
- Whether the suit for possession filed by the respondents is barred by the limitation period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963
- Whether the burden of proof of ownership lies on the party challenging the possession under Section 110 of the Evidence Act, 1872
- Whether a continued entry of the plaintiff's name in revenue records (Jama Bandi) confers title
- Whether the plaint is sufficiently specific or is deliberately vague to circumvent the limitation defence
- Whether the State can claim adverse possession over the land
Legislation cited
- Evidence Act, 1872s. Section 110
- Limitation Act, 1963s. Article 58, s. Article 65
Subjects
Limitation ActArticle 65Article 58Burden of ProofAdverse PossessionRevenue RecordsDrafting plaintPractice and ProcedureSection 110 of Evidence ActGift DeedOwnershipTitle
Judgment
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2434 : 2024 INSC 518
The State of Punjab and Ors.
v.
Bhagwantpal Singh Alias Bhagwant Singh
(Deceased) Through Lrs.
(Civil Appeal No. 7379 of 2024)
10 July 2024
[Vikram Nath* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the suit for possession filed by the respondents was barred
by limitation; whether the burden of proof of ownership would lie on
the person challenging the ownership of the person in possession;
whether the continued name of the Plaintiff/Respondent in the
revenue records would confer title upon him; whether the plaint
lacked/deliberately omitted necessary and material particulars to
surpass the bar of limitation.
Headnotes†
Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 65 – Suit for possession barred
by limitation – Civil Suit filed by deceased Respondent for
possession of the land in suit in 2001 as they alleged to
have come to know about construction of the hospital only
in 2000 – Appellant/State claiming that the land in suit had
been donated by original owner i.e., father of the Plaintiff, in
1958 for establishing a Veterinary Hospital and possession
was delivered – Appellant/State constructed the hospital from
the funds of the State Government in 1958-1959 and since
then, the same has been functional:
Held: Article 65 of the Limitation Act clearly stipulates that in a
suit for possession of immovable property, the period of limitation
will be twelve years from when the possession of the defendant
becomes averse to the plaintiff – Fact remains and has been duly
established from the record that the hospital had been constructed
on the land belonging to the original owner i.e., father of the
plaintiff sometime in the year 1958-59 – At that time, the owner of
the said land was alive, and he did not object to it, which clearly
indicates that he had donated the land in suit for construction
* Author
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2435
The State of Punjab and Ors. v.
Bhagwantpal Singh Alias Bhagwant Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs.
of Veterinary Hospital – Further, it is evidenced by the letter
dt 24.04.1981 wherein the Plaintiff had made an enquiry from the
concerned Tehsildar regarding the exact location of the Veterinary
Hospital that the Plaintiff was aware of its existence in 1981, if not
before – If the plaintiff’s case was that it was never donated but
still the hospital had been constructed, then the plaintiff should
have instituted a suit for possession within 12 years – Having
not done so, the suit was clearly barred by time for the relief of
possession. [Paras 21, 22, 23]
Adverse Possession – Claim of – State could not claim adverse
possession, not applicable in present case:
Held: The argument of Plaintiff that the State could not claim
adverse possession is not germane to the present case – It is
unfortunate that after 43 years, his son filed the suit for possession
without seeking declaration, as in case, he would have sought relief
of declaration, the suit would have been further barred by time for
the said relief also by virtue of Article 58 of Limitation Act – Period
of limitation being three years. [Para 24]
Practice and Procedure – Plaintiff cannot be allowed to surpass
limitation by way of vague and clever drafting:
Held: It is evident that the plaintiff purposely drafted/filed a vague
plaint which lacked the essential details of when the hospital was
constructed, when the plaintiff became aware of such construction,
when the right of ownership devolved upon the plaintiff, when
