UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERSversusVASAVI CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND OTHERS

                         [2014) 1 S.C.R. 180


A                 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
                                  v.
    VASAVI CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND OTHERS
               (Civil Appeal No. 4702 of 2004)
                         JANUARY 07, 2014
B
             [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI JJ.]

        Suit:

c      Suit for title and possession - Onus - Held: In a suit for
  declaration of title and for possession, burden always lies on
  the plaintiff to make out and establish his case by adducing
  sufficient evidence and the weakness, if any, of the case set
  up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to
D plaintiff - In the instant case, trial court as well as High Court
  rather than examining in depth, the question, as to whether
  the plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing their title to the
  suit land, went on to examine in depth the weakness of
  defendants' title - Plaintiffs have not succeeded in
E establishing their title and possession over the suit land -
  Judgment of trial court, affirmed by High Court, is set aside.

        Evidence:

      Evidence as to title - Held: Revenue records do not
F confer title - In a given case, the conferment of Patta as such
    does not confer title.

      Respondent no. 1 Co-op. Housing Society filed a suit
  against defendants-appellantsfor declaration of title over
  the suit land comprising 6 acres 30 guntas in Survey
G No.6011 and 61 and for possession thereof from the
  appellants-defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 7. The respondent-
  plaintiff's case was that it had purchased the suit land
  from the Pattedar during the year 1981-82. The plaintiff
                                  180
H
    UNION OF INDIA v. VASAVI CO-OP. HOUSING             181
                 SOCIETY LTD.
relied on sale deeds, Setwar of 1353 Fasli (Ext. A-3) and      A
the family partition and settlement deed dated 11.12.1939
(Ext. A-2) pertaining to the family of the Pattedar.
Defendant No. 3 filed a written statement stating that the
suit land belonged to defendant no. 1 and it was locally
managed and possessed by defendant No.3. The trial             B
court decreed the suit. The High Court, in appeal,
affirmed the judgment and decree, but noticing that the
defendants had made large scale construction of
quarters for the Defence Accounts Department, afforded
an opportunity to them to provide alternative suitable         c
extent of land in lieu of the suit scheduled land.

    Allowing the appeal, the Court

      HELD: 1.1. It is trite law that in a suit for declaration
of title, burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and D
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
plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession .
can succeed only on the strength of his own title and that E
can be done only by adducing !iufficient evidence to
discharge the onus on him, irrespective of the question
whether the defendant has proved his 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 F
must be non-suited.[para 12 and 15] [191-G; 192-G]

    Maran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira
AIR1959 SC 31 Nagar Palika, Jind v. Jagat Singh, Advocate
1995 (3) SCR 9 = (1995) 3 SCC 426 - relied on.
                                                               G
    1.2. In the instant case, the trial court as well as the
High Court rather than examining in depth, the question,
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;         H
    182      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014) 1 S.C.R.


A title. The defendants relied on the entries in the GLR and
  their possession or re-possession 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
B Cantonment Act, 1924 and 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
c property. The entries in the GLR by themselves may not
  constitute title, but the question is whether entries made
  in Ext.A-3 (Setwar of 1353 Fasli) relied upon by the plaintiff
  would confer title on the plaintiff. [para 161 [192-H; 193-
  A-C]
D      1.3. This Court in several Judgments has held that
  the revenue records do not confer title. Even if the entries
  in the Record of Rights carry evidentiary value, that itself
  would not confer any title on the plaintiff over the suit
  land. Ext.X-1 is Classer Register of 1347 Fasli which
E according to the trial court, speaks of the ownership of
  the plaintiff's vendor's property. These entries, as such,
  would not confer any title. Plaintiffs have to show,
  independent of those entries that the plaintiff's
  predecessors-in-interest had title over the property in
F 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 wherein, admittedly, the
  suit land in question has not been mentioned. [para 17
G and 20) [193-D; 194-D-F]

        Corporation of the City of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah and
    Another (1989) 3 SCC 612; Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan
                                                =
    Chand and Others 1993 (1) Suppl. SCR 523 (1993) 4 SCC
    349 State of Himachal Pradesh v. Keshav Ram and
H
   UNION OF INDIA v. VASAVI CO-OP. HOUSING              183
                SOCIETY LTD.
Others 1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 263    =(1996) 11 SCC 257 -         A
relied on.

