Recovery of Possession Based on Title and on Earlier Possession

Jojy George Koduvath

Abstract

Suit on title for Recovery Against a Trespasser –
# Plaintiff has to succeed on the strength of his title.
# Suit on title – if plaintiff shows high degree of probability, onus shifts.
# Suit on title – once the onus is on the defendant, it is for the defendant to discharge his onus and in the absence thereof the burden of proof lying on the plaintiff shall be held to have been discharged so as to amount to proof of the plaintiff’s title.
# Suit on title – even if the defendant claims title as owner and fails to prove it, the plaintiff can win only if he establishes his title.
# Suit on title – if the defendant establishes his right to continue possession (honouring title of the plaintiff) as lessee, licencee, mortgagee etc., the plaintiff will fail.

Suit on possession under Sec. 6 of the Sp. Relf. Act –
# If a person is dispossessed ‘otherwise than in due course of law’, he can recover the property under Sec. 6 of the Sp. Relf. Act, on the strength of his earlier possession.
# Suit on possession – Though title is not perfected by adverse possession, one (plaintiff) in possession can eject a trespasser under Sec. 6 of the Sp. Relf. Act.

Introduction

Plaintiff has to win the title-suit (E.g. suit against a trespasser) on the strength of his title; and not on the weakness of the defence.
Landlord who is also the owner can recover his leased property on the strength of his title (if the tenant ‘forfeits’ the tenancy by claiming ownership in him or in a case where the lease is illegal); and evict the tenant on legal termination of tenancy.
Even if the owner/landlord failed to proves lease, he can recover the property on the strength of his title if the tenant ‘forfeits’ the tenancy by claiming ownership in him.
Landlord who is not the owner can evict the tenant on legal termination of tenancy; and on ‘forfeiture’ of the tenancy by the tenant by claiming ownership in him or in a case where the lease is illegal. In all these cases, the landlord should have proved tenancy.
The right of the owner/landlord to recover the property on the strength of his title is based on the principle that a tenant cannot deny the title of the landlord/owner (Sec. 116 of the Evidence Act).
Tenant can resist title-suit of owner or eviction-suit (after issuing Sec. 106 TP Act notice) by landlord, raising plea of ‘adverse possession’. The tenant cannot plead both title on adverse possession and right as lessee. It is on the principle – one cannot approbate and reprobate.
Once the title as owner or right as landlord is proved by the plaintiff, the tenant can succeed only if he wins on “adverse possession”

Plaintiff to Win Title-Suit, on the Strength of his Title

In City Municipal Council Bhalki v. Gurappa, 2016-2 SCC 200, it is held as under:

“31. It is a settled position of law that in a suit for declaration of title and possession, the onus is upon the plaintiff to prove his title. Further, not only is the onus on the plaintiff, he must prove his title independently, and a decree in his favour cannot be awarded for the only reason that the defendant has not been able to prove his title, as held by this Court in Brahma Nand Puri v. Neki Puri, AIR 1965 SC 1506, as under: (AIR p. 1508, para 8)
“8. … The plaintiff’s suit being one for ejectment he has to succeed or fail on the title that he establishes and if he cannot succeed on the strength of his title his suit must fail notwithstanding that the defendant in possession has no title to the property….”

In Vijay Pullarwar v. Shri Hanuman Deostan, (2019) 11 SCC 718, the suit for possession instituted by the plaintiffs trust on the basis of title, was found to be devoid of merits; for, there was no reference in the registration application of the public trust under the BPT Act, 1950 or in schedule I, where to record the properties of the public trust, that the suit property belonged to the trust. Our Apex Court held as under:

“Needless to observe that the plaintiffs/respondents were primarily obliged to establish their title in the suit house bearing No.878 in Circle No.3 where the Padukas of Saint Haridas Baba have been installed, as being the property of the plaintiff trust. The plaintiffs must succeed or fail on the title they establish; and if they fail to do so, they must fail to get the relief of possession irrespective of title of the defendant in the suit property (See: Brahma Nand Puri v. Naki Puri, (1965) 2 SCR 233 and Bajaranglal Shivchandrai Ruia v. Shashikant N. Ruia, (2004) 5 SCC 272).”

If Admission or Materials – Idle To Contend, No Sufficient Evidence

In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rattani, 2009-2 SCC 75, it has been held:

“The question as to whether burden of proof has been discharged by a party to the lis or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. If the facts are admitted or, if otherwise, sufficient materials have been brought up on record so as to enable a court to arrive at a definite conclusion, it is idle to contend that the party on whom the burden lies could still be liable to produce sufficient evidence.”