his father passed away, his letter of 24.04.1981 to the Tehsildar
etc; the first date and document mentioned in the plaint is of the
legal notice dated 09.11.2000 – It is nothing but a clear attempt
by Respondent at surpassing the bar under limitation law for filing
the suit since the existence of the hospital was a fact well known
to him since long ago. [Paras 16, 17, 18]
Suit for possession – Burden of proof lies on the Plaintiff:
Held: As per Section 110 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of
proof as to ownership of a property lies on the person challenging
the ownership of the person in possession – In view of the clear
finding that the hospital is functioning on the suit land since 1958,
the Trial Court as well as the High Court have wrongly shifted
the proof of ownership on the Appellant, whereas it lay on the
Respondent by virtue of Section 110. [Paras 30, 31, 32]
2436 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Revenue Record – Entry in revenue records would not
confer any title on the Plaintiff – Rights conferred on the
Appellant/State under the gift deed cannot be taken away:
Held: Merely because the name of the Plaintiff continued in the
revenue records (Jama Bandis), it would not confer any title
upon him – Revenue records are only entries for the purpose
of realising tax by the Municipal Corporations or land revenue
by Gram Sabhas – The documents exhibited by the defendants
could not be ignored as they were public documents, copies
of which were filed and duly proved that the hospital was
functional much before 1981 – Even if the gift deed was not
placed on record, due explanation was given – The lethargy/
carelessness on the part of the State in not getting the revenue
records corrected on the basis of the gift deed would not
take away the rights conferred on the State under the gift
deed.[Paras 27, 28]
Case Law Cited
Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 3 SCR 788 : (1988) 3 SCC 588;
Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan v. Damodar Trimbak Tanksale (D)
[2007] 8 SCR 178 : (2007) 6 SCC 737; Anathula Sudhakar
v. P. Buchi Reddy [2008] 5 SCR 331 : (2008) 4 SCC 594;
T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy v. M. Mallappa (2021) 13 SCC 135; Guru
Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand [1993] Supp. 1 SCR 523 : (1993)
4 SCC 349; Sawarni v. Inder Kaur [1996] Supp. 5 SCR 165 :
(1996) 6 SCC 223; Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh [1993] Supp. 2
SCR 321 : (1993) 4 SCC 403; State of Kerala v. Joseph [2023]
11 SCR 264 : (2023) SCC Online SC 961; State of Haryana v.
Mukesh Kumar and Ors. [2011] 14 SCR 211 : (2011) 10 SCC 404;
Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India [2004] Supp. 1
SCR 255 : (2004) 10 SCC 779; Partap Singh v. Shiv Ram [2020]
1 SCR 694 : (2020) 11 SCC 242; Vishwa Vijai Bharti v. Fakhrul
Hasan and Ors., AIR 1976 SC 1485; State of Madhya Pradesh
v. Bherulal [2020] 8 SCR 912 : (2020) 10 SCC 654; Office of
the Chief Post Master General and Others v. Living Media India
Ltd. & Anr. [2012] 1 SCR 1045 : (2012) 3 SCC 563 – referred to.
List of Acts
Limitation Act, 1963; Evidence Act, 1872.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2437
The State of Punjab and Ors. v.
Bhagwantpal Singh Alias Bhagwant Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs.
List of Keywords
Limitation Act; Article 65; Article 58; Burden of Proof; Adverse
Possession; Revenue Records; Drafting plaint; Practice and
Procedure; Section 110 of Evidence Act; Gift Deed; Ownership; Title.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7379 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.09.2018 of the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 447 of 2004
Appearances for Parties
Ms. Bhakti Pasrija, D.A.G., Sanjay Hegde, Sr. Adv., Karan Sharma,
Moksh Pasrija, Advs. for the Appellants.
Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Ms. Supriya Juneja, Kartikeya Dang,
Rudraditya Khare, Sahir Seth, Arjun Varma, Advs. for the
Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal, by the State of Punjab assails the correctness of the
judgment and order dated 14.09.2018 passed in RSA No.447 of
2004 (O & M), whereby the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh allowed the second appeal of the plaintiff-respondent,
set aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, and
restored the judgment and decree of the Trial Court decreeing the
suit for possession.
