Jojy George Koduvath

Abstract

Plaintiff has to Win Suit for Recovery on Title, on the Strength of his Title

In Vijay Pullarwar v. Shri Hanuman Deostan, (2019) 11 SCC 718, the suit for possession instituted by the plaintiffs trust on the basis of title, was found to be devoid of merits; for, there was no reference in the registration application of the public trust under the BPT Act, 1950 or in schedule I, where to record the properties of the public trust, that the suit property belonged to the trust. Our Apex Court held as under:

• “Needless to observe that the plaintiffs/respondents were primarily obliged to establish their title in the suit house bearing No.878 in Circle No.3 where the Padukas of Saint Haridas Baba have been installed, as being the property of the plaintiff trust. The plaintiffs must succeed or fail on the title they establish; and if they fail to do so, they must fail to get the relief of possession irrespective of title of the defendant in the suit property (See: Brahma Nand Puri v. Naki Puri, (1965) 2 SCR 233 and Bajaranglal Shivchandrai Ruia v. Shashikant N. Ruia, (2004) 5 SCC 272).”

In Brahma Nand Puri v. Neki Puri, AIR 1965 SC 1506, the Apex Court held as under:

• “The plaintiff’s suit being one for ejectment he has to succeed or fail on the file that he establishes and if he cannot succeed on the strength of his title his suit must fail notwithstanding that the defendant in possession has no title to the property… …”

If Title of Plaintiff is Nullity, Defendant Need Not file a Substantive Suit;

• Plaintiff in ejection suit must succeed or fail on his title
• If Plaintiff Shows Apparent Title, Defendant to Plead Defects Thereon

In Bajaranglal Shivchandrai Ruia v. Shashikant N. Ruia, AIR 2004 SC 2546, the defendants contended that the plaintiff’s title, on the basis of the alleged auction sale ‘was a nullity, as it was ultra vires the legal provisions and on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, non-service of demand notice on all the heirs and co-owners’. It was contended from the part of the (original) plaintiff that the sale proceedings could be challenged only by way of a substantive suit, and that the High Court was right in characterising the challenge to the suit by the defendant as a ‘backdoor method’. The Apex Court held as under:

• “If the title claimed by the plaintiff was a nullity and wholly void, there was no need for any of the defendants including Bajranglal to challenge it by way of a substantive suit. They could always set up nullity of title as a defence in any proceeding taken against them based upon such title. If, in fact, the sale was a nullity, it was non est in the eye of law and all that defendant had to do was point this out. (See in this connection: Ajudh Raz and Ors. v. Moti S/o Mussadi, [1991] 3 SCC 136 and the opinion of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Abdulla Mian v. Government of Bombay, (1942) 44 Bom LR 577.
• In Vidyadhar v. Manikrao and Anr., [1999] 3 SCC 573, the plaintiff had filed a suit on the basis of a sale deed executed by D-2 in his favour and sought the relief of possession of the property from defendant no. 1 who was an absolute stranger to the sale deed. The question which arose was whether defendant No. l, who was in possession, could justify his possession by urging the nullity of sale transaction between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2. In these circumstances, this Court held (vide para 21):
  • ‘The above decisions appear to be based on the principle that a person in his capacity as a defendant can raise any legitimate plea available to him under law to defeat the suit of the plaintiff. This would also include the plea that the sale deed by which the title to the property was intended to be conveyed to the plaintiff was void or fictitious or, for that matter, collusive and not intended to be acted upon. Thus, the whole question would depend upon the pleadings of the parties, the nature of the suit, the nature of the deed, the evidence led by the parties in the suit and other attending circumstances.’
• Here, the plaintiffs suit is for ejection of the defendant and for possession of the suit property. She must succeed or fail on the title that she establishes. If she cannot succeed in proving her title, the suit must fail notwithstanding that the defendant in possession may or may not have title to the property. (See in this connection: Brahma Nand Puri v. Neki Puri, [1965] 2 SCR 233 at p. 237).
• Appellant Bajranglal had sufficiently pleaded in his written statement the defects in the title of the plaintiff and it was, therefore, open for the learned Single Judge to go into this question and decide if the plaintiff had good title or not. …… In our view, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the plaintiff’s title was invalid and non est for contravention of the provisions of Section 206 of the BMC Act and the Regulations made thereunder, is fully justified and brooked no interference in appeal. ……. In our view, the principle in Vidyadhar’s case clearly applies to the case on hand.”

