(A) Suit for Declaration of Title — Burden of Proof — Plaintiff must succeed on strength of own title — Weakness of defence immaterial.
In a suit for declaration of title, the burden always lies on the plaintiff to establish a clear and cogent title. The plaintiff cannot succeed merely because the defendant’s case is weak or defective. The plaintiff must prove his own title independently by legally admissible evidence. Reliance was placed on Union of India v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and Jagdish Prasad Patel v. Shivnath. (Paras 21–25, 54)
Held, the plaintiffs failed to prove title of their ancestors and therefore the suit was rightly dismissed.
(B) Revenue Records — Mutation Entries — Pattadar Passbooks — Cist Receipts — Not proof of title.
Revenue entries, pattadar passbooks, adangals and mutation records are maintained for fiscal purposes and do not confer ownership. They may at best raise a presumption regarding possession but cannot form the foundation for declaration of title. Reliance was placed on Nagar Palika v. Jagat Singh, Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner and Union of India v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.. (Paras 48–53)
Held, Exs.A1 to A32 were insufficient to establish ownership.
(C) Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 110 — Presumption as to ownership from possession — Scope and limitations.
Section 110 embodies the principle that possession furnishes prima facie proof of ownership, but the presumption is rebuttable and applies only when possession is prima facie lawful and the contesting party has no title. It cannot substitute proof of title in a declaratory suit. Reliance was placed on Chief Conservator of Forests v. Collector, State of A.P. v. Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Co., Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala and Yerikala Sunkalamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh. (Paras 38–47)
Where revenue records stood in the name of the Endowment/Mutt and plaintiffs failed to prove ancestral title, presumption under Section 110 could not be invoked.
(D) Pleadings — Alleged admission — Plea of ignorance not admission of title.
Pleadings must be read as a whole. A statement by the defendant that he was “not aware” regarding issuance of pattadar passbooks did not amount to admission of ownership. There was clear and categorical denial of plaintiffs’ title. (Paras 34–36)
Held, burden of proof was not discharged by relying on alleged admissions.
(E) Endowment Property — Similarity of surname — No proof of ancestral title.
Mere similarity between the plaintiffs’ surname “Matam” and the property recorded in the name of the Mutt does not establish ancestral ownership. Title must be proved by documentary evidence tracing succession. (Paras 30–33, 54)
Held, plaintiffs failed to establish linkage between alleged ancestor and suit property.
(F) Appellate Jurisdiction — No perversity in trial court findings — Appeal dismissed.
The trial court properly appreciated oral and documentary evidence. No error of fact or law was demonstrated warranting interference. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the suit. (Paras 54–56)
FINAL ORDER
The First Appeal was dismissed. No order as to costs. The judgment and decree dated 28-07-2011 were affirmed.
