1. Civil Suit – Declaration of Title – Burden of Proof
In a suit for declaration of title, the burden always lies on the plaintiff to establish title by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. The plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case.
(Paras 21–23, 26–27, 54(i), 54(ii))
2. Ancestral Property – Proof of Lineage and Title
Where a claim of title is based on ancestry, the plaintiff must strictly prove the title of his predecessors and the devolution of such title. Mere assertion of lineage or similarity of surname with a religious institution is insufficient.
(Paras 26, 30–33, 54(ii), 54(vi))
3. Revenue Records – Pattadar Passbooks – Cist Receipts – Evidentiary Value
Pattadar passbooks, adangals, mutation entries, and cist receipts are not documents of title. They are maintained for fiscal purposes and do not confer ownership or prove title.
(Paras 26–27, 32–33, 48–53, 54(iii))
4. Possession – Presumption under Section 110 Evidence Act (Section 113 BSA, 2023)
The presumption that possession follows title is rebuttable and arises only when possession is prima facie lawful and referable to title, and where no title vests in any other party. Such presumption cannot be invoked where the claim itself is founded on title which is not proved.
(Paras 38–47, 54(iv), 54(v))
5. Endowment Property – Revenue Records Standing in Name of Religious Institution
Where the suit property stands recorded in the name of a religious endowment, and the plaintiff fails to establish ancestral title by documentary evidence, a decree for declaration cannot be granted.
(Paras 26, 28–29, 32, 54(v), 54(vii))
6. Pleadings – Effect of Plea of “Ignorance”
A plea of “not aware” in the written statement, when read as a whole, does not amount to admission of the plaintiff’s title or possession. Pleadings must be construed in their entirety and not in isolation.
(Paras 34–36)
7. Possession Without Proof of Title – No Declaration
Even assuming possession, in the absence of proof of title in favour of the plaintiff or his ancestors, a suit for declaration of title cannot succeed.
(Paras 47–48, 54(vii))
8. First Appeal – Scope of Interference
Where the trial court has properly appreciated oral and documentary evidence and applied settled principles of law, the appellate court will not interfere merely because another view is possible.
(Paras 27–29, 54(viii))
ANALYSIS
The plaintiffs sought declaration of title and consequential injunction over agricultural lands claiming them to be ancestral properties. Their entire claim was founded on lineage traced to a person bearing the name “Matam Veera Brahmam Swamy” and on revenue documents such as cist receipts and pattadar passbooks.
The Court examined whether the plaintiffs discharged the initial and primary burden of proof. It found that no registered document, no original title deed, and no revenue record establishing ownership of the plaintiffs’ ancestors was produced. The reliance on pattadar passbooks and cist receipts was held insufficient, as such documents do not constitute proof of title.
The plaintiffs attempted to invoke the presumption under Section 110 of the Evidence Act, contending that possession follows title. The Court rejected this contention, holding that such presumption arises only when possession is lawful and referable to title, and where no title is shown to vest in another party. In the present case, the revenue records stood in the name of a religious endowment, thereby negating any presumption in favour of the plaintiffs.
The argument that the defendant’s pleadings amounted to admission was also rejected. The Court clarified that pleadings must be read as a whole and that a plea of “ignorance” regarding certain revenue entries cannot be construed as admission of title or possession.
Ultimately, the Court affirmed that a declaratory suit cannot be decreed merely on the basis of possession or revenue entries, particularly when the property stands recorded in the name of an endowment and the plaintiffs fail to establish ancestral title.
RATIO DECIDENDI
In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must establish title by cogent documentary evidence. Mutation entries, pattadar passbooks, cist receipts, or alleged possession do not confer title. The presumption that possession follows title under Section 110 of the Evidence Act (Section 113 BSA, 2023) is rebuttable and arises only where possession is lawful and no title vests in another party. Where property stands recorded in the name of a religious endowment and ancestral title is not proved, a decree for declaration cannot be granted.
