Decree Of Possession Can't Be Passed In Favour Of Plaintiff Merely Because Defendants Could Not Fully Establish Their Title : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a decree of possession cannot be passed in favour of the plaintiff merely because defendants were not able to fully establish their right, title and interest in the property. Weakness of the defence cannot be a justification to decree the suit, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and J K Maheshwari observed. The court said that the defendants cannot be dispossessed unless the plaintiff has established a better title and rights over the suit property.In 1986, Smriti Debbarma, as an attorney and on behalf of Maharani Chandratara Devi, had filed Title Suit praying for declaration that Maharani Chandratara Devi is the owner of the property known as ‘Khosh Mahal’. In 1996, the Trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff had right, title and interest in the said property. Allowing appeals filed by the defendants, the Gauhati High Court reversed the Trial Court judgment.In appeal, the Apex Court bench agreed with the finding that the plaintiff on the basis of evidence and documents placed on record has not been able to discharge the burden of proof to establish legal ownership and title with respect to the subject property.In this context, the bench observed thus:"The defendants cannot be dispossessed unless the plaintiff has established a better title and rights over the Schedule ‘A’ property. A person in possession of land in the assumed character as the owner, and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership, has a legal right against the entire world except the rightful owner. A decree of possession cannot be passed in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that defendants have not been able to fully establish their right, title and interest in the Schedule ‘A’ property. The defendants, being in possession, would be entitled to protect and save their possession, unless the person who seeks to dispossess them has a better legal right in the form of ownership or entitlement to possession."The court observed that the burden of proof to establish a title lies upon the plaintiff as this burden lies on the party who asserts the existence of a particular state of things on the basis of which she claims relief"This is mandated in terms of Section 101 of the Evidence Act, which states that burden on proving the fact rests with party who substantially asserts in the affirmative and not on the party which is denying it. This rule may not be universal and has exceptions , but in the factual background of the present case, the general principle is applicable. In terms of Section 102 of the Evidence Act, if both parties fail to adduce evidence, the suit must fail. Onus of proof, no doubt shifts and the shifting is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence, but this happens when in a suit for title and possession, the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability to shift the onus on the defendant. In the absence of such evidence, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and can be discharged only when he is able to prove title. The weakness of the defence cannot be a justification to decree the suit. The plaintiff could have succeeded in respect of the Schedule ‘A’ property if she had discharged the burden to prove the title to the Schedule ‘A’ property which squarely falls on her. This would be the true effect of Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act.", the court said while dismissing the appeal.Case detailsSmriti Debbarma (D) vs Prabha Ranjan Debbarma | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 19 | CA 878 OF 2009 | 4 Jan 2023 | Justices Sanjiv Khanna and J K MaheshwariFor Appellant(s) Mr. Rauf Rahim, AOR Mr. Ali Asghar Rahim, Adv. For Respondent(s) Dr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR Mr. Jitendra Mahapatra, Adv. Mr. A.K. Yadav, Adv. Mr. Priyam Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Apratim Bhattacharya, Adv. Dr. P. V. Saravanaraja, AOR Mr. P. Veerappan, Adv.HeadnotesCivil Suit - Possession - Decree of possession cannot be passed in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that defendants have not been able to fully establish their right, title and interest in the property - A person in possession of land in the assumed character as the owner, and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership, has a legal right against the entire world except the rightful owner - The defendants, being in possession, would be entitled to protect and save their possession, unless the person who seeks to dispossess them has a better legal right in the form of ownership or entitlement to possessionIndian Evidence Act, 1872 ; Section 101-102 - Declaration of Title - Onus of proof, no doubt shifts and the shifting is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence, but this happens when in a suit for title and possession, the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability to shift the onus on the defendant. In the absence of such evidence, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and can be discharged only when he is able to prove title. The weakness of the defence cannot be a...

Decree Of Possession Can't Be Passed In Favour Of Plaintiff Merely Because Defendants Could Not Fully Establish Their Title : Supreme Court

Ashok KM

Tags