Supreme Court: Agreement For Sale Doesn't Transfer Title Or Create Interest In Property :

It is well settled that an agreement for sale in

respect of an immovable property does not transfer title in

favour of the purchaser under the agreement. In view of

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, an

agreement for sale does not create any interest in the

property. The only mode by which an immovable property worth

more than Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred) can be sold is by a

sale deed duly registered in accordance with the Indian

Registration Act, 1908. {Para 6}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2025

(Arising out of Diary No.38616 of 2018)

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK  Vs.  M.A.S SUBRAMANIAN & ORS.

Dated: January 07, 2025.

Print Page

Punjab And Haryana HC: Sale deed executed by person having no title over it, such sale deed do not confer any title on purchaser and can be ignored even in collateral proceeding

  Firstly, the proprietors are not party to the decree dated 6.3.1986 or the subsequent sale deeds. The said sale deeds are without any title or interest in the suit property. The sale deeds have been executed by defendant No. 1 even though he had no title or interest to sell the same in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 5. Since the sales are by incompetent person without having title in the suit property, such sale deed will not confer a valid title in favour of the purchasers. Since such sale deeds are without any title of the vendor, the same can be ignored even in collateral proceedings. This is what has been held by supreme Court in the case of Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Parkash University and others, 2001(4) RCR(Civil) 280 : Judgments today 2001(6) SC 573, wherein the distinction between void and voidable order has been discussed in detail.  {Para 16}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

R.S.A. No. 4041 of 2007

Decided On: 12.08.2009

Lajja Ram and Ors. Vs. Rati Chand and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Hemant Gupta, J.

Citation: MANU/PH/2423/2009,2010(1) ICC 70, 2009(4) R.C.R(Civil) 598.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Madras HC: Revenue records will not confer any title unless supported by valid documents

 It is needless to reiterate again that, revenue records are not documents for title, it will not confer any title, unless supported by valid documents. Likewise documents created fraudulently though registered is non est in eye of law. {Para 46}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

A.S. No. 876 of 2019, C.M.P. Nos. 26727 of 2019 and 13994 of 2020

Decided On: 17.02.2021

Somasundaram Vs. Parameswariammal

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. G. Jayachandran, J.

Citation:  MANU/TN/0670/2021,2021(1) LW 912,2021(4) CTC 44.

Print Page

Whether Will(Before Death Of Testator) Or General Power Of Attorney(GPA) Can Confer Title In Immovable Property?

 It goes without saying that the power of attorney executed by the Defendant-Appellant is of no consequence as on the strength of said power of attorney, neither sale deed has been executed nor any action pursuant thereof has been taken by the power of attorney holder which may confer title upon the Plaintiff-Respondent. Non-execution of any document by the general power of attorney holder consequent to it renders the said general power of attorney useless. {Para 12}

13. Similarly, the will dated 10.04.2002 executed by the Defendant-Appellant in favour of the Plaintiff-Respondent is meaningless as the will, if any, comes into effect only after the death of the executant and not before it. It has no force till the testator or the person making it dies. The said stage has not arrived in the present case and, therefore, even the aforesaid will in no way confers any right upon the Plaintiff-Respondent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 7527-7528 of 2012

Decided On: 02.06.2023

Ghanshyam  Vs. Yogendra Rathi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipankar Datta and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.

Author: Pankaj Mithal, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0642/2023.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Whether the court can protect the possession of a person who is claiming title to an immovable property based on an agreement of sale?

No doubt, agreement to sell is not a document of title or a deed of transfer of property by sale and as such, may not confer absolute title upon the Plaintiff-Respondent over the suit property in view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, nonetheless, the agreement to sell, the payment of entire sale consideration as mentioned in the agreement itself and corroborated by the receipt of its payment and the fact that the Plaintiff-Respondent was put in possession of the suit property in accordance with law as is also established by the possession memo on record, goes to prove that the Plaintiff-Respondent is de-facto having possessory rights over the suit property in part performance of the agreement to sell. This possessory right of the Plaintiff-Respondent is not liable to be disturbed by the transferer, i.e., the Defendant-Appellant. 