Suit on Title – Both Parties Claim Title – Plaintiff Shows High Probability, Onus Shifts

In a suit for recovery on title, where both plaintiff and defendant claim title, if plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability, he will Win, if the defendant fails to discharge his onus. 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 :

• “29. 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.” (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 and Others v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Others, (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 (DEAD) Through LRs. And Others v. K.V.P. Shastri (DEAD) Through LRs. And Others, (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.”

Burden of Proof General Principles and Nuances of Sections 101 to 106

Our Apex Court in Mohd.  Abdullah Azam Khan Vs. Nawab Kazim Ali Khan, 2023 KLT OnLine 1084 (SC), authoritatively lays down the General principles as to Burden of Proof. It reads:

• 12.1. The legal scheme governing various aspects of ‘burden of proof’ in the Indian context, is contained in Sections 101 to 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• 12.2. As per Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, when a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. This section is based on the rule, ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, which means that the burden of proving a fact rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue and not upon the party who denies it, because a negative is usually incapable of proof. The burden of proving a fact always lies upon the person who asserts and until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. The court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden lies has been able to discharge his burden. However, the above rule is subject to the general principle that things admitted need not be proved.
• 12.3. The question as to whether burden of proof has been discharged by a party to the lis or not, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. If the facts are admitted or, if otherwise, sufficient materials have been brought on record so as to enable a Court to arrive at a definite conclusion, it is idle to contend that the party on whom the burden of proof lies would still be liable to produce direct evidence, vide National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rattani (2009) 2 SCC 75: AIR 2009 SC 1499.
• 12.4. Burden to prove documents lie on plaintiff alone as onus is always on the person asserting a proposition or fact which is not self­evident. This position is summarised in the observation to the effect that, an assertion that a man who is alive was born requires no proof; the onus, is not on the person making the assertion, because it is self­evident that he had been born. But to assert that he had been born on a certain date, if the date is material, requires proof; the onus is on the person making the assertion, vide Robins vs. National Trust & Co. Ltd. 1927 AC 515: 101 IC 903.
• 12.5. It is also to be noted at this juncture that 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 it never shifts, onus of proof on the other hand, shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. For instance, 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 plaintiffs title, vide RVE Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and VP Temple AIR 2003 SC 4548: (2003) 8 SCC 752.
• 12.6. In terms of section 102 of the Evidence Act, the initial burden to prove its claim is always on the plaintiff and if he discharges that burden and makes out a case which entitles him to a relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff of the same.
• 12.7. Where, however, evidence has been led by the contesting parties, abstract considerations of onus are out of place and truth or otherwise must always be adjudged on the evidence led by the parties [Kalwa Devadattam vs. Union, AIR 1964 SC 880]
• 12.8. As per Section 103, the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. This section amplifies the general rule in section 101 that the burden of proof lies on the person who asserts the affirmative of the issue. It lays down that if a person wishes the court to believe in the existence of a particular fact, the onus of proving that fact, is on him, unless the burden of proving it is cast by any law on any particular person.
• 12.9. Section 105 is an application of the rule in section 103. When parties to a dispute adduce evidence to substantiate their claim, onus becomes academic and divided, entailing each party to prove their respective plea.
• 12.10. Section 106 is an exception to the general rule laid down in Section 101, that the burden of proving a fact rest on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue. Section 106 is not intended to relieve any person of that duty or burden but states that when a fact to be proved is peculiarly within the knowledge of a party, it is for him to prove it. It applies to cases where the fact is especially within a party’s knowledge and to none else. The expression ‘especially’ used in Section 106 means facts that are eminently or exceptionally within one’s knowledge. This means a party having personal knowledge of certain facts has a duty to appear as a witness and if he does not go to the witness box, there is a strong presumption against him. In an Election Petition, the initial burden to prove determination of age of returned candidate lies on the petitioner, however, burden lies on the respondent to prove facts within his special knowledge. (Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar [ (2003) 8 SCC 673) ]. 
• 12.11. The provisions of Section 106 are unambiguous and categorical in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. If he does so, he must be held to have discharged his burden but if he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106. [Source: Sarkar on Law of Evidence, 20th Edition, Volume 2.]
• 12.12. In Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar (supra), the controversy was with regard to the improper acceptance of the nomination of the sole respondent therein on the premise that he was under qualified to contest the Bihar Legislative Assemble election from 181, Parbatta Constituency. In the said case, inter alia, the horoscope of the respondent therein and admission register of New St. Xaviers School, Boring Road, Patna and transfer certificate issued by Swami Vivekananda Vidyalaya, Mithapur, Patna, were produced as documents to prove that the successful candidate therein was not eligible to contest the said Assembly election. In the said case, Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act was referred to and it was observed that the register maintained in terms of a statute or by a statutory authority in regular course of business would be a relevant fact and if such vital evidence had been produced, it would clinch the issue. It was observed that there is no reliable evidence on record to show that the date of birth was recorded in the school register on the basis of the statement of any responsible person and that the admission register or a transfer certificate issued by a primary school do not satisfy the requirements of Section 35 of the Evidence Act.

