Civil Procedure – Suit for declaration of title – Burden of proof – Revenue entries – Pattadar passbooks – Cist receipts – Presumption of ownership – Section 110 Evidence Act (Section 113, BSA, 2023)
Held:
In a suit for declaration of title, the burden of proof lies squarely on the plaintiff to establish title by cogent evidence. The plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case. Revenue entries, pattadar passbooks, mutation records and cist receipts are not documents of title and do not confer ownership. Mere possession or alleged cultivation, even if assumed, does not dispense with proof of title. Presumption under Section 110 of the Evidence Act (now Section 113 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) is rebuttable and arises only when possession is lawful and no title is shown to vest in any other party. Where revenue records stand in the name of an endowment/Mutt, the maxim “possession follows title” cannot be invoked to grant declaration in the absence of proof of title in plaintiffs’ ancestors. Mere resemblance or identity of surname does not establish ancestral title.
(Paras 21–23, 26–28, 33, 37–48, 54)
ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW
A. Nature of the Suit and Core Controversy
The appellants/plaintiffs sought declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction over multiple extents of agricultural land, claiming the properties to be ancestral, tracing lineage to one Matam Veera Brahmam Swamy. Their case rested substantially on cist receipts, pattadar passbooks, and alleged long possession and cultivation.
(Paras 3–5)
The second respondent (Mutt) categorically denied plaintiffs’ title, asserting that the suit lands were endowment properties belonging to Sri Pothuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamy Mutt, and that plaintiffs’ predecessors were merely associated with service to the Mutt.
(Paras 7, 30)
B. Findings on Burden of Proof
The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that in a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff bears the initial and continuous burden to establish title by reliable evidence. Failure to do so is fatal, irrespective of whether the defendant successfully proves his own title.
(Paras 21–23)
The plaintiffs did not produce any registered document, adangal, RSR entry, or title deed to establish that the suit properties ever belonged to their ancestors.
(Paras 11, 27, 31–33)
C. Evidentiary Value of Revenue Records
The pattadar passbooks and mutation entries relied upon by the plaintiffs were held to be revenue records meant for fiscal purposes, incapable of conferring or proving title.
(Paras 26–28, 48–53)
Conversely, revenue records including RSR, Adangal, and Endowment entries stood in the name of the Mutt/Endowment Commissioner, which remained unrebutted by the plaintiffs.
(Paras 28, 31–32, 47)
D. Pleadings and Alleged Admissions
The plaintiffs’ contention that the defendant admitted possession or cultivation was rejected. The Court held that:
-
References to “alleged cultivation” do not amount to admissions.
-
Pleadings must be read as a whole.
-
Pleading “ignorance” regarding issuance of pattadar passbooks or loans does not amount to admission of title or possession.
(Paras 34–36)
E. Presumption under Section 110 Evidence Act
The Court exhaustively examined the scope of Section 110 of the Evidence Act (now Section 113, BSA, 2023) and held that:
-
Presumption of ownership from possession is rebuttable.
-
It applies only where possession is lawful and no competing title exists.
-
It cannot be invoked where title is specifically claimed and disputed, and where revenue records show title in another entity.
(Paras 37–47)
F. Surname and Ancestral Claim
The Court rejected the argument that the common use of the surname “Matam” established ancestral ownership, holding that mere resemblance of surname cannot convert Mutt property into private ancestral property.
(Paras 26, 30, 54(vi))
RATIO DECIDENDI
-
In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must establish title by cogent documentary evidence; failure to do so mandates dismissal, irrespective of weaknesses in the defendant’s case.
-
Revenue records, pattadar passbooks, mutation entries and cist receipts are not documents of title and cannot form the basis for declaration of ownership.
-
The presumption under Section 110 of the Evidence Act (Section 113, BSA, 2023) that possession follows title is rebuttable and arises only when possession is lawful and no title vests in another party.
-
Where revenue records stand in the name of an endowment or Mutt, and plaintiffs fail to prove ancestral title, the maxim “possession follows title” cannot be invoked.
-
Mere identity or resemblance of surname does not establish ancestral ownership of property recorded in the name of a religious institution.