10. In the wake of the finding that the above-mentioned documents have not been fraudulently obtained or have not been manipulated, treating the said documents to be duly executed and as genuine, one thing is clear that the Plaintiff-Respondent is in a settled possession of the suit property at least in part performance of the agreement which cannot be disturbed or disputed by the transferer, i.e., the Defendant-Appellant.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 7527-7528 of 2012

Decided On: 02.06.2023

Ghanshyam  Vs. Yogendra Rathi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipankar Datta and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.

Author: Pankaj Mithal, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0642/2023

Print Page

Can the plaintiff get possession of the suit property if the defendants fail to prove their title over the suit property?

In the above factual background, for the Plaintiff to succeed, she has to establish that she has a legal title to the Schedule 'A' property, and consequently, is entitled to a decree of possession. The Defendants cannot be dispossessed unless the Plaintiff has established a better title and rights over the Schedule 'A' property. A person in possession of land in the assumed character as the owner, and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership, has a legal right against the entire world except the rightful owner.9 A decree of possession cannot be passed in favour of the Plaintiff on the ground that Defendant Nos. 1 to 12 have not been able to fully establish their right, title and interest in the Schedule 'A' property. The Defendants, being in possession, would be entitled to protect and save their possession, unless the person who seeks to dispossess them has a better legal right in the form of ownership or entitlement to possession. {Para 30}

31. The burden of proof10 to establish a title in the present case lies upon the Plaintiff as this burden lies on the party who asserts the existence of a particular state of things on the basis of which she claims relief11. This is mandated in terms of Section 101 of the Evidence Act, which states that burden on proving the fact rests with party who substantially asserts in the affirmative and not on the party which is denying it. This Rule may not be universal and has exceptions13, but in the factual background of the present case, the general principle is applicable. In terms of Section 102 of the Evidence Act, if both parties fail to adduce evidence, the suit must fail.15 Onus of proof, no doubt shifts and the shifting is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence, but this happens when in a suit for title and possession, the Plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability to shift the onus on the Defendant. In the absence of such evidence, the burden of proof lies on the Plaintiff and can be discharged only when he is able to prove title.16 The weakness of the defence cannot be a justification to decree the suit.17 The Plaintiff could have succeeded in respect of the Schedule 'A' property if she had discharged the burden to prove the title to the Schedule 'A' property which squarely falls on her. This would be the true effect of Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act.18 Therefore, it follows that the Plaintiff should have satisfied and discharged the burden under the provisions of the Evidence Act, failing which the suit would be liable to be dismissed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 878 of 2009

Smriti Debbarma (Dead) through Legal Representative Vs. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjiv Khanna and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.

Author: Sanjiv Khanna, J.

Decided On: 04.01.2023.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0010/2023

Print Page

Whether suit simpliciter for injunction without claiming declaration is maintainable if title of plaintiff is in dispute?

 The issue is no more res integra. The position has been crystalised by this Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by L.Rs. and others, (2008) 4 SCC 594 in paragraph 21, which read thus:
“21. To summarise, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under:
(a) Where a cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with the plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.
(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.
(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title (either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar [Annaimuthu Thevar v. Alagammal, (2005) 6 SCC 202] ). Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.
(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straightforward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to the plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case.”{Para 9}

10. It could thus be seen that this Court in unequivocal terms has held that where the plaintiff’s title is not in dispute or under a cloud, a suit for injunction could be decided with reference to the finding on possession. It has been clearly held that if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.

Supreme Court

JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI

T.V. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Vs. M. MALLAPPA & ANR.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5577 OF 2021

7th September 2021

Author: B.R. GAVAI, J.

Citation:  2021 ALL SCR (ONLINE) 409

Print Page

Whether a person can claim title over an immovable property based ownership certificate issued by chief officer of Municipality?

 To prove the title, the petitioner relied on a document titled 'Ownership Certificate' signed by Chief Officer of respondent no. 2. It is a rule of interpretation of the law that to understand the real nature of the document and the intention of the parties, the document shall be read as a whole. We advert to the said document. It reads that "on the report of Council inspector, it is certified that the house nos. 1-27-42 and 1-27-43 Mhalla Kile ark, is of Shri Bomen Nanabhai.” It is a document dated 20.01.1971. It shows the house numbers. The local Government normally gives the numbers to the houses for identification purposes and to know who is occupying that house and is liable to pay the local taxes. The owner or occupier must furnish such information while filling the assessment form for the house/ building and other taxes. On the basis of information supplied in the assessment form, the local Government refers to it only to impose the liability of paying the various taxes. The authenticated document of title of the land may be sale deed, gift deed, will deed, or any other legally-recognized mode. Such legally recognized executed documents are the only authenticated proof of title. The Department of Land records maintains the title record of the lands on the basis of such authenticated proof title.