The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Chand and Bros v. Rattan Lal, (2013) 2 SCC 606, has held as under:

• 18. It is well-settled principle of law that a person who asserts a particular fact is required to affirmatively establish it. In Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh [(2006) 5 SCC 558] (SCC p. 561, para 9), it has been held that the burden of proving the facts rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative issues and not the party who denies it and the said principle may not be universal in its application and there may be an exception thereto. The purpose of referring to the same is that if the plaintiff asserts that the defendant had acknowledged the signature, it is obligatory on his part to substantiate the same. But the question would be what would be the consequence in a situation where the signatures are proven and there is an evasive reply in the written statement and what should be construed as substantiating the assertion made by the plaintiff.
• 19. In Krishna Mohan Kul v. Pratima Maity [(2004) 9 SCC 468] it has been ruled thus: (SCC p. 474, para 12) “12. … When fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence is alleged by a party in a suit, normally, the burden is on him to prove such fraud, undue influence or misrepresentation.”
• 20. In Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee [AIR 1964 SC 529] a Constitution Bench of this Court, while dealing with a mode of proof of a will under the Succession Act, 1925 observed that where the caveator alleges undue influence, fraud and coercion, the onus is on him to prove the same.
• 21. In A. Raghavamma v. A. Chenchamma [AIR 1964 SC 136], while making a distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof, a three-Judge Bench opined thus: (AIR p. 143, para 12) “12. … There is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof: burden of proof lies upon the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts, but the onus of proof shifts. The burden of proof in the present case undoubtedly lies upon the plaintiff to establish the factum of adoption and that of partition. The said circumstances do not alter the incidence of the burden of proof. Such considerations, having regard to the circumstances of a particular case, may shift the onus of proof. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence.”

If Sale on which Title rests is Vitiated, Title will be Nullity

It was held by the Bombay High Court in Sarang Avinash Kamtekar v. Alpha Organic (2005) relying on

• (1) Himadri Coke and Petro Ltd. v. Soneko Developers (P) Ltd., (2005) 12 SCC 364;
• (2) Bajaranglal Shivchandrai Ruia v. Shashikant N. Ruia, 2004(3) SCR 373; and
• (3) A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P., (2007) 4 SCC 221.

that a sale on which title of a party to the suit rests is vitiated, title will be bad in law.

Principle Not Applicable with its Full Vigor in a suit filed by the State

From R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami, AIR 2003 SC 4548, it is clear that, though in a suit for recovery on title, a plaintiff cannot argue that the defendant failed to prove his title.