4. The dispute relates to land admeasuring 2176.6 sq. yards located
in Khewat No.702/1146/Khasra No.116/26/2/15 situated at Samana,
Tehsil-Samana, District-Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the “land
in suit”). According to the appellant, the land in suit belonged to one
Shri Inder Singh, predecessor in interest of the respondents. Shri
Inder Singh had donated the land in suit to the appellants for the
construction of a Veterinary Hospital in 1958 and had also handed
2438 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
over the possession of the same. The appellant-State constructed a
veterinary hospital over the land in suit in 1958-1959. The Veterinary
Hospital has been existing and is functional over the land in suit ever
since. During his lifetime, Shri Inder Singh never objected or filed
any suit alleging trespass or unauthorized occupation by the State.
However, after the death of Shri Inder Singh, his son Shri Bhagwantpal
Singh (since deceased) filed a suit for possession of the land in suit
in the year 2001, that is after almost 43 years of it being donated to
the State. The suit was registered as Civil Suit No.98 of 2001 before
the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Samana.
5. The appellant filed written statement denying the plaint allegations
and also raising plea regarding the suit being barred by limitation and
also urged that since no relief for declaration had been sought and
the suit was only for relief for possession, it was not maintainable.
It was specifically averred in the written statement that the land
in suit had been donated by Shri Inder Singh for the purpose of
establishing a Veterinary Hospital in the year 1958, and possession
was also delivered. The State thereafter, from the funds of the State
Government, constructed a Veterinary Hospital soon thereafter in
the year 1958-59, and since then, the same has been functional.
6. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following
issues: -
"1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit land? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled
to the decree for possession of the suit land? OPP
3. Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable? OPD
4. Whether the suit is within time ? OPP
5. Relief.”
7. The parties led evidence based on which the Trial Court decreed
the suit vide order dated 20.05.2003. The findings recorded by the
Trial Court are as follows:
(i) As the defendant had raised the plea of adverse possession,
therefore, they admitted the ownership of the plaintiffs;
(ii) There being no document regarding the alleged gift, the same
does not stand proved;
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2439
The State of Punjab and Ors. v.
Bhagwantpal Singh Alias Bhagwant Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs.
(iii) The mere resolutions of the Municipal Council are not sufficient to
prove that the land had been donated by the father of the plaintiff.
8. The Appellant-State preferred an appeal which was registered as
C.A. No.44 of 2003. The Additional District Judge allowed the appeal
of the appellant-State setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court
and dismissed the suit. The findings recorded by the Appellate Court
are as follows:
(i) The fact that the Veterinary Hospital had been established in
1958-59 and it was being run ever since then, the filing of the
suit after more than four decades was barred by time.
(ii) The owner of the property having allowed the State to take
possession, construct the Veterinary Hospital, and run the
same over the land in suit since 1958-59 itself proves that the
land had been actually donated by Shri Inder Singh, father of
the original plaintiff.
(iii) Shri Inder Singh, during his lifetime, having never agitated about
the construction of the hospital or the existence of the hospital
building over the land in suit, also reflects that he had, in fact,
donated the land in suit.
(iv) The plaintiff, having admitted that, he had been witnessing the
Veterinary Hospital being run over the land in suit since 1981
but did not take any steps thereafter also proves that, in fact,
ownership had been transferred to the State in 1958 itself.
9. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff-respondent preferred a second
appeal before the High Court registered as RSA No.447 of 2004.
By the impugned order, the High Court has allowed the appeal, set
aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court, and restored that of
the Trial Court. The findings recorded by the High Court are as follows:
(i) The Appellant-State failed to establish possession over the
land in suit.
(ii) The basic ingredients for claiming adverse possession were
neither pleaded nor any evidence led in that regard.
