The lower appellate court by the judgment dated 22-3-1982 allowed the said appeal and dismissed the suit, inter alia, on the finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish title to the suit property and possession of the same. It may be stated here that the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff had purchased an open plot on 22-2-1978 by registered sale deed from Bashir Khan and obtained possession of the same. The plaintiff relied on the title of the suit property on the basis of such purchase by the registered sale deed Ex. P/1 and a map also annexed to the sale deed being Ex. P/2. The boundaries were mentioned in the sale deed. The lower appellate court has indicated in the judgment that the boundaries as mentioned in the sale deed, do not tally with the boundaries mentioned in the deed of gift on the basis of which Bashir Khan, the vendor of the plaintiff had obtained the suit property from the admitted owner. In order to establish possession of the suit land the plaintiff stated that in the suit land there was a latrine. The lower appellate court has indicated that in the sale deed existence of a latrine was not mentioned. As the plaintiff failed to establish the title to the suit land and possession in respect thereof by leading convincing evidence, the lower appellate court dismissed the said suit.
Even if adverse inference is drawn against the municipality for not producing the documents in its possession, the plaintiff cannot succeed unless the plaintiff establishes the plaintiff's title to the suit property and also possession in respect of the same. In the instant case, it has been held by the lower appellate court that neither the possession of the suit property either by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff or by the plaintiff nor the title to the same had been established by leading any cogent evidence. The boundaries mentioned in the document of sale and in the document of gift are different. It has not been established by any reliable evidence that the very same property was conveyed to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and the plaintiff got the same by virtue of the sale deed. The existence of a latrine was also not mentioned in the sale deed. In the aforesaid circumstances, the finding of the lower appellate court cannot be held to be perverse for which interference by the High Court in a second appeal was warranted.
Print Page
Even if adverse inference is drawn against the municipality for not producing the documents in its possession, the plaintiff cannot succeed unless the plaintiff establishes the plaintiff's title to the suit property and also possession in respect of the same. In the instant case, it has been held by the lower appellate court that neither the possession of the suit property either by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff or by the plaintiff nor the title to the same had been established by leading any cogent evidence. The boundaries mentioned in the document of sale and in the document of gift are different. It has not been established by any reliable evidence that the very same property was conveyed to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and the plaintiff got the same by virtue of the sale deed. The existence of a latrine was also not mentioned in the sale deed. In the aforesaid circumstances, the finding of the lower appellate court cannot be held to be perverse for which interference by the High Court in a second appeal was warranted.
Supreme Court of India
Shakir Hussain vs Administrator, Nagar Palika, ... on 17 March, 1998
Equivalent citations: AIR 1999 SC 2872, JT 1998 (9) SC 49, (1998) 9 SCC 613
Bench: G Ray, G Pattanaik
