Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Abstract

• 1. A Plaintiff has to win the title-suit on his evidence; not on the weakness of the adversary.
• 2. In a suit on title, if the plaintiff makes a high degree of probability it will shift the onus on the defendant
• 3. Court is Entitled to Consider the Title set up by the Defendants also (Ram Chandra Sakharam Mahajan Vs. Damodar Trimbak, AIR 2007 SC 2577).

Court is Entitled to Consider the Title set up by the Defendants also

Supreme Court of India, in Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad v. Gangaram Narayan Ambekar, (2020) 7 SCC 275, held as under:

• “The initial burden of proof is on the plaintiffs to substantiate his cause, if he failed to discharge the same, the weakness in the defense cannot be the basis to grant relief to the plaintiffs and burden cannot be shifted on the defendants.”

In Ram Chandra Sakharam Mahajan Vs. Damodar Trimbak, AIR 2007 SC 2577, it is observed –

• In a recovery on title suit, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish title.
• Court is also entitled to consider the rival title set up by the defendants.
• Weakness of defence to establish title, would not enable plaintiff to a decree.

The Apex Court held:

• “The suit is for recovery of possession on the strength of title. Obviously, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that title. No doubt in appreciating the case of title set up by the plaintiff, the Court is also entitled to consider the rival title set up by the defendants. But the weakness of the defence or the failure of the defendants to establish the title set up by them, would not enable the plaintiff to a decree. There cannot be any demur to these propositions.”
• “14. We find that the trial Court and the appellate Court were not justified in refusing the amendment of the plaint sought for by the plaintiff. No doubt there had been delay in seeking amendment but that delay could have been compensated by awarding costs to the contesting defendants 1 to 9. Therefore, we are satisfied that the amendment sought for by the plaintiff ought to have been allowed. We are inclined to allow the amendment sought for, since it would enable the Court to pin-pointedly consider the real dispute between the parties and would enable it to render a decision more satisfactorily to its conscience. We, therefore, allow the amendment as sought for by the plaintiff at a belated stage. The amendment will be carried out by the plaintiff in the trial Court within three months from this date as per the practice followed in the trial Court. Obviously defendants 1 to 9 would have an opportunity to file an additional written statement to the amended plaint. They will be entitled to file an additional written statement within a period of four months from the date of this judgment.”

Suit on Title – Weakness of the Defence & High Degree of Probability

A Plaintiff has to win the title-suit on his evidence; not on the weakness of the adversary. But it must be noted that the plaintiff need to show only a high degree of probability; and that it shifts the onus on the defendant.

In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami, AIR 2003 SC 4548: (2003) 8 SCC 752, the law is stated in the following terms :

• “A fact is said to be ‘proved’ when, if considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of a particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. It is the evaluation of the result drawn by applicability of the rule, which makes the difference. …”
• In a suit for recovery of possession based on title it is for the plaintiff to prove his title and satisfy the court that he, in law, is entitled to dispossess the defendant from his possession over the suit property and for the possession to be restored to him. However, as held in A. Raghavamma v. A. Chenchamma there is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof: burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the fact and which never shifts. Onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. In our opinion, in a suit for possession based on title once the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability so as to shift the onus on the defendant it is for the defendant to discharge his onus and in the absence thereof the burden of proof lying on the plaintiff shall be held to have been discharged so as to amount to proof of the plaintiff’s title.
• In the present case, the trial Court and the first appellate Court have noted that the plaintiff has not been able to produce any deed of title directly lending support to his claim for title and at the same time the defendant too has no proof of his title much less even an insignia of title. Being a civil case, the plaintiff cannot be expected to proof his title beyond any reasonable doubt; a high degree of probability lending assurance of the availability of title with him would be enough to shift the onus on the defendant and if the defendant does not succeed in shifting back the onus, the plaintiff’s burden of proof can safely be deemed to have been discharged. In the opinion of the two Courts below, the plaintiff had succeeded in shifting the onus on the defendant and, therefore, the burden of proof which lay on the plaintiff had stood discharged. …”.
• The suit property, which is a shop, is situated just adjoining the property owned by the temple. It has come in the evidence that the property which is now owned by the temple was at one time owned by the forefathers of the plaintiff and they made an endowment in favour of the temple. The father of the plaintiff, and then the plaintiff, continued to be the trustees. The trouble erupted when in the late sixties the Charity Commissioner appointed other trustees and Chief Executive Officer of the trust dislodging the plaintiff from trusteeship. The plaintiff staked his claim to trusteeship of the temple submitting that the office of the trustee of the temple was hereditary and belonged to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was managing the trust property as trustee while the property adjoining to the property of the temple, i.e. the suit property, was in possession of the plaintiff as owner occupied by the tenant, the defendant No.2., inducted as such by the father of the plaintiff. At the instance of the Chief Executive Officer of the trust, the defendant No.2, during the continuance of the tenancy in favour of the plaintiff, executed a rent note in favour of the temple attorning the latter as his landlord. This the defendant no.2 could not have done in view of the rule of estoppel as contained in Section 116 of the Evidence Act. It was at the instance of the newly appointed trustees and the Chief Executive Officer who on behalf of the temple started claiming the suit property in occupation of the tenant, defendant No.2, to be trust property belonging to the temple. But for this subsequent development the title of the plaintiff to the suit property would not have been in jeopardy and there would have been no occasion to file the present suit.
• The learned counsel for the temple, defendant-respondent No.1, faintly urged that the appellant being a trustee of the temple was trying to misappropriate the property belonging to the temple. For such an insinuation there is neither any averment in the written statement nor any evidence laid. Such a submission made during the course of hearing has been noted by us only to be summarily rejected. We have already held that the appellant is the owner of the suit property entitled to its possession and recovery of arrears of rent from the defendant No.2.
• … A high degree of preponderance of probability proving title to the suit property was raised in favour of the appellant and the courts below rightly concluded the burden of proof raised on the plaintiff having been discharged while the onus shifting on the defendant remaining undischarged. ..”
• (Quoted in: Anil. Rishi vs. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558; City Municipal. Council, Bhalki Vs. Gurappa, (2016) 2 SCC 200)

In Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 9,it is held bu our Apex Court as under:

• “31. The burden of proof
  • ^{[See Paragraph 19 in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558 where the expression ‘burden of proof’ is used in three ways, namely, (i) to indicate the duty of bringing forward evidence in support of a proposition at the beginning or later; (ii) to make that of establishing a proposition as against all counter-evidence; and (iii) an indiscriminate use in which it may mean either, or both of the others.]}
• 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 relief [See Addagada Raghavamma and Another v. Addagada Chenchamma and Another, AIR 1964 SC 136.] This is mandated in terms of Sec. 101
  • ^{[Sec. 101: Burden of Proof.- Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.]}
• 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 exceptions,[See Ss. 103, 104 and 105 of the Evidence Act.] but in the factual background of the present case, the general principle is applicable. In terms of Sec. 102
  • ^{[Sec. 102: On whom the burden of proof lies.- The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.]}
• of the Evidence Act, if both parties fail to adduce evidence, the suit must fail.[See Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558.] 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.[See R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder  v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami V.P. Temple and Another, (2003) 8 SCC 752.] The weakness of the defence cannot be a justification to decree the suit. [See Union of India v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited, (2014) 2 SCC 269.] 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 Ss. 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act. [See Sebastiao Luis Fernandes v. K.V.P. Shastri, (2013) 15 SCC 161.]
• 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.”

Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet

In P.  Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K.  Patkar, 2024-1 CTC 547; 2023-4 CurCC(SC) 278), after pointing out that ‘the revenue records are not documents of title’, it is held as under:

• “18. It is settled law that a vendor cannot transfer a title to the vendee better than he himself possesses, the principle arising from the maxim nemo dat quod non habet, i.e., “no one can confer a better title than what he himself has”. In the present case, the plaintiff’s vendor having been denied the right of title in the land by the Commissioner’s order, could not have conveyed the same to her vendee.”
• “22. Contention advanced on behalf of the plaintiff that through the record of rights the plaintiff has established his title by a preponderance of probabilities is not sustainable. As noted above, the plaintiff failed to produce a single document of title in respect of the suit property. In a dispute with respect to determination of title, merely pointing out the lacunae in the defendant’s title would not suffice. Having instituted the suit for declaration, the burden of proof rested on the shoulders of the plaintiff to reasonably establish the probability of better title, which the plaintiff in the present case, has manifestly failed to do.”

Revenue Documents alone will not make High Degree of Probability

The Supreme Court held in P.  Kishore Kumar Vs. Vittal K.  Patkar, 2024-1 CTC 547; 2023-4 CurCC(SC) 278) , Bela M. Trivedi and  Dipankar Datta, JJ., as under:

• “25. Mr. S.N. Bhat placed reliance on the decision of this Court in R.V.E.  Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami V.P. Temple, (2003) 8 SCC 75,2 to contend that the plaintiff was only expected to prove his title to a high degree of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. The principle of law argued by the learned senior counsel is not one we wish to dispute, the same having been well settled through numerous decisions of this Court. However, having led in evidence only revenue documents which are essentially fiscal in nature, we have no hesitation in holding that in the present case, the plaintiff has been unable to assert his case to a high degree of probability. It is, therefore, not enough that the plaintiff led in evidence records of rights for a number of years in an attempt to establish his title; such records would not counter the proof of occupancy rights furnished by the defendant, in a test of probative value.”

