Revenue Record Entries Won't Confer Title; Rights Under Deed Won't Be Lost Merely Because Revenue Records Aren't Changed : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the lethargy or the carelessness on the part of the State Government in not getting the revenue records corrected would not take away the rights conferred on the State under a deed.

The Court said that once the property is transferred to the State by way of a valid gift deed, then the property would be deemed to be owned by the State. The mere appearance of the transferor's legal heirs' name in the revenue records would not confer any title on them, the court held.

"merely because the name of the plaintiff continued in the revenue records (Jama Bandis), it would not confer any title upon him. Revenue records (Jama Bandis) are only entries for the purpose of realising tax by the Municipal Corporations or land revenue by Gram Sabhas....The lethargy/carelessness on the part of the State in not getting the revenue records corrected on the basis of the gift deed would not take away the rights conferred on the State under the gift deed," the Court observed,

It was a case where a donation of land was made by the transferor to the State of Punjab in 1958 for the construction of the Veterinary Hospital. During his lifetime, the transferor never objected or filed any suit alleging trespass or unauthorized occupation by the State. The Hospital was constructed over the donated property in 1958-1959. However, almost after 43 years in 2001, the son of the transferor filed a suit for possession of the suit property donated to the State.

The claim of possession by the plaintiff/transferor's son over the suit property was disputed by the defendants/appellant(State) on the grounds of limitation. The defendant stated that since the plaintiff had admitted that he had witnessed the functioning of the hospital since 1981, therefore, the cause of action accrued from 1981, and the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff in 2001 was barred by limitation as the suit for possession based on title ought to be filed within 12 years as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Finding force in the appellant/defendant's contention, the bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and KV Viswanathan observed that the plaintiff's suit for possession based on title was barred by limitation as the suit was not within 12 years from the date of cause of action (1981) arisen.

“Considering this letter dated 24.04.1981, even if we assume that the Respondent became aware of the hospital's existence on this date for the very first time yet the suit filed by him shall not fall within the limitation period. Article 65 of the Limitation Act clearly stipulates that in a suit for possession of immovable property, the period of limitation will be twelve years from when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Respondent-plaintiff's suit is clearly barred by limitation.”, the Judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath said.

The court said that the title of the land in a suit had passed on to the State after the donation and transfer of possession and after construction, the hospital continued for more than four decades before filing of the suit. The court faulted the inaction of the plaintiff despite admitting the running of the hospital.

“It is unfortunate that after 43 years, his son filed the suit for possession without seeking declaration, as in case, he would have sought relief of declaration, the suit would have been further barred by time for the said relief also. The defendant having been in possession without any hindrance since 1958, the suit filed would only be a mockery of justice if decreed. If the plaintiff's case was that it was never donated but still the hospital had been constructed, then the plaintiff should have instituted a suit for possession within 12 years. Having not done so, the suit was clearly barred by time for the relief of possession.”, the court added.

Clever Drafting By Plaintiff To Conceal Circumstances By Which Suit Was Barred By Limitation

The Court has questioned the manner of drafting a plaint by the plaintiff. The plaintiff circumvented that provision using clever drafting to avoid mention of those circumstances, by which the suit is barred by law of limitation.

"Herein, it is evident that the plaintiff purposely drafted/filed a vague plaint which lacked the essential details of when the hospital was constructed, when the plaintiff became aware of such construction, when the right of ownership devolved upon the plaintiff when his father passed away, his letter of 24.04.1981 to the Tehsildar etc. It is nothing but a clear attempt by Respondent at surpassing the bar under limitation law for filing the suit since the existence of the hospital was a fact well known to him since long ago.", the court observed.

Burden Of Proving Ownership Lies On Plaintiff In Suit For Possession

Taking reference to Section 110 of the Evidence Act, of 1872, the Court said that the burden of proof as to ownership of a property lies on the person challenging the ownership of the person in possession. The Court said that the Court below has erred in shifting the burden of proving the ownership on the Appellant/defendant as the burden of proof in the suit for possession lies on the plaintiff.

“In view of the clear finding that the hospital is functioning on the suit land since 1958, the Trial Court as well as the High Court have wrongly shifted the proof of ownership on the Appellant, whereas it lay on the Respondent by virtue of Section 110 of the Evidence Act.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the appeal of the State was allowed.

Counsels For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sanjay Hegde, Sr. Adv. Ms. Bhakti Pasrija, D.A.G. Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Mr. Moksh Pasrija, Adv.

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Supriya Juneja, AOR Mr. Kartikeya Dang, Adv. Mr. Rudraditya Khare, Adv. Mr. Sahir Seth, Adv. Mr. Arjun Varma, Adv.

Case Details: THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS Versus BHAGWANTPAL SINGH ALIAS BHAGWANT SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 479

Click here to read/download the Judgment