But, it may not be applicable with its full vigor in a suit filed by the State, for it is the paramount title holder of the property by virtue of the Constitution.

Read Blog: Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.

Law Recognises Efficacy of Possession in Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act

Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act allows one to file a suit for recovery of property, on the strength of his prior possession, if he had lost his possession within 6 months of the suit. In such a case, he need not prove his title; and he can succeed on establishing that he has been dispossessed otherwise than in accordance with law within six months.

Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 reads as under:

• 6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property. (1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit.
• (2) No suit under this section shall be brought
  • (a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or
  • (b) against the Government.
• (3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed.
• (4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof.

If Title not Perfected by Adver. Posn, Can one Eject a Trespasser After 6 Months

High Courts differ, as pointed out in Kuttan Narayanan v. Thomman Mathayi, AIR 1966 Ker 179.

Now it is settled that if one fails to exercise his option by filing a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act within six months, he is at liberty to file a suit to recover his possession (with or without declaration) by a regular suit for recovery of possession. It can be based on title or on his possession in assumed or presumed character of ownership (even if title not perfected by doctrine of adverse possession) on the principle that possession is good title against all the world but the rightful owner. See: Kuttan Narayanan v. Thomman Mathayi, AIR 1966 Ker 179; Kanti Lal v. Smt. Shanti Devi, AIR 1997 Raj 230.

Read Blog: POSSESSION is a Substantive Right in Indian Law

Courts Protect Settled Possession

• Possession by itself is a substantive right recognised by law.
  • Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K.C Alexander, AIR 1968 SC 1165
  • Kuttan Narayanan v. Thomman Mathayi, AIR 1966 Ker 179;
  • Phirayalal Kapur v. Jia Rani, AIR 1973 Delhi 186;
  • Nallammal v. Ayisha Beevi, 2017-5 Mad LJ 864). 
• It is trite law that courts protect settled possession.
  • Poona Ram v. Moti Ram, AIR 2019 SC 813
  • Aarti v. Aruna Gautham. 2015 -1 RCR (Civil) 160,
  • Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, 2004-1 SCC 769.
  • Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao, (1989) 4 SCC 131
  • Ram Rattan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1977) 1 SCC 188.
  • Puran Singh v. The State of Punjab, (1975) 4 SCC 518
  • Munshi Ram v. Delhi Administration, (1968) 2 SCR 455.

Read Blog: Kesar Bai v. Genda Lal – Does Something Remain Untold?

Even Rightful Owner to Take Recourse to law; He cannot take the law in his own hands

In Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, (2004) 1 SCC 769, our Apex Court Court (R.C. Lahoti, B.N. Srikrishna, G.P. Mathur, JJ.) observed that the law will come to the aid of a person in peaceful and settled possession by injuncting even a rightful owner. It is held as under:­ 

• “8. It is thus clear that so far as the Indian law is concerned the person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession and in order to protect such possession he may even use reasonable force to keep out a trespasser.
• A rightful owner who has been wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake possession if he can do so peacefully and without the use of unreasonable force.
• If the trespasser is in settled possession of the property belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law; he cannot take the law in his own hands and evict the trespasser or interfere with his possession. 
• The law will come to the aid of a person in peaceful and settled possession by injuncting even a rightful ownerfrom using force or taking law in his own hands, and also by restoring him in possession even from the rightful owner (of course subject to the law of limitation), if the latter has dispossessed the prior possessor by use of force.
• In the absence of proof of better title, possession or prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title. Law presumes the possession to go with the title unless rebutted. The owner of any property may prevent even by using reasonable force a trespasser from an attempted trespass, when it is in the process of being committed, or is of a flimsy character, or recurring, intermittent, stray or casual in nature, or has just been committed, while the rightful owner did not have enough time to have recourse to law. In the last of the cases, the possession of the trespasser, just entered into would not be called as one acquiesced to by the true owner.” (quoted in: Subramanya Swamy Temple, Ratnagiri v. V. Kanna Gounder, 2009-3 SCC 306; Poona Ram v. Moti Ram, AIR 2019 SC 813)