     1.4. The plaintiff has also maintained the stand that
their predecessor-in-interest was the Pattedar of the suit
land. In a given case, the conferment of Patta as such
                                                               8
does not confer title. [para 18] [193-G]

    Syndicate Bank v. Estate Officer & Manager, AP/IC Ltd.
& Ors. 2007 (9) SCR 619       = (2007) 8 SCC 361 and
Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat v. Nori Venkatarama
Deekshithulu & Ors. 1991 (2) SCR 531 = (1991) Supp. (2)        C
sec 228 - relied on.
     1.5. As regards the plea of the respondents-plaintiffs
that the land in question is pot kharab, the A.P. Survey
and Settlement Mannual, Chapter XIII deals with pot            D
kharab land, which is generally a non-cultivable land and
if the plaintiff's predecessor in interest had ownership
over this pot kharab land, it should have reference in the
family settlement and partition deed dated 11.12.1939.
Admittedly, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff got   E
the property through the family settlement and partition
deed. Conspicuous absence of tile suit land in the deed
would cast doubt about the ownership and title of the
plaintiffs over it. [para 21] [194-G-H; 195-A]

     1.6. A family settlement is based generally on the        F
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             G
property by metes and bounds or may continue to live
together and enjoy the property as common. Ext.A-2 is
totally silent as to whose share the suit land will fall and
who will enjoy it. The burden is on the plaintiff to explain
                                                               H
    184      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A away those factors, but it tias not succeeded. (para 22]
  (195-E-F]

         Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr. (2012) 8 SCC 148,
    Union of India & Ors. v. Kam/a Verma (2010) 13 SCC 511,
    Chief Executive Officer v. Surendra Kumar Vakil & Ors. 2003
8
    (6) Suppl. SCR 395 = (1999) 3 SCC 555 and Secunderabad
    Cantonment Board, Andhra Circff}, Secundrabad v. Mohd.
    Mohiuddin & Ors. (2003) 12 SCC 315 - cited.

        1.7. The plaintiff has not succeeded in establishing
C its title and possession over the suit land. The judgment
  of the trial court, affirmed by the High Court, is set aside.
  [para 23] [196-F]
                           Case Law Reference:
D         AIR1959 SC 31               relied on         Para 14
          1995 (3) SCR 9              relied on         Para 18
          (1989) 3 sec 612            relied on         Para 17

E         1993 (1) Suppl. SCR 523     relied on         Para 17
          1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 263     relied on         para 17
          2007 (9) SCR 619            relied on         Para 18
          1991 (2) SCR 531            relied on         Para 18
F
          (2012) s sec 148             cited            Para 22
          (2010) 13 sec s11           cited             Para 22
          2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 395 cited                 Para 22
G         (2003) 12 sec 315           cited             Para 22
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    4702 of 2004.

          From the Judgment & Order dated 06.09.2002 of the High
H
    UNION OF INDIA v. VASAVI CO-OP. HOUSING                 . 185
                 SOCIETY LTD.
Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in C.C.C.A.         A
No. 123 of 1996.