(iii) The pleadings in the written statement filed by the appellant-State
did not mention the details regarding the date of possession,
date of knowledge to the whole world, duration of possession,
and much less Animus Possidendi.
2440 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
10. It is this judgment of the High Court which is under challenge in the
present appeal.
11. Sri Sanjay R. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant made the following submissions:-
(i) The suit for possession filed by the respondents, was clearly
barred by time in view of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963,
which provides the limitation for a suit for possession of an
immovable property based on title to be 12 years. In the present
case, the possession of the appellants was since 1958, even the
admitted position by the respondents to their knowledge was from
1981. As such, the suit filed in the year 2001 was hopelessly
barred by time from both the dates i.e. 1958 as also 1981.
(ii) The burden to prove ownership would lie on the person challenging
the ownership of the person in possession in view of Section
110 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the present case, the
respondents admitted the possession of the appellants and were
only challenging the ownership of the appellants. As such, the
burden was cast upon the respondents to prove their ownership.
(iii) The appellants had claimed to be in possession of the land in
suit since 1958 and had also asserted that it had constructed
a Veterinary Hospital soon thereafter, for which it had also filed
documentary evidence. Sri Inder Singh, the predecessor in
interest of the plaintiff-respondent, who had donated the land
in suit for construction of Veterinary Hospital, never challenged
the same nor ever objected to the constructions being raised
over it. He was the owner in possession of the suit land. The
appellants, being in clear and continuous possession of the
suit land since 1958, had perfected its rights as owners.
(iv) In support of his submission, Sri Hegde, relied upon the following
judgments:-
(1) Chuharmal Vs. CIT;1
(2) Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan Vs. Damodar Trimbak
Tanksale (D);2
1 [1988] 3 SCR 788 : (1988) 3 SCC 588
2 [2007] 8 SCR 178 : (2007) 6 SCC 737
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2441
The State of Punjab and Ors. v.
Bhagwantpal Singh Alias Bhagwant Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs.
(3) Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy;3
(4) T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. M. Mallappa;4
(5) Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Rattan Chand;5
(6) Sawarni Vs. Inder Kaur;6
(7) Jattu Ram Vs. Hakam Singh;7
12. Mr. Hegde, thus, submitted that the impugned judgment of the High
Court deserves to be set-aside.
13. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondents made the following submissions:-
(i) The impugned judgment of the High Court did not suffer from
any perversity, as such, did not warrant any interference by
this Court.
(ii) The plea of adverse possession was neither pleaded nor
proved, as such the High Court rightly set aside the judgment
of the First Appellate Court which was based on the plea of
adverse possession.
(iii) The State Government cannot claim adverse possession for
which reliance was placed upon the following judgments:-
(1) State of Kerala Vs. Joseph;8
(2) State of Haryana Vs. Mukesh Kumar and Ors.;9
(3) Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India;10
(iv) No written deed of gift, much less registered, was placed on
record by the appellants to support its claim of donation/gift by
Sri Inder Singh.
3 [2008] 5 SCR 331 : (2008) 4 SCC 594
4 (2021) 13 SCC 135
5 [1993] Supp. 1 SCR 523 : (1993) 4 SCC 349
6 [1996] Supp. 5 SCR 165 : (1996) 6 SCC 223
7 [1993] Supp. 2 SCR 321 : (1993) 4 SCC 403
8 [2023] 11 SCR 264 : (2023) SCC Online SC 961
9 [2011] 14 SCR 211 : (2011) 10 SCC 404
10 [2004] Supp. 1 SCR 255 : (2004) 10 SCC 779
2442 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(v) The suit is not barred by limitation, in as much as, the
respondents came to know of the construction only in September,
2000 and, thereafter, they immediately gave legal notice and
filed the suit for possession.