{Para 24}

25. We are not oblivious of the principle that the possession follows the title. However, when the title of the land is questioned on the basis of a better title, the burden to prove the title of the persons in possession shifts on him. A person in possession is presumed to be the owner of the land until the better title is proved against him. In other words, the possession, howsoever long, is not the proof of the title.

26. In the State of Maharashtra, the land records are maintained under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The Office of Land Records, constituted under the said Code, is the authentic Office. Despite the land record being maintained by such Office, the law is settled that bare entry in revenue or record of right does not prove the title. So far as the record maintained by Municipal Councils regarding the immovable properties is concerned, it is maintained for the building and various other tax purposes only. A document titled" Ownership Certificate" is of the year 1971. It mentions only house numbers and not the plot in dispute. Therefore, it would not be received as the title proof in favour of the petitioner. Besides the title of survey no.9, Princes Femina had claimed the title over the plot in dispute. The said suit is dismissed. But the fact remains that there was no valid and legal exchange of lands. The plot in dispute was never validly transferred in favour of the petitioner's father.

Bombay High Court

JUSTICE RAVINDRA V. GHUGE JUSTICE S. G. MEHARE

Hoshang s/o Boman Nanabhoy Dordi Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ANR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 5786 OF 2021

29th October 2021

Author: S. G. Mehare, J.

Citation: 2021 NearLaw (BombayHC Aurangabad) Online 2005

Print Page

Whether Suit Simpliciter For Injunction Without Claiming Declaration Of Title is Maintainable If Plaintiff's Title Is Disputed?

  It will also be relevant to refer to the following

observations of this Court in the case of Jharkhand State

Housing Board v. Didar Singh and another (2019) 17 SCC 69:

“11. It is well settled by catena of judgments

of this Court that in each and every

case where the defendant disputes the title

of the plaintiff it is not necessary that in all

those cases plaintiff has to seek the relief of

declaration. A suit for mere injunction does

not lie only when the defendant raises a

genuine dispute with regard to title and

when he raises a cloud over the title of the

plaintiff, then necessarily in those circum stances,

 plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for bare injunction.”

21. In the facts of the present case, it cannot be said

at this stage that the dispute raised by the defendant No.2

with regard to title is not genuine nor can it be said that the

title of the plaintiffappellant

over the suit property is free

from cloud. The issue with regard to title can be decided

only after the fullfledged

trial on the basis of the evidence

that would be led by the parties in support of their rival

claims.

NONREPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5577 OF 2021

 

T.V. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Vs M. MALLAPPA & ANR.

AUTHOR: B.R. GAVAI, J.

Print Page

Whether the court can refuse to grant a decree for possession to the plaintiff after declaring his title?

 A decree of possession does not automatically follow a

decree of declaration of title and ownership over property. It is

well settled that, where a Plaintiff wants to establish that the

Defendant’s original possession was permissive, it is for the

Plaintiff to prove this allegation and if he fails to do so,

 it may be presumed that possession was adverse, unless 

there is evidence to the contrary.

51. A person claiming a decree of possession has to establish

his entitlement to get such possession and also establish that

his claim is not barred by the laws of limitation. He must show

that he had possession before the alleged trespasser got

possession.

52. The maxim “possession follows title” is limited in its

application to property, which having regard to its nature, does

not admit to actual and exclusive occupation, as in the case of

open spaces accessible to all. The presumption that possession

must be deemed to follow title, arises only where there is no

definite proof of possession by anyone else. In this case it is

admitted that the Appellant-Defendant is in possession and not

the Respondent Plaintiff.

53. A suit for recovery of possession of immovable property is

governed by the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 3 of the

Limitation Act bars the institution of any suit after  expiry of the period of limitation prescribed in the said Act. The Court is obliged to dismiss a suit filed after expiry of the period of limitation, even though the plea of limitation may not have been taken in defence.