    Vikas Singh, P.S. Narasimha, Basava Prabhu Patil, 8.
Sunita Rao, Deepika Kalia, Sanket, Kapish Seth, B.V. Balaram
Das, P. Sadri Prem Nath, M. Narender Reddy, Shakil Ahmed             8
Syed, Amitesh Kumar (for Gopal Singh) Promila, Prabhakar
Reddy, Sridhar Potaraju, P. Prabhakar, Gaichangpou
Gangmei, A.T.M. Sampath, T.S. Shanthi, C.K. Sucharita,
Sushma Suri, Anil Katiyar, Md. Shahid Anwar, Madhusmita
Bora, G.N. Reddy, Lawyer's Knit & Co., M.K. Garg, Promila for        C
the appearing parties.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. The Vasavi Co-op.
Housing Society Ltd., the first respondent herein instituted a       D
suit No.794 of 1988 before the City Civil Court, Hyderabad,
seeking a declaration of title over land comprising 6 acres 30
guntas in Survey No.60/1 and 61 of Kakaguda village and
recovery of the vacant possession from Defendant Nos.1 to 3
and 7, the appellants herein, after removal of the structure made    E
therein by them. The plaintiff has also sought for an injunction
restraining the defendants from interfering with the above-
mentioned land and also for other consequential refliefs. The
City Civil Court vide its judgment dated 31.07.1996 decreed
the suit, as prayed for, against which the appellants preferred
                                                                     F
C.C.C.A. No.123 of 1996 before the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad. The High Court also affirmed the
judgment of the trial Court on 6.9.2002, but noticed that the
appellant had made large scale construction of quarters for the
Defence Accounts Department, therefore, it would be in the
interest of justice that an opportunity be given to the appellants   G
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.
                                                                     H
   186       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A 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
8
  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
C settlement and partition deed dated i 1.12.1939 (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
  above-mentioned land, vide the family partition deed dated
D 19.03.1939, Rama Reddy had been in exclusive possession
  and enjoyment and was paying land revenue. Rama Reddy's
  name was also mutated in the Pahanies.

       3. Plaintiffs further stated that the first defendant had it's
E A.O.C. Centre building complex in Tirumalagiri village adjoining
  the suit land Survey No.60 of Kakaguda village. The first
  defendant had also requisitioned 4 acres and 28 guntas in
  Survey No.60 of Kakaguda Village in the year 1971 along with
  the adjoining land !n Tirumalagiri for extension of A.O.C. Centre.
F Further, it was stated that 6th Defendant took possession of
  the above-mentioned land and delivered possession of the
  same to other defendants. The 3rd Defendant later vide his letter
  dated 18.12.1979 sent a requisition for acquisition of 4.38
  guntas in Surevy No.60 for the extension of A.0.C. Centre.
G Notification was published in the official Gazette dated
  18.09.1980 and a declaration was made on 30.06.1981 and
  compensation was awarded to Rama Reddy vide Award dated
  26.07.1982.

       4. The Plaintiffs, as already stated, had entered into
H various sale deeds with Rama Reddy during the year 1981-82
    UNION OF INDIA v. VASAVI CO-OP. HOUSING                    187
     SOCIETY LTD. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
by which land measuring 13 acres and 08 guntas in Survey               A
No.60, 11 acres and 04 guntas in Survey No.61 and 17 acres
and 20 guntas in Survey No.62 were purchased, that is in all
41 acres and 32 guntas. Plaintiffs further stated that the land,
which was purchased by it was vacant, but persons of the
Defence Department started making some marking on the                  B
portions of the land purchased by the plaintiff, stating that a
substantial portion of the land purchased by the plaintiff in
Survey No.60/1 and 61 belonged to the Defence Department
and treated as 8-4 in their records. Plaintiff then preferred an
application dated 12.09.1983 to the District Collector under the       c
A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act for demarcation of boundaries.
Following that, Deputy Director of Survey issued a notice dated
21.01.1984 calling upon the plaintiff and 3rd Defendant to
attend to the demarcation on 25.01.1984. Later, a joint survey
was conducted. The 3rd Defendant stated that land to the extent        D
of 4 acres and 35 guntas in Survey No.60 and 61 corresponds
to their G.L.R. (General Land Register) No.445 and it is their
land as per the record. The Deputy Director of Survey, however,
stated that lands in Survey Nos.60 and 61 of Kakaguda village
are patta lands as per the settlement records and vacant,
                                                                       E
abutting Tirumalagiri village boundaries to Military Pillers 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            F
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      G
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         H
    188      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A 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 D-3 and is also the
  custodian of all defence records. Further, it was also stated that,
B as per the G.L.R., the said land was classified as B-4 and
  placed under the management of Defence Estates Officer. It
  was also stated that the suit land is part of review Survey
  Nos.60 and 61 and the plaintiff is wrongly claiming that the said
  land was purchased by it. Further, it was also stated that the
c plaintiff is threatening to encroach upon another 6 guntas of land
  alleged to be situated in Survey Nos.60/1 and 61. It has been
  categorically stated that, as per the records maintained by the
  3rd Defendant, land measuring 7 acres and 51 guntas, forming
  part of G.L.R. Survey No.445 of the Cantonment is part of
D Survey Nos.1, 60 and 61 of Kakaguda village. It is owned,
  possessed and enjoyed by Defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 7.

