Evidence Act (1 of 1872) S.

35 — Mutation entries — Evidentiary

value— Mere mutation of entries does not confer title — Mere
absence of name of appellants in revenue records — Not a ground for
respondent to claim to have acquired title over suit property by
pleading adverse possession Limitation Act (36 of 1963), Arts 64, 65
(Para 22)

Hon'ble Judge(s): V. GOPALA GOWDA :: UDAY UMESH LALIT ::

Citations :: AIR 2016 SUPREME COURT 1433 (

17. This Court in several Judgments has held that the 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.”
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 form the basis for declaration of title in
favour of the plaintiff.”

In AIR 2014 SC 937 (Union of India Vs. Vasavi Co-Op Housing Society Ltd)

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 title.
Reference may be made
to the judgment of this Court in
Syndicate Bank v. Estate Officer &
Manager, APIIC Ltd. & Ors. (2007) 8 SCC 361 and Vatticherukuru
Village
Panchayat v. Nori Venkatarama Deekshithulu & Ors. (1991) Supp. (2)
SCC 228.

1. 2010 (2) SCC 114 (Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttarpradesh and others)

2. 2010 (4) SCC 728 (Oswal Fats and Oils Limited vs. Additional Commissioner
(Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly and others)

3. AIR 1983 SC 676 (Madan Naik (dead by LRs.) and others vs. Mst.Hansubala Devi
and others)

4. AIR 1920 Madras 580 (Rahimunnissa Begamd and others vs. M.A.Srinivasa
Ayyangar)

5. AIR 2014 SC 937 (Union of India and others vs. Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.
and others)

6. AIR 1989 SC 1809 (Corporation of the City of Bangalore vs. M.Papaiah and another)
Union of India vs Ibrahim
Uddin and Anr
Supreme Court of India [ Division Bench ]
Civil Appeal No. 1374 of 2008
Decided on 17/07/2012

Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) S.34, Proviso — Suit for declaration of title
— plaintiff though not in possession of suit property — Relief of possession
not claimed — Suit liable to dismissed (Para 46)

Hon'ble Judge(s): Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN :: DIPAK MISRA ::

Citations :: 2013 AIR SCW 2752 (From : Allahabad)* :: AIR 2013 SC (Civil)
1571 (From : Allahabad)* :: 2013 (4) ALJ 66 (SUPREME COURT) (From :
Allahabad)* ::

Venkataraja & Ors vs Vidyane

Doureradjaperumal (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors
Supreme Court of India [ Division Bench ]
Civil Appeal No. 7605 of 2004
Decided on 10/04/2013

Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) S.34, Proviso — Declaratory suit without
consequential relief — Tenability — Suit by plaintiff for declaration that he is owner
of suit property — And sale made to defendant was null and void — Suit property in
possession of tenants who were parties to suit — plaintiff could have claimed
possession from tenants — Suit filed for declaration simpliciter — Not maintainable
— Fact that plaintiff could file suit for eviction — No ground to hold suit as
maintainable — Holding suit for declaration simpliciter as maintainable would
defeat S 34 proviso and O 2, R 2 of Civil P C Civil P C (5 of 1908), O 2, R 2 (Para 15)

Hon'ble Judge(s): Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN :: F. M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA ::

Citations :: 2013 AIR SCW 3063 (From : Madras)* :: 2013 (3) AKR 149 (SUPREME
COURT) (From : Madras)* :: AIR 2013 SC (Civil) 1810 (From : Madras)* ::

Amiya Bala Dutta & Ors vs Mukut Adhikari

& Ors
Supreme Court of India [ Division Bench ]
Civil Appeal No. 5115 of 2002
Decided on 23/02/2011

Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) S.34 — Suit for declaration of title and recovery
of possession — Evidence produced by parties, which included Jamabandi
showed original plaintiff and defendant as owner in equal share — Court relying
upon mutation entries recording finding that suit land was jointly owned by
original plaintiff and original defendant, not improper (Para 7)

Hon'ble Judge(s): G. S. SINGHVI :: A. K. GANGULY ::

Citations :: AIR 2011 SC (Civil) 840 (From : 1999 AIHC 1244 (Gau)) ::

Ramji Rai & Anr. vs Jagdish Mallah (Dead)

through L. Rs. & Anr.
Supreme Court of India [ Division Bench ]
Civil Appeal No. 5353 of 2006
Decided on 04/12/2006

Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) S.35 — Suit for permanent injunction for
protection of possession — Failure to prove possession — Sufficient for dismissal
of such suit — Declaration regarding title — Unwarranted
An injunction restraining disturbance of possession will not be granted in favour of
the plaintiff who is not found to be in possession. In the case of a permanent
injunction based on protection of possessory title in which the plaintiff alleges that
he is in possession, and that his possession is being threatened by the defendant, the
plaintiff is entitled to sue for mere injunction without adding a prayer for declaration
of his rights. (Para 10)

Where in the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering
with the possession of land in dispute or from raising boundary wall, the plaintiffs
fail to prove that they are in possession, the suit is liable to be dismissed only on that
ground. The declaration that the plaintiffs are not owners in such case is
unwarranted. (Para 11)

Hon'ble Judge(s): ARIJIT PASAYAT :: S. H. KAPADIA ::

Citations :: 2007 AIR SCW 599 :: AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 900 :: 2007 (2)
ALJ 206 (SUPREME COURT) (From : 2004 (2) All CJ 1898) ::

Union of India and others vs Vasavi Co-op.

Housing Society Ltd. and others
Supreme Court of India [ Division Bench ]
Civil Appeal No. 4702 of 2004
Decided on 07/01/2014

Union of India and others vs Vasavi Co-

op. Housing Society Ltd. and others
Supreme Court of India [ Division Bench ]
Civil Appeal No. 4702 of 2004
Decided on 07/01/2014

Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) S.34 — Suit for declaration of title — Onus
to prove his title is on plaintiff — He cannot succeed on weakness of
defendant— s case

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, irrespective of the question
whether the defendants have proved their 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 must be non-suited. (Para 15)

Hon'ble Judge(s): K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN :: A. K. SIKRI ::

Citations :: 2014 AIR SCW 580 (From : Andhra Pradesh) :: AIR 2014
SUPREME COURT 937 (From : Andhra Pradesh) :: AIR 2014 SC (Civil) 613
(From : Andhra Pradesh) ::

Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) S.34 — Suit for declaration of title — Onus to
prove his title is on plaintiff — He cannot succeed on weakness of defendant— s
case

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, irrespective of the question whether the
defendants have proved their 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
must be non-suited. (Para 15)

Hon'ble Judge(s): K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN :: A. K. SIKRI ::

Citations :: 2014 AIR SCW 580 (From : Andhra Pradesh) :: AIR 2014 SUPREME
COURT 937 (From : Andhra Pradesh) :: AIR 2014 SC (Civil) 613 (From : Andhra
Pradesh) ::
Revenue entries does not confer title

In AIR 2014 SC 937 (Union of India Vs. Vasavi Co-Op Housing Society Ltd)

M. Venkatesh and others vs Commissioner,

Bangalore Development Authority
Supreme Court of India [ Full Bench ]
Civil Appeal No. 7944 of 2015
Decided on 24/09/2015

Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) S.38 — Injunction — Issued only to protect
lawful possession of plaintiffs — plaintiffs already dispossessed from suit
property prior to filing suit — Cannot claim injunction

Once it was found that the property was vacant as on the date of the filing of the suit
there was no question of the plaintiffs claiming settled possession of the said
property since the so called settled possession of the appellants stood vacated from
the suit schedule property, no prayer for injunction as set out in the petition filed by
the plaintiff could help them for an injunction issued only to protect what is in lawful
possession of the plaintiffs. Injunction could not be claimed when plaintiffs stand
dispossessed from the suit property prior to the filing of the suit. The question of
establishing settled possession did not, therefore, arise in relation to the properties
that already stood cleared of any structures by demolition of whatever stood on the
same. (Para 12)

Hon'ble Judge(s): T. S. THAKUR :: R. K. AGRAWAL :: R. BANUMATHI ::

Citations :: 2016 (1) AKR 107 (SUPREME COURT) (From : Karnataka) :: 2015
AIR SCW 6933 (From : Karnataka) :: 2016 (1) ADR 197 (SUPREME COURT)
(From : Karnataka) ::

2. In Thiruvengada Pillai Vs. Navaneethammal & Anr., [JT 2008 (2) SC

585 : AIR 2008 SC 1541], this Court held that when the execution of an
unregistered document put forth by the Plaintiff was denied by the
Defendants, the ruling that it was for the Defendants to establish that
the document was forged or concocted is not a sound proposition. The
first appellate Court proceeded on the basis that it is for the party who
asserts something to prove that thing; and as the Defendants alleged
that the agreement was forged, it was for them to prove it. But the first
appellate Court lost sight of the fact that the party who propounds the
document will have to prove it. It was the Plaintiff who had come to
Court alleging that the first Defendant had executed an agreement of
sale in his favour. The Defendant having denied it, the burden was on
the Plaintiff to prove that the Defendant had executed the agreement and
not on the Defendant to prove the negative.

34. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1996 (4) SCC 526 (His
Holiness Acharya Swami Ganesh Dassji.. Sita Ram Thapar) the principle of readiness and
willingness has been referred as follows:-

"2. There is a distinction between readiness to perform the contract and willingness to
perform the contract. By readiness may be meant the capacity of the plaintiff to perform
the contract which includes his financial position to pay the purchase price. For
determining his willingness to perform his part of the contract, the conduct has to be
properly scrutinised. There is no documentary proof that the plaintiff had ever funds to
pay the balance of consideration. Assuming that he had the funds, he has to prove his
willingness to perform his part of the contract. According to the terms of the agreement,
the plaintiff was to supply the draft sale deed to the defendant within 7 days of the
execution of the agreement i.e., by 27.02.1975. ......"

35. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (17) SCC 27 cited supra,
it has been held as follows:-

"12. It was, however, held by the High Court that readiness and willingness on the part of
the plaintiff to perform her part of contract having been conveyed in a telegraphic notice
(Exhibit A3), it was obligatory on the part of the appellant - plaintiff to examine herself in
the suit and as she did not examine herself, the legal requirements envisaged under
Section 16(c) of the Act cannot be said to have been complied with. It was furthermore
held that as no evidence was adduced to establish that the amount of consideration which
was required to be paid to the defendant was available with the plaintiff, she was not
ready and willing to perform her part of contract. It was observed that for the
aforementioned purpose, contents of the legal notice dated 16.11.1981/20.11.1981
(Ex.A3) would not be decisive."