“Credible Document of Title”

In P.  Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K.  Patkar, 2024-1 CTC 547; 2023-4 CurCC(SC) 278), after pointing out that the ‘revenue records are not documents of title’, it is held as under:

• “26. This Court, in Somnath Burman vs. S.P. Raju and Ors., (1969) 3 SCC 129 held that possession can be regarded as a better title against all, except the true and lawful owner. Therefore, the multitude of revenue documents put to use to argue that the plaintiff was cultivating the suit property would not adequately meet the demands of proof made by law. The only credible document of title led as evidence in the present case was in favour of the defendant’s predecessor-in-interest; hence, it must follow that it is only the defendant who can be declared the lawful owner of the ‘B’ schedule property.”

In Union of India v. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Limited, (2014) 2 SCC 269, it is held as under:

• “15. It is trite law that, in a suit for declaration of title, the burden always lies on the Plaintiff to make out and 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.” (Quoted in P.  Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K.  Patkar, 2024-1 CTC 547; 2023-4 CurCC(SC) 278)

In Jagdish Prasad Patel v. Shivnath, (2019) 6 SCC 82, it is observed as follows:

• “44. In the suit for declaration for title and possession, the Plaintiffs- Respondents could succeed only on the strength of their own title and not on the weakness of the case of the Defendants-Appellants. The burden is on the Plaintiffs-Respondents to establish their title to the suit properties to show that they are entitled for a decree for declaration. The Plaintiffs-Respondents have neither produced the title document i.e. patta-lease which the Plaintiffs-Respondents are relying upon nor proved their right by adducing any other evidence. As noted above, the revenue entries relied on by them are also held to be not genuine. In any event, revenue entries for few Khataunis are not proof of title; but are mere statements for revenue purpose. They cannot confer any right or title on the party relying on them for proving their title.” (Quoted in P.  Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K.  Patkar, 2024-1 CTC 547; 2023-4 CurCC(SC) 278)

Petitioner to Prove claim (Lease); cannot rely Inconsistencies of Respondents

In OT Alexander v. State of Kerala, LAWS (KER) 2021-5. 23, High Court of Kerala (N. Nagaresh, J.) did not accept the argument of the petitioner in the Writ Petition, against the Government Order for resumption of the land, for the absence of materials to establish the lease of 1933 claimed by the Petitioner.  The prime contention of the petitioner was that the land was originally granted to the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner, under Ground Rent Patta by erstwhile Collector of South Malabar District during the British regime in 1933; and that Land assigned under Ground Rent Patta could not be resumed by the Government.

The petitioner claimed that the transferees of the original leasee sold their right to a bank. The Bank (State Bank of Travancore) sold the property to a Company in 1995. The petitioner purchased the property from the Company as per the Sale Deed of the year 2004. The petitioner has been paying property tax to the Cochin Corporation. The action for resumption of land by the District Collector was on the ground that the sale deed between SBT and the Company was illegal. Pointing out that the petitioner cannot base his claim on inconsistencies of the respondents, the High Court did not accept the arguments against the resumption of land by the Collector.

Document Ex-Facie Reveals No Title – Declaration as to Invalidity Not Necessary

The Supreme Court held in Kizhakke Vattakandiyil Madhavan v. Thiyyurkunnath Meethal Janaki (Aniruddha Bose & Sudhanshu DhuliaJJ.) 9.4.2024, held as under:

• “18. …. If a document seeking to convey immovable property ex-facie reveals that the conveyer does not have the title over the same, specific declaration that the document is invalid would not be necessary. The Court can examine the title in the event any party to the proceeding sets up this defence. Chiruthey could not convey any property over which she did not have any right or title. Her right, if any, would stem from the second deed of lease (Exhibit A-1). We are conscious of the fact that no claim was made before any forum for invalidating the deed dated 14th July 1910 (Exhibit A-20).”

By proving a deed, title of the executing person is not automatically confirmed

The Supreme Court held in Kizhakke Vattakandiyil Madhavan v. Thiyyurkunnath Meethal Janaki (Aniruddha Bose & Sudhanshu DhuliaJJ.) 9.4.2024, also held as under:

• “18. … It would be trite to repeat that even if subsistence of a deed is proved in evidence, the title of the executing person (in this case Chiruthey) does not automatically stand confirmed. ….. … But in absence of proper title over the subject property, that lease deed even if she was its sole lessor would not have had been legally valid or enforceable. If right, title or interest in certain property is sought conveyed by a person by an instrument who herself does not possess any such form of entitlement on the subject being conveyed, even with a subsisting deed of conveyance on such property, the grantee on her successors-in-interest will not have legal right to enforce the right the latter may have derived from such an instrument.”