      6. The plaintiff, in order to establish its claim, examined
  PWs 1 to 4 and produced Exs. A-1 to A-85 and Exs. X-1 to X-
  10 besides Exs. A-86 to A-89 on behalf of DW1. On behalf of
E the defendants DW1 was examined and Exs D-1 to D-7 are
  produced.

       7. The primary issue which came up for consideration
  before the trial court was whether the plaintiff has got ownership
F 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). On the other hand, the defendants placed
  considerable reliance on G.L.R. Survey No.445 of the
G Cantonment which is part of Survey No.1, 60 and 61 of
  Kakaguda village, wherein, according to the defendants, the suit
  land falls. PW2, the Deputy Inspector of Survey stated,
  according to Setwar, land in Survey Nos.60, 61 and 62 is patta
  land of Prakash Reddy and others and such Survey numbers
  corresponds to Old Survey No.53. The evidence of PW-3 and
H
    UNION OF INDIA v. VASAVI CO-OP. HOUSING                  189
     SOCIETY LTD. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
4 also states that the land is covered by old Survey No.53 which    A
figures in Survey Nos.60, 61 and 62. Ext. A-3 Setwar, is a
settlement register prepared by the Survey Officer at the time
of revised survey and settlement in the year 1358 Fasli in which
the names of the predecessors in title of the plaintiff are shown
as pattedars. In other words, Ex-A-3 is the exhibit of rights and   s
title of plaintiff's predecessors in title.

      8. Defedants, as already indicated, on the other hand,
pleaded that the total extent of Survey No.53 was only 33
acres and 12 guntas and if that be so, after sub-division the       C
extent of sub-divided survey numbers would also remain the
same, but the extent of su~cdivided 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         D
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.LR. of
1933 was prepared by Captain O.M. James after making                E
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           F
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 Cantonment Land Administration Rules,
 1937 and said Survey No.581 was re-written as G.L.R. Survey        G
No.445. Further, in view of the classification of the land, as
 stipulated in Cantonment Land Administration rules, 1937, land
pertaining to G.L.R. Survey No.445 was re-classified as B-4
 (vacant land) reserved for future military purposes and
                                                                    H
    190       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014) 1 S.C.R.


A management was transferred from cantonment authority to
  Defence Estate

        9. The above-mentioned facts would indicate that the
  plaintiff traces their title to the various sale deeds, Ext.A-3
8 Setwar of 1353 Fasli and the oral evidence of the survey
  officials and the defendants claim title and possession of the
  land on the basis of the G.L.R. The question that falls for
  consideration is whether the evidence adduced by the plaintiff
  is sufficient to establish the title to the land in question and to
C give a declaration of title and possession by the civil court.