55. In the absence of any whisper in the plaint as to the date

on which the Appellant-Defendant and/or his Predecessor-in interest
 took possession of the suit property and in the absence

of any whisper to show that the relief of decree for possession

was within limitation, the High Court could not have reversed

the finding of the First Appellate Court, and allowed the

Respondent-Plaintiff the relief of recovery of possession, more

so when the Appellant-Defendant had pleaded that he had been

in complete possession of the suit premises, as owner, with

absolute rights, ever since 1966, when his father had executed

a Deed of Release in his favour and/or in other words for over 28 years as on the date of institution of the suit.

56. As held by the Privy Council in Peri v. Chrishold reported

in (1907) PC 73, it cannot be disputed that a person in

possession of land in the assumed character of owner and

exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a

perfectly good title against all the world but the rightful

owner...and if the rightful owner does not come forward and

assert his right of possession by law, within the period

prescribed by the provisions of the statute of limitation

applicable to the case, his right is forever distinguished, and the

possessory owner acquires an absolute title.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2843-2844 OF 2010

Nazir Mohamed  Vs J. Kamala 

Author: Indira Banerjee, J.

Dated:AUGUST 27, 2020

Print Page

When is the question of title and ownership relevant in the suit for an injunction?

 In the backdrop of the contentions put forth, though there could be no cavil to the position relating to the relevance of possession being the prime consideration in a bare suit for injunction as contended by the learned senior advocate for the Plaintiff, each case will have to be examined on its own merits keeping in view the nature of the pleading put forth before the trial court and the understanding of the case with which the parties have gone to trial. If this aspect is kept in view the very nature of the plaint averments would indicate that the parties to the suit are related to each other and the property which was being commonly enjoyed by their predecessors was partitioned under the Deed No. 2617/2007. The present dispute had arisen when the Plaintiff was seeking to put up a construction of the wall and the Defendants had objected to the same. The prayer in the plaint reads as hereunder:

(a) issue a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the Defendants and their people from trespassing into the plaint Schedule property or questioning the right of the Plaintiff or obstructing the enjoyment of the Plaintiff or committing waste trespassing into the plaint Schedule property or destroying the peaceful life of the Plaintiff.

(Emphasis supplied)

12. The emphasised portion in the prayer would provide an indication that the Defendant had challenged the right of the Plaintiff and not merely interference with the lawful possession as claimed by the Plaintiff and as such the prayer was sought. Further the averments raised by the Defendants in the written statement refers to the manner in which the right to the property had flowed ever since the partition through the Deed No. 651/1964 and the measurement thereof. The location of the shares enjoyed by the parties is referred and the right as claimed by the Plaintiff is disputed. 

13. The Issues No. 1 and 2 framed by the trial court refers to the identity of the property as also the ownership and possession thereof. The Plaintiff did not object to the said issues nor did the Plaintiff file any application Under Order 14 Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment or to strike out the said issues. On the other hand, the evidence was tendered based on the issues and the Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were considered by the trial court and was answered in favour of the Plaintiff wherein it is held that the Plaintiff is in ownership and possession of the plaint Schedule property. In that background when the Defendant had questioned such conclusion reached by the trial court and had put forth the contention and also sought for an opportunity to produce additional evidence by filing an application Under Order 41 Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure and in that background when the lower appellate court was of the opinion that the said issues need reconsideration in the background of the additional evidence and opportunity being provided to the Defendant the appropriate course was to remand the matter to the trial court and provide opportunity which was accordingly done.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1892 of 2020 

Decided On: 02.03.2020

Jose   Vs.  Johnson

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Indira Banerjee and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.

Citation: (2020) 3 SCC 780,MANU/SC/0251/2020.

Print Page

Whether the plaintiff should prove his title to the immovable property if the defendant raises the plea of adverse possession?

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Pappannan and others v. Kolandasamy reported in 2012 (3) MWN (Civil) 536 wherein it has been held as follows: ?20. At this juncture, I would like to dispel any wrong notion in this regard. There is no authority on the point that once the defendant raises the plea of adverse possession, the plaintiff is automatically relieved of his burden to prove his title on the assumption that the defendants should be deemed to have admitted the title of the plaintiff.

21. I recollect and call up the following maxims:

(i) Affirmantis est probare [He who affirms must prove]

(ii) Affirmanti non neganti incumbit probatio: The burden of proof lies upon him who asserts and not upon him who denies.

It is the bounden duty of the plaintiff to prove his case. The burden of proof is ambulatory. If the view of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is accepted, then in a title suit, no sooner the defendants file the written statement pleading adverse possession, straightaway the defendants can be directed to enter into the box and prove their case. But this is not the law on that point. The initial burden of proof in cases of this nature is only on the plaintiff, who should enter into the box and prove his title positively as has been already highlighted supra.

23. If at all the plaintiff succeeds in establishing his title by producing such clinching evidence, then it can be taken that the burden of proof got shifted from the plaintiff's side to the defendants' side and the defendants had to prove positively, their plea of adverse possession. However, the first appellate court started picking holes in the case of the defendants without expecting the plaintiff to prove his case. Wherefore, it is glaringly and pellucidly, palpably and axiomatically clear that the first appellate court erroneously decided the appeal.

Madras High Court

K.Vasanthi vs J.Ramanathan on 20 March, 2018

CORAM: MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

Second Appeal (MD) No.493 of 2016 

Print Page

Whether finding on the question of a title given by Small Cause Court would be res judicata in a suit based on the title?

While dealing with the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, 1887, this Court in Budhu Mal v. Mahabir Prasad and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 1772, held as under:

It is also true that in a suit instituted by the landlord against his tenant on the basis of contract of tenancy, a question of title could also incidentally be gone into and that any finding recorded by a Judge, Small Cause in this behalf could not be res judicata in a suit based on title. It cannot, however, be gainsaid that in enacting Section 23 the Legislature must have had in contemplation some cases in which the discretion to return the plaint ought to be exercised in order to do complete justice between the parties.

(Emphasis added)

8. Procedure adopted in trial of the case before the Small Cause Court is summary in nature. Clause (35) of Schedule II to the Act 1887, made the Small Cause Court a court of limited jurisdiction. Certain suits are such in which the dispute is incapable of being decided in a summary manner. More so, the Small Cause Court does not possess exclusive jurisdiction as its jurisdiction is merely preferential. [Vide Ram Chandra Pandey v. Maheshwari Singh and Ors. MANU/UP/0118/1962 : AIR 1962 All 480; and Manzurul Haq and Anr. v. Hakim Mohsin Ali MANU/UP/0087/1970 : AIR 1970 All 604 (F.B.)]

9. Thus, it is evident that the finding on the issue of title recorded by the Small Cause Court does not operate as res judicata and ultimately the issue of title has to be adjudicated upon by the competent civil court. This view also stands supported by the judgments of this Court in Dhulabai etc. v. State of M.P. MANU/SC/0157/1968

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

S.L.P. (C) Nos. 30648-30651/2010 (Arising out of CC Nos. 14376-14379 of 2010)

Decided On: 26.10.2010

Nirmal Jeet Singh Hoon  Vs.  Irtiza Hussain and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan, JJ.

Print Page

Whether suit for mandatory injunction for removal of illegal structure should be dismissed if plaintiff has failed to prove his title?

The first and the foremost fact that is required to be considered is that, the learned trial Court on the basis of evidence before it, had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove that, Saraswatibai left Will dated 17-7-1997 in his favour. Important point to be noted is that, though the trial Court had held that, the suit plot was self acquired property of Maruti and after his death, the plot was exclusively held by Saraswatibai, it was on the basis of challenge to the Will, the burden was on the plaintiff to prove the said Will, in which he had failed. The First Appellate Court also held that, the suit plot was the self acquired property of Maruti and that Saraswatibai had not executed any Will dated 17-7-1997 in favour of plaintiff. In fact when plaintiff had filed the said suit based upon the title which he was claiming through the said Will, and he failed in establishing the said Will i.e. title to the suit plot, then the ultimate result would have been only the dismissal of the suit, not else.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

S.A. No. 717 of 2016

Decided On: 11.06.2019

 Shivram Vs. Prabhakar 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Citation: 2019(6) MHLJ 903

Print Page

Whether in eviction proceeding landlord is required to prove absolute ownership?