What is the settled possession or effective possession of a person without title which would entitle him to protect his possession even as against the true owner was made clear in Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, (2004) 1 SCC 769. It reads as under:

• “9. …The “settled possession” must be (i) effective, (ii) undisturbed, and (iii) to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt at concealment by the trespasser. The phrase “settled possession” does not carry any special charm or magic in it; nor is it a ritualistic formula which can be confined in a straitjacket. An occupation of the property by a person as an agent or a servant acting at the instance of the owner will not amount to actual physical possession.” (quoted in Samarpan Varishtha Jan Parisar vs Rajendra Prasad Agarwal, AIR 2022 SC 2209)

Even the Rightful Owner cannot Eject a Trespasser with Force

In Karthiyayani Amma v. Govindan, AIR 1980 Ker 224, the Kerala High Court considered the question whether the rightful owner can eject a trespasser in possession with force; and whether a person in illegal possession could sustain a suit for injunction against the true owner, from forcibly dispossessing him from the property.  It was held as under:

• “The ultimate position, therefore, reduces itself to this:
• Can a person in possession without title sustain a suit for injunction against the rightful owner if he proves possession?
• Yes. In this case, plaintiff is found to in be possession. On the finding, he should be granted the injunction prayed for. A person in possession can be evicted only in due process of law. Even the rightful owner cannot eject him with force. If he cannot be evicted with force, he continues to be in possession and he can resist invasion of his possession by everyone including the rightful owner. If the rightful owner threatens his peaceful possession, he can approach Courts of Law and pray for the equitable relief of injunction to protect his possession”. (Followed in: Aiysumma v. Mariyamma, 1994-2 CIVCC 52, 1994-1 KerLT 570. )

It is pointed out in Suresh v. Ashok Girdharilal Chandak, 2016-1 MHLJ 171 that ‘bearing in mind the basic principle of law in civil jurisprudence that even a trespasser cannot be evicted without following due process of law and no one can be allowed to take law into his own hands to recover possession of the property without following due process of law and without proving title to the immovable property in possession of a person holding actual physical possession thereof’.

No Injunction in Favour of a Trespasser, Against the ‘True Owner’

It is observed by our Apex Court, in Prataprai N. Kothari v. John Braganza, AIR 1999 SC 1666, as under:

• “It is quite obvious that the learned single Judge had not taken note of the principle of possessory title or the principle of law that a person who has been in long continuous possession can protect the same by seeking an injunction against any person in the world other than the true owner. It is also well settled that even the owner of the property can get back his possession only by resorting to due process of law.

Divergent Views are set out in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner, AIR 2004 SC 1801 also. They are the following:

• first, a person in settled possession cannot be disposed by the owner except by recourse of law
• second, a trespasser in possession cannotnot seek injunction against the true owner.

In this case, a forceful postulation is posed-

• A trespasser ousted can seek restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, (even) against the true owner. If so, can’t the trespasser seek injunction as to possession, against the true owner?

In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner, AIR 2004 SC 1801, the appellants were the plaintiffs whose suit was rejected in terms of Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is held in this decision as under:

• “24. There are two different sets of principles which have to be borne in mind regarding course to be adopted in case of forcible dispossession. Taking up the first aspect, it is true that where a person is in settled possession of property, even on the assumption that he has no right to remain in property, he cannot be disposed by the owner except by recourse of law. This principle is laid down in Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. That Section says that if any person is dispossession without his consent from immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit. That a person without title but in “settled” possession – as against mere fugitive possession – can get back possession if forcibly dispossessed or rather, if dispossessed otherwise than by due process of law, has been laid down in several cases. It was so held by this Court in
  • Yashwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh, AIR 1968 SC 620,
  • Krishna Ram Mohate v. Mrs. Shobha Venkata Rao, (1989) 4 SCC 131 at p. 136;
  • Ram Rattan v. State of UP, (1977) 1 SCC 188, and
  • State of UP v. Maharaja Dharmender Prasad Singh, (1989) 2 SCC 505.
• The leading decision quoted in these rulings is the decision of the Bombay High Court in
  • K. K. Verma vs. Union of India, AIR 1954 Bom 358.
• 25. Now the other aspect of the matter needs to be noted. Assuming a trespasser ousted can seek restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 can the trespasser seek injunction against the true owner?
• This question does not entirely depend upon Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, but mainly depends upon certain general principles applicable to the law of injunctions and as to the scope of the exercise of discretion while granting injunction.
• In Mahadeo Savlaram Sheike vs. Pune Municipal Corporation, (1995) 3 SCC 33, it was held, after referring to Woodrofe on “Law relating to injunction: L. C. Goyal Law of injunctions:
  • David Bean Injunction Jayce on Injunctions and other leading Articles on the subject that the appellant who was a trespasser in possession could not seek injunction against the true owner.
• In that context this Court quoted Shiv Kumar Chadha vs. MCD, (1993) 3 SCC 161, wherein it was observed that injunction is discretionary and that:
  • “Judicial proceedings cannot be used to protect or to perpetuate a wrong committed by a person who approaches the Court.”
• 26. Reference was also made to Dalpat Kumar vs. Prahlad Singh (1992) 1 SCC 719 in regard to the meaning of the words prima facie case and balance of convenience and observed in Mahadeos case (supra) that:
  • “It is settled law that no injunction could be granted against the owner at the instance of a person in unlawful possession.”
• 27. The question of forcible possession as claimed is also a matter which can be pressed into service by the parties before the trial Court and if raised the Court shall deal with it considering its relevance to the suit and accept it or otherwise reject the plea in accordance with law. We do not think it necessary to express any opinion in that regard.
• 28. …. Looking into the nature of dispute it would be appropriate if the trial Court makes an effort to complete the trial within six months from the date of the judgment. The parties are directed to co-operate for disposal of the suit early within the stipulated time. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated without any order as to costs.”

Burden on plaintiff to Prove Title; Weakness of defence would not enable a decree

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.”

Possession is Good Against All But the True Owner

The principle that ‘possession is good against all but the true owner’ is stated in Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K.C. Alexander, AIR 1968 SC 1165, referring Judicial Committee decision in Parry v. Clissold, (1907) AC 73, as under:

• “17. In our judgment this involves an incorrect approach to our problem. To express our meaning we may begin by reading 1907 AC 73, to discover if the principle that possession is good against all but the true owner has in any way been departed from. 1907 AC 73 reaffirmed the principle by stating quite clearly:
  • “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 title by the process of law within the period prescribed by the provisions of the statute of Limitation applicable to the case, his right is for ever extinguished and the possessory owner acquires an absolute title.”

Following decisions also say – no injunction can be passed, in favour of a trespasser, against the ‘true owner’ of a property:

• Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh, AIR 1968 SC 620 (possession after the termination of the tenancy);
• M.C. Chockalingam v. Manickavasagam (1974) 1 SCC 48;
• Krishan Ram Mahale v. Mrs. Shoba Venkat Rao, (1989) 4 SCC 131;
• Premji Ratansey Shah v. Union of India, 1994 (5) SCC 547;
• Nagar Palika, Jind v. Jagat Singh, Advocate (1995) 3 SCC 426;
• Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. A. Viswam, 1996 (8) SCC 259;
• Ramesh Chand Ardawariya v. Anil Panjwani AIR 2003 SC 2508;
• Gram Panchayat, Mundliyan, Tehsil Tohana v. Bawria, 1996(3) RCR (Civil) 349;
• Gurcharan Singh v. District-Chief Agricultural Officer, Jalandhar, 1997(1) RCR (Civil) 1;
• Sukhwant Singh vs Divisional Forest Officer; 2009(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2286, 2010-2 RCR(Civil) 394;
• Mohini v. Thimmappa, 2015-4 Ker LT 759;
• Lions Club of Thrikkakara v. Greater Cochin Development Authority, AIR 2017 Ker 77: 2017-2 Ker LT 158 (revocation of a licence).

• Read Blog: Declaration and Injunction

Document ex-facie reveals no title – specific 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.”