(vi) The revenue records (Jama bandis) established the ownership
rights of the respondents. The submission to the contrary by
the appellants is contrary to law. The revenue records carried
presumption of correctness unless rebutted. In the present case,
the appellants failed to rebut the said presumption. He relied
upon the following judgments in support of the said submission: -
(1) Partap Singh Vs. Shiv Ram;11
(2) Vishwa Vijai Bharti Vs. Fakhrul Hasan and Ors;12
(vii) Lastly, it was submitted by Sri Luthra that the appeal was filed
with a delay of 492 days without any satisfactory explanation.
As such, the appeal was liable to be dismissed on the ground
of delay itself. In support of the said submission, he relied upon
the following two judgments:-
(1) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bherulal;13
(2) Office of the Chief Post Master General and Others
Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr.;14
14. Having considered the submissions and having perused the material
available on record, our analysis runs as under.
15. A copy of the plaint filed by the respondents is filed as Annexure
(P-18). It is as vague as possible and is very brief running into ten
paragraphs. Its contents are briefly referred to hereunder:-
(a) The plaint schedule property is described in the beginning
of the plaint. Paragraph-1 states that plaintiff is owner of the
land in dispute, for which, Jama Bandi of the year 1996-97
is filed. Paragraph-2 states that defendants without consent
of plaintiff have constructed a veterinary hospital illegally and
11 [2020] 1 SCR 694 : (2020) 11 SCC 242
12 [1976] Supp. 1 SCR 519 : AIR 1976 SC 1485
13 [2020] 8 SCR 912 : (2020) 10 SCC 654
14 [2012] 1 SCR 1045 : (2012) 3 SCC 563
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2443
The State of Punjab and Ors. v.
Bhagwantpal Singh Alias Bhagwant Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs.
unauthorizedly over the suit land. Paragraph-3 states that the
defendants neither purchased the said land from the plaintiff nor
paid any compensation to the plaintiff, as such, their possession
is unauthorized and illegal. The plaintiff being its owner is
entitled to vacant possession. Paragraph 4 states that despite
repeated request to hand over vacant possession by removing
the debris (malba), no heed has been paid to the said request.
Paragraph-5 mentions that a registered notice dated 09.11.2000
was served upon the defendants calling upon them to hand
over possession, but no reply was received in response to the
same. Copy of the notice and acknowledgement of receipt were
attached with the plaint. Paragraph-6 states that cause of action
arose on 1st March, 2001 as the defendants did not give any
reply to the notice. Paragraph-7 states that suit property was
situated within the jurisdiction of the Court. Paragraph-8 mentions
regarding the valuation and the court fee paid. Paragraph-9
mentions that there was no prior litigation pending between the
parties regarding the subject matter. Paragraph-10 is the relief
clause wherein it was prayed that suit of plaintiff for possession
of the suit property be decreed.
16. The plaint, to our opinion ought to have been rejected on the ground
of being vague and not carrying necessary and material particulars.
The plaintiff very conveniently avoided stating in the plaint as to
when the defendants constructed the Veterinary Hospital; they also
did not mention any details of the period when request was said
to have been made for delivering vacant possession; the first date
and document mentioned in the plaint is of the legal notice dated
09.11.2000.
17. In the case of Ram Singh Vs. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan,15 this
Court observed and held that when the suit is barred by any law, the
plaintiff cannot be allowed to circumvent that provision by means of
clever drafting so as to avoid mention of those circumstances, by
which the suit is barred by law of limitation.
18. Herein, it is evident that the plaintiff purposely drafted/filed a vague
plaint which lacked the essential details of when the hospital was
constructed, when the plaintiff became aware of such construction,
15 (1986) 4 SCC 364
2444 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
when the right of ownership devolved upon the plaintiff, when his
father passed away, his letter of 24.04.1981 to the Tehsildar etc.
It is nothing but a clear attempt by Respondent at surpassing the
bar under limitation law for filing the suit since the existence of the
hospital was a fact well known to him since long ago.