           10. Shri ..Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing
    for the appellants submitted that G.L.R. 445 measuring an area
    of 7 acres and 51 guntas is classified as B-4 and placed under
    the management of the Defence Estate Officer. Column 7 of
D   the G.L.R. would indicate that the landlord is the Central
    Government. Out of 7 acres and 51 guntas, land admeasuring
    6 acres has been handed over to Defence Accounts
    Department for construction of Defence Staff Quarters as per
    survey No.445/A, as per the records as early as in 1984.
E   Further, it was pointed out that the appellant had already
    constructed approximately 300 quarters in 6 acres of land.
    Learned senior counsel submitted that since the extent of land
    mentioned in old Survey No.53 as well as in the settlement and
    partition deed, do not tally to the extent of land mentioned in
F   Ext.A-3 and burden is heavy on the side of the plaintiff to show
    and explain as to how the registered family settlement and
    partition deed did not take place in the disputed land. Learned
    senior counsel also submitted that the High Court has
     committed an error in ignoring the G.L.R. produced by the
G   defendants, even though there is no burden on the defendants
    to establish its title in a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration
     of title and possession.

        11. Shri P.S. Narasimha, learned senior counsel and Shri
    Basava Prabhu Patil, learned senior counsel appearing for the
H
    UNION OF INDIA v. VASAVI CO-OP. HOUSING                         191
     SOCIETY LTD. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
respondents submitted that the city civil court as well as the              A
High ·court have correctly 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.                  B
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-                c
58, of Kakaguda village, Ex.A7, the Pahani Patrika for the year
1971-72, Ex.AS, 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            D
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 is pot kharab land, which is not normally treated as            E
land in Section 30) of Ceiling Act and hance may not figure in
a Settlement or Partition Deed, hence not subjected to any
revenue assessment. Learned senior counsel submitted that
the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing its title to the property
in question, as was found by the city civil court as well as the            F
High Court which calls for no interference by this Court under
Article 136 of the Constitution.

     12. 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              G
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.

     13. The High Court, we notice, has taken the view that                 H
    192       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A 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
B 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
  probabalises the case set up by the plaintiff, such evidence
  cannot be ignored and kept out of consideration.
c       14. At the outset, let us examine the legal position with
  regard to whom the burden of proof lies in a suit for declaration
  of title and possession. This Court in Maran Mar Basse/ios
  Catho/icos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira reported in AIR 1959 SC
  31 observed that "in a suit for declaration if the plaintiffs are to
D succeed, they must do so on the strength of their own title." In
  Nagar Palika, Jind v. Jagat Singh, Advocate (1995) 3 SCC
  426, this Court beld as under:

          "the onus to prove title to the property in question was on
E         the plaintiff. In a suit for ejectment based on title it was
          incumbent on the part of the court of appeal first to record
          a finding on the claim of title to the suit land made on behalf
          of the plaintiff. The court is bound to enquire or investigate
          that question first before going into any other question that
F         may arise in a suit."

        15. 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,
G 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 plaintiffs own title, plaintiff must be non-suited.

H         16. We notice that the trial court as well as the High Court
    UNION OF INDIA v. VASAVI CO-OP. HOUSING                      193
     SOCIETY LTD. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
rather than examining that question in depth, as to whether the          A
plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing their title on the
scheduled suit land, went on to examine in depth the weakne~ss
of the defendants title. Defendants relied on the entries in the
GLR and their possession or re-possession over the suit land
to non-suit the Plaintiffs. The court went on to exami'le the            B
correctness and evidentiary value of the errtries in the GLR in
the context of the history and scope-orcantonment 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            c
question is, whether the plaintiff could prove its title over the suit
property in question. The entries in the GLR by themselves may
not constitute title, but the question is whether entries made in
Ext.A-3 would confer title or not on the Plaintiff:

     17. This Court in several Judgments has held that the               D
revenue records does not confer title. In Corporation of the City
of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah and Another (1989) 3 SCC 612
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."        E
In Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand and Others (1993) 4
SCC 349 this Court has held that "that the entries in jamabandi
are not proof of title". In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Keshav
Ram and Others (1996) 11 SCC 257 this Court held that "the
entries in the revenue papers, by no stretch of imagination can          F
form the basis for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff."