Proof of Title – Preponderance of Probability Sufficient

In Kshetrimayum Ibohal Singh v. Ibemhal Devi, 2012-112 AIC 769; 2011-3 GauLD 803; 2011-6 GauLJ 629; 2012-6 GauLR 680; 2011 5 GauLT 680; 2012-4 NEJ 387, it is held as under: 525;

“In a civil suit, the plaintiff cannot be expected to prove his title beyond any reasonable doubt; a high degree of probability lending assurance of the availability of title with him would be enough to shift the onus on the defendant and if the defendant does not succeed in shifting back the onus, the plaintiff’s burden of proof can safely be deemed to have been discharged.” (relied on: R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami, AIR 2003 SC 4548: (2003) 8 SCC 752.)

In Kshetrimayum Ibohal Singh, the Gauhati High Court relied on J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani: (2007) 6 SCC 730, which held that the rule which is most universal, namely, that best evidence the nature of the case will admit shall be produced only means that, so long as the higher or superior evidence is within the possession of a person or may be reached by a person, that person shall give no inferior proof in relation toil.

R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami: Onus Shifts

In a suit for recovery on title, where both plaintiff and defendant claim title, if plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability, he will Win, if the defendant fails to discharge his onus. In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami, AIR 2003 SC 4548: (2003) 8 SCC 752, the law is stated in the following terms :

“29. In a suit for recovery of possession based on title it is for the plaintiff to prove his title and satisfy the court that he, in law, is entitled to dispossess the defendant from his possession over the suit property and for the possession to be restored to him. However, as held in A. Raghavamma v. A. Chenchamma, AIR 1964 SC 136, there is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof: burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the fact and which never shifts. Onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. In our opinion, in a suit for possession based on title once the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability so as to shift the onus on the defendant it is for the defendant to discharge his onus and in the absence thereof the burden of proof lying on the plaintiff shall be held to have been discharged so as to amount to proof of the plaintiff’s title.”

Quoted in:

Anil. Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558;
Sebastiao Luis Fernandes v K. V. P. Shastri, 2013-15 SCC 161;
City Municipal. Council, Bhalki v. Gurappa, (2016) 2 SCC 200)

Referred to in:

Mahakali Sujatha v. Branch Manager, Future Generali India Life Insurance Company Limited, AIR 2024 SC 2019; 22024-8 SCC 712
Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma, AIR 2023 SC 379; 2023-1 SCR 355
Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan Vs. Nawab Kazim Ali Khan, 2022-11 JT 214; 2022-16 Scale 689

In Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma, AIR 2023 SC 379; 2023-1 SCR 355,it is held bu our Apex Court as under:

“31. The burden of proof
- [See Paragraph 19 in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558 where the expression ‘burden of proof’ is used in three ways, namely, (i) to indicate the duty of bringing forward evidence in support of a proposition at the beginning or later; (ii) to make that of establishing a proposition as against all counter-evidence; and (iii) an indiscriminate use in which it may mean either, or both of the others.]
to establish a title in the present case 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 [See Addagada Raghavamma and Another v. Addagada Chenchamma and Another, AIR 1964 SC 136.] This is mandated in terms of Sec. 101
- [Sec. 101: Burden of Proof.- Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.]
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,[See Ss. 103, 104 and 105 of the Evidence Act.] but in the factual background of the present case, the general principle is applicable. In terms of Sec. 102
- [Sec. 102: On whom the burden of proof lies.- The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.]
of the Evidence Act, if both parties fail to adduce evidence, the suit must fail.[See Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558.] 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.[See R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami V.P. Temple and Another, (2003) 8 SCC 752.] The weakness of the defence cannot be a justification to decree the suit. [See Union of India and Others v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 269.] 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 Ss. 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act. [See Sebastiao Luis Fernandes (DEAD) Through LRs. And Others v. K.V.P. Shastri (DEAD) Through LRs. And Others, (2013) 15 SCC 161.]
Therefore, it follows that the plaintiff should have satisfied and discharged the burden under the provisions of the Evidence Act, failing which the suit would be liable to be dismissed.”

When evidence has been led by both sides, “onus” is out of place

“Where, however, evidence has been led by the contesting parties, abstract considerations of onus are out of place and truth or otherwise must always be adjudged on the evidence led by the parties [Kalwa Devadattam vs. Union, AