suit for declaration of title and injunction.
2024 INSC 88
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 722 OF 2016
GOVERNMENT OF GOA ...Appellant(s)
THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY
Vs.
MARIA JULIETA D’SOUZA (D) & ORS. ...Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
1. This is an appeal against the final judgment of the High
Court of Bombay at Goa allowing the first appeal against the
judgment of the Trial Court dated 25.07.2007 that dismissed the
suit filed by the respondent herein.
2. The suit came to be filed by the respondent(s) herein for
declaration of title and injunction. The Trial Court dismissed
the suit on two grounds: first, the plaintiff could not
establish her title by way of a clear document of title in her
favour. Second the suit is itself barred by limitation.
3. In appeal, the High Court considered the matter in detail
and in so far as the first ground is concerned, the High Court
referred to various documents including deeds evidencing the
presence of title in favour of the plaintiffs’ predecessor
followed by their continuous possession and came to the
2
conclusion that her title over the property is well-established.
So far as limitation is concerned, the High Court held that the
suit is within the period of limitation, apart from also noting
that the question of limitation was not pressed by the
Government before the Trial Court.
4. We heard Ms. Ruchira Gupta, who was well-prepared on law
and fact. She prepared a detailed list of dates and has also
taken us through the relevant portions of the pleadings in the
suit and other documents. She has pointed out the findings of
fact as arrived by the Trial Court. Referring to the reasoning
of the High Court, she submitted that the High Court had wrongly
shifted the burden of proof on to the State (defendant) rather
than requiring the plaintiff to prove its title. She further
submitted that the High Court wrongly asked for proof of
possession of the property rather than for proof of title of
the property, which is the only inquiry in a suit for
declaration. In support of her submission, she has referred to
the precedents of this Court in Sebastiao Luis Fernandes (Dead)
through LRs. v. K.V.P. Shastri (Dead) through LRs.1 and Union
of India v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited2.
5. Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the
opinion that the High Court has correctly reappreciated the
facts and evidence while exercising first appellate jurisdiction
and has also followed the law as applicable in proving a suit
1(2013)15 SCC 161
2(2014)2 SCC 269
3
for declaration. The High Court has also examined the plea of
limitation and held that the suit is within the period of
limitation.
6. While Ms. Ruchira Gupta submitted that the High Court
wrongly shifted the plaintiff’s burden to prove its own case
for declaration on to the State and that the plaintiff must
prove its own case, we found that what she was submitting was
not about the burden of proof but the standard of proof. We will
explain this in the context of fact as well as law.
7. On fact, the High Court referred to multiple pieces of
evidence, orders, and documents and string them together to come
to a clear conclusion that the title subsists in the plaintiff.
Suffice for us to say that these pieces of evidence were adduced
and proved by the plaintiff alone. The High Court did not solely
rely on the lack of evidence by the State to establish its own
title in coming to its conclusion. Thus, the burden of proof
was well-discharged by the plaintiff and the High Court
correctly examined and concluded its findings based on the
plaintiff’s evidence.
8. On law, the position is as follows. There is a clear
distinction between burden of proof and standard of proof. This
distinction is well-known to civil as well as criminal
practitioners in common law jurisprudence. What Ms. Ruchira
sought to point out is that the documents relied on by the
plaintiff did not point out the existence of title at all. She
is right to the extent that no single document in itself
4
concludes title in favour of the plaintiff, but this is not an
issue of burden of proof. This is a matter relating to the
sufficiency of evidence. While inquiring into whether a fact is
proved3, the sufficiency of evidence is to be seen in the context
of standard of proof, which in civil cases is by preponderance
of probability. By this test, the High Court has correctly
arrived at its conclusion regarding the existence of title in
favour of the plaintiff on the basis of the evidence adduced.
9. For these reasons, Civil Appeal arising out of judgment
of the High Court in First Appeal No. 282 of 2007 dated
21.10.2010 is dismissed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
11. No order as to costs.
…………………………………………………………………………J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
…………………………………………………………………………J.
[ARAVIND KUMAR]
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 31, 2024
3 Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act defines the terms as:
“Proved”.––A fact is said to be proved when, after 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 the particular
case, to act upon the supposition that it exists