       18. The Plaintiff has also maintained the stand that their
predecessor-in-interest was the Pattadar of the suit land. In a
given case, the conferment of Patta as such does not confer              G
title. Reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in
Syndicate Bank v. Estate Officer & Manager, AP/IC Ltd. &
Ors. (2007) 8 SCC 361 and Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat
v. Nori Venkatarama Deekshithu/u & Ors. (1991) Supp. (2)
sec     228.
                                                                         H
    194       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A      19. We notice that the above principle laid down by this
  Court sought to be distinguished by the High Court on the
  ground that none of the above-mentioned judgments, there is
  any reference to any statutory provisions under which revenue
  records referred therein, namely, revenue register, settlement
B register, jamabandi registers are maintained. The High Court
  took the view that Ext.A-3 has evidentiary value since the same
  has been prepared on the basis of Hyderabad record of Rights
  in Land Regulation, 1358 Fasli. It was also noticed that column
  1 to 19 of Pahani Patrika is nothing but record of rights and
c the entries in column 1 to 19 in Pahani Patrika shall be deemed
  to be entries made and maintained under Regulaticms.

         20. We are of the view that even if the entries in the
  Record of Rights carry evidentiary value, that itself would not
  confer any title on the plaintiff on the suit land in question. Ext.X-
O 1 is Classer Register of 1347 which according to the trial court,
  speaks of the ownership of the plaintiffs vendor's property. 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
E 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.
F
       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
G Settlement Mannual, 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
H
    UNION OF INDIA v. VASAVI CO-OP. HOUSING                   195 ·
     SOCIETY LTD. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
question through the above-mentioned family settlement and A
partition deed. Conspicuous absence of the suit land in
question in the above-mentioned deed would cast doubt about
the ownership and title of the plaintiffs over the suit land in
question. No acceptable explanation has been given by the
plaintiff to explain away the conspicuous omission of the suit B
land in the registered family settlement and partition deed.
Facts would also clearly indicate that in Ext-A 1, the suit land
has been described in old Survey No.53 which was allotted to
the plaintiffs predecessors in title. It is the common case of the
parties that Survey No.53 was sub-divided into Survey Nos.60,         c
61 and 63. Admittedly, the old Survey No.53 takes in only 33 ·
acres and 12 guntas, then naturally, Survey Nos.60, 61 and 63
cannot be more than that extent Further, if pot kharab land is
not recorded in the revenue record, it would be so even in case
of sub-division of Old Survey No. 53. The only explanation was
                                                                   0
that, since the suit land being pot kharab iand, it might not have
been mentioned in Ex.A.

     22. 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             E
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. So far as this case is concerned, Ex.A 1 is totally           F
silent as to whose share the suit land will fall and who will enjoy
it. Needless to say that the burden is on the plaintiff to explain
away those factors, but the plaintiff has not succeeded. On other
hand, much emphasis has been placed on the failure on the
part of the defendants to show that the applicability of the GLR.     G
The defendant maintained the stand that the entries made in
GLR, maintained under the Cantonment Land Administration
Rules, 1937, in the regular course of administration of the
cantonment lands, are admissible in evidence and the entries
made therein will prevail over the records maintained under the       H
    196      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A various enactment, like the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)
  Land Revenue Act, 1317 Falsi, the Hyderabad Record of
  Rights in Land Regulation, 1358 Falsi, the Hyderabad Record
  of Rights Rules, 1956 etc. In order to establish that position,
  reliance was placed on the judgments of this Court in Union of
B India v. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr. (2012) 8 SCC 148, Union of
  India & Ors. v. Kam/a Verma (2010) 13 SCC 511, Chief
  Executive Officer v. Surendra Kumar Vakil & Ors. (1999) 3
  SCC 555 and Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Andhra
  Circle, Secundrabad v. Mohd. Mohiuddin & Ors. (2003) 12
C 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
0
  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
E 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,
F   therefore, allowed and the judgment of the trial court, affirmed
    by the High Court, is set aside. However, there will be no order
    as to costs.

    R.P.                                          Appeal allowed.