19. The appellants filed their written statement denying the plaint
allegations; three preliminary objections were also raised to the
effect that suit was not maintainable in its form; the appellants were
in continuous possession over the suit land and; the suit was time
barred. It was further specifically stated that the land in suit was
donated by Sri Inder Singh in 1958 for construction of Government
Veterinary Hospital and, further, Municipal Council, Samana and
the State of Punjab had made financial contribution for construction
of the building of the hospital in the year 1959 and since then, the
hospital is functioning, which is well known to the public of Samana
as also to the plaintiff. In support of the fact that the hospital was
constructed and that the possession was with the State-appellant,
various resolutions of 1958-59, other revenue records were filed.
It was also specifically stated that as the land had been donated,
there was no question of payment of consideration or compensation
to the plaintiff.
20. A replication was filed by the plaintiff-respondent.
21. Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.-1 and filed documentary evidence
which were exhibited. On the other hand, the State examined Dr.
Rajendra Kumar Goyal as D.W-1 and Jagdish Chand as D.W.- 2
and had also filed several documents relating to resolutions
passed by the Municipal Council in the year 1958-59, also the
correspondence between the Veterinary Officer and the Executive
Officer of the Municipal Council sometimes in 1981, as also the
documents to show that the plaintiff was aware of the existence
of the Veterinary Hospital in the year 1981 as he had made an
enquiry from the concerned Tehsildar regarding the exact location
of the Veterinary Hospital.
22. A perusal of all such documents (Ex’s- DW2/C, DW2/B, D-2, D-3,
D-4 and D-5) filed by the defendant-State clearly establishes that
the land had been donated by Sri Inder Singh, father of the plaintiff
in the year 1958-1959 and, thereafter, after arranging for funds from
various sources, the hospital had been constructed in 1959 and has,
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2445
The State of Punjab and Ors. v.
Bhagwantpal Singh Alias Bhagwant Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs.
eversince then, been functional. The above documents are resolutions
of the Municipal Council of 1958-59 and also Utilization Certificates
of funds utilized for construction of the hospital. The document
(Ex DW2/A) also goes to prove that there was a communication
from the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council dated 01.07.1981
giving details of the allotment, the construction, the finances and
also the functionality of the hospital. This communication further
mentions that somebody had destroyed the file of the gift and the
construction of the hospital for which an enquiry was pending.
Nevertheless, the facts stated therein clearly reflect that there was
a hospital in existence much before 1981. Another document filed
by the defendant-appellant was Ext.-D (8), which is a letter written
by the plaintiff dated 24.04.1981 requiring the Tehsildar, Samana
to verify and give a report regarding location of the Veterinary
Hospital. The said letter also bears endorsement of the Tehsildar
and other Revenue Officials and also contains the signature of the
plaintiff. This letter clearly shows that the plaintiff was aware of the
existence of the Veterinary Hospital in 1981. Thus, he had made a
false and incorrect statement in his deposition that the hospital was
constructed only two years ago. Another fact worth mentioning here
would be that, during cross examination, the plaintiff stated that he
did not remember as to whether the hospital was in existence since
1958-59 or not.
23. Considering this letter dated 24.04.1981, even if we assume that
the Respondent became aware of the hospital’s existence on this
date for the very first time, yet the suit filed by him shall not fall
within the limitation period. Article 65 of the Limitation Act clearly
stipulates that in a suit for possession of immovable property, the
period of limitation will be twelve years from when the possession
of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, the Respondent-plaintiff’s suit is clearly
barred by limitation.
24. The argument that State could not claim adverse possession is
not germane to the present case. Fact remains and has been duly
established from the record that the hospital had been constructed
on the land belonging to the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff
sometime in the year 1958-59. At that time, Sri Inder Singh, father of
the plaintiff who was the owner of the said land was alive and he did
not object to it, which clearly indicates that he had donated the land
2446 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
for construction of Veterinary Hospital in Tehsil, Samana. In those
good old times, it used to be a usual practice of big landlords donating
their lands for public cause. It is unfortunate that after 43 years, his
son filed the suit for possession without seeking declaration, as in
case, he would have sought relief of declaration, the suit would have
been further barred by time for the said relief also. The defendant
having been in possession without any hindrance since 1958,
the suit filed would only be a mockery of justice if decreed. If the
plaintiff’s case was that it was never donated but still the hospital
had been constructed, then the plaintiff should have instituted a suit
for possession within 12 years. Having not done so, the suit was
clearly barred by time for the relief of possession.
25. As already discussed above, various documents were filed and
proved by the defendant-appellant regarding the donation, the transfer
of possession, the construction of the Veterinary Hospital and its
functionality since more than 40 years before the suit was filed. In
fact, the evidence establishes that the donation was documented,
and possession transferred and acted upon and for the very purpose,
for which the donation was made.
26. The title of the land in suit had passed on to the State after the
donation and transfer of possession and after construction, the
hospital continued for more than four decades before filing of the
suit. The plaintiff, son of the donor, also waited for 20 years despite
admitted knowledge of the hospital running over the land in suit and
did not take any action.
27. Article 65 under the Schedule to the Limitation Act provides limitation
of 12 years for filing a suit for possession based on title. In the
present case, merely because the name of the plaintiff continued
in the revenue records (Jama Bandis), it would not confer any title
upon him. Revenue records (Jama Bandis) are only entries for
the purpose of realising tax by the Municipal Corporations or land
revenue by Gram Sabhas. The plaintiff having failed to claim relief
of declaration, the suit itself would not be maintainable. Further, for
a suit for declaration, period of limitation would be three years under
Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, which in the present
case was long lost.
28. There is nothing on record available from the cross-examination
of defendants 1 and 2 that the documents which they proved
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2447
The State of Punjab and Ors. v.
Bhagwantpal Singh Alias Bhagwant Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs.
were either incorrect, doubtful or suspicious. The documents
exhibited by the defendants could not be ignored as they were
public documents, copies of which were filed and duly proved.
Even if the deed was not placed on record but due explanation
was given, the facts of the case and the evidence on record clearly
established the case of the defendant-appellant that the land in
suit had been donated by Sri Inder Singh, father of the plaintiff
way back in 1958. The lethargy/carelessness on the part of the
State in not getting the revenue records corrected on the basis
of the gift deed would not take away the rights conferred on the
State under the gift deed.
29. The case-laws relied upon by Sri Luthra on the question of
State not being entitled to claim adverse possession as also the
presumption of revenue records being correct, have no application
and are of no help to the respondents in the light of the discussion
made above.
30. It is settled law that in a suit for possession, the burden of proof lies
on the plaintiff. As per Section 110 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the
burden of proof as to ownership of a property lies on the person
challenging the ownership of the person in possession. Section 110
of Evidence Act is produced as follows:
“110. Burden of proof as to ownership- When the
question is whether any person is owner of anything of
which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of
proving that he is not the owner is on the person who
affirms that he is not the owner.”
31. This Court had summarized the provision in Chuharmal v. CIT
(supra) as follows:
“6. …Section 110 of the Evidence Act is material in this
respect and the High Court relied on the same which
stipulates that when the question is whether any person
is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in
possession, the onus of proving that he is not the owner,
is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner. In
other words, it follows from well settled principle of law
that normally, unless contrary is established, title always
follows possession.”
2448 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
32. In view of the clear finding that the hospital is functioning on the
suit land since 1958, the Trial Court as well as the High Court have
wrongly shifted the proof of ownership on the Appellant, whereas it
lay on the Respondent by virtue of Section 110 of the Evidence Act.
33. In view of the above discussion, the appeal deserves to be allowed
and is, accordingly, allowed.
34. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of
the First Appellate Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent
is confirmed.
Result of the case: Appeal Allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Raghav Bhatia, Hony. Associate Editor
(Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.)
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Limitation Act"Sign in to search