Qua the challenge to ownership of the respondent as also to relationship of owner-tenant between the parties, the learned Trial Court has noted the respondent has purchased the subject property from one Jitender Kumar Sachdeva and Smt. Iqbal Kaur, predecessors in title vide registered a sale deed dated 02.06.2012. A copy thereof has been placed on record and thus the respondent has become the sole and absolute owner of the premises in question. Admittedly, the petitioner has not denied the execution of the sale deed in favour of the respondent by the predecessors in title. His assertion that the respondent was unemployed and a student at the time of the purchase of the property and hence the transaction is hit by the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act is a frivolous argument. All that the respondent need to show in these proceedings is the respondent/owner has a better title than the tenant/petitioner and nothing more. The respondent is not obliged to prove absolute ownership as is required under the Transfer of Property Act, since this is not a lis determining his title.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

RC. Rev. 398/2018 and CM Appl. 33400/2018

Decided On: 10.01.2019

 Neelam Sharma Vs.   Ekant Rekhan

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Yogesh Khanna, J.

Citation: 2019(1) RCR(Rent) 464

Print Page

Whether plaintiff seeking protection of his possession should prove his title?

 The ratio of the judgment does not indicate that in every case, where the plaintiff claims to be in settled previous possession of property claiming to protect it, he must prove either his title or his entitlement to be in possession. Ours is a case where the Plaintiff was undisputedly in settled possession of the suit property. It was his case that the owner of the suit property, being his self-acquired property, had put the Plaintiff in possession of the same after evincing intention to make an oral gift in his favour. In pursuance of such delivery of possession, the owner had even applied to the revenue authorities for effecting a mutation in respect of the suit property in favour of the Plaintiff. Ever since the death of the admitted owner of the suit property, the Plaintiff had, in the premises, been in settled physical possession, cultivating the same. He claimed to be entitled to protect his possession from any unauthorised person. On these facts, unless the Defendants show that they were actually in joint physical possession or had the right to be in such possession, the Plaintiff's suit for possession could not have been dismissed. 

In the High Court of Bombay

(Before S.C. Gupte, J.)

Kadar Raju Shaikh  v.  Abbas Pirmohamad Shaikh 

Second Appeal No. 249 of 1993

With

Civil Application No. 1779 of 2016

Decided on November 7, 2019

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 4688

Print Page

Supreme Court: Tenant can not seek enquiry of title of landlord

Whether the share given by Shri Dwarka Prasad to

the appellant who is his son is justified or as to whether the

nature of the document under which the settlement was

recorded was as per requirement of law and valid are all

issues which can only be raised by any other member of

the family who would feel deprived and could have claimed

right over the such property. But in a circumstance where

Shri Dwarka Prasad who admittedly was the owner of the

property had made a settlement in favour of the appellant

who is his son, the title thus acquired, in any event, cannot

be called in question by the person who is in occupation of

the premises as a tenant when Shri Dwarka Prasad who

admittedly was his landlord did not continue to claim to be

the landlord. If that be the position as rightly noticed by

the Appellate Authority, in view of the provision as

contained in Section 8 and Section 109 of Transfer of

Property Act, on transfer of the property by the owner the

tenant would automatically become the tenant of the

transferee. 

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6572 OF 2010

Santosh Chaturvedi  Vs Kailash Chandra 

Dated:November 15, 2019

A.S. Bopanna,J.
Citation: AIR 2020 SC 270 : 2020(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 405 (S.C.)

Print Page

Whether landlord can recover of tenanted premises on basis of title even if he has failed to prove landlord tenant relationship?

The trial court decreed the plaintiffs' suit and a decree for recovery of possession was passed on the basis of a perfect title found in the plaintiffs. Whether the plaintiffs could get a decree on the basis of their title or not was the moot question to be considered by the Court of appeal below; more so, when the trial Court in arriving at the finding that the 'plaintiffs had a valid title in the suit premises on the basis of their sale deed discussed the evidence (oral and documentary) on the record. The trial Court granted the decree (in parti in favour of the plaintiffs on the ground of equitable relief. Whether the decree could be granted in favour of the plaintiffs on the ground of equitable relief or not was the question to be considered by the lower appellate Court. The view taken by the Court of appeal below to the effect that if the decree for eviction could not be passed, as prayed in relief (a), the question of allowing the prayer in relief (b) did not arise, was not a correct view of law, as already decided by this Court in Second Appeal No. 458 of 1980 (Satyadeo Prasad v. Bibi Zulekha Khatoon), disposed of on 22nd of Mar. 1984.* Once the opportunity to establish title was given to the plaintiffs and plaintiffs did establish their title in the premises in question on the basis of their sale-deeds, there was no reason to deny the equitable relief to the plaintiffs. Such a view has been settled in the case of Satyadeo Prasad v. Bibi Zulekha Khatoon (Supra). The Court of appeal below should have gone into the question of title and seen for itself whether in its opinion, the plaintiffs had established their title in the premises in question, but, as already stated above, the court of appeal below, having taken an erroneous view of law, did not go into this question at all nor did it consider the various circumstances and the evidence, which were taken into consideration by the trial Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA

A.F.A.D. No. 308 of 1980

Decided On: 24.04.1984

Aras Khan Vs. Ali Mian

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ashwini Kumar Sinha , J.

Citation: AIR 1985 Pat 126

Print Page

Whether Outer limitation for suit for possession based on title is lost if relief of declaration is also sought?

 It was next contended by the learned counsel that the suit
was not filed within limitation. This objection is totally
untenable. Admittedly, the possession of the land was handed
over to the Trust only in the year 1978. The suit was filed in the
year 1987. The appellants contend that the limitation for the suit
is three years as the suit is one for declaration. We are of the
view that this contention has to be rejected. We have culled out
the main prayers made in the suit hereinabove which clearly
indicate that it is a suit not only for declaration but the plaintiffs
also prayed for possession of the suit land. The limitation for
filing a suit for possession on the basis of title is 12 years and,
therefore, the suit is within limitation. Merely because one of the
reliefs sought is of declaration that will not mean that the outer
limitation of 12 years is lost. Reliance placed by the learned

counsel for the appellants on the judgment of this Court in L.C.
Hanumanthappa v. H.B. Shivakumar1 is wholly misplaced.
That judgment has no applicability since that case was
admittedly only a suit for declaration and not a suit for both
declaration and possession. In a suit filed for possession based
on title the plaintiff is bound to prove his title and pray for a
declaration that he is the owner of the suit land because his suit
on the basis of title cannot succeed unless he is held to have
some title over the land. However, the main relief is of
possession and, therefore, the suit will be governed by Article 65
of the Limitation Act, 1963. This Article deals with a suit for
possession of immovable property or any interest therein based
on title and the limitation is 12 years from the date when
possession of the land becomes adverse to the plaintiff. In the
instant case, even if the case of the defendants is taken at the
highest, the possession of the defendants became adverse to the
plaintiffs only on 19.08.1978 when possession was handed over
to the defendants. Therefore, there is no merit in this contention
of the appellants.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4478 OF 2007

SOPANRAO Vs SYED MEHMOOD 

Deepak Gupta, J.
Dated:July 03, 2019.

Print Page

Whether wakf tribunal can decide issue of title even if non muslim parties are involved?

Thus, the view of the High Court that right, title and interest of a non-Muslim to the Wakf in a property cannot be put in jeopardy is contrary to the statutory scheme as contained in Section 6 of the Act, 1995. Thus, the reason of the High Court to allow the revision petition is wholly unfounded. The defendant in written statement has pleaded that the suit property is not Wakf property. When issue in the suit is as to whether suit property is Wakf property or not it is covered by specific provision of Sections 6 and 7 of the Wakf Act, 1995, hence, it is required to be decided by the Tribunal under Section 83 and bar under Section 85 shall come into existence with regard to jurisdiction of Civil Court. In this context, in the judgment in Haryana Wakf Board v. Mahesh Kumar, (2014) 16 SCC 45, this Court has laid down that the question as to whether the suit property is a Wakf property is a question which has to be decided by the Tribunal.

In the Supreme Court of India

(Before Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph, JJ.)

Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2019

Punjab Wakf Board  v. Sham Singh Harike

Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2019 and Civil Appeal No. 93 of 2019

Decided on February 7, 2019

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 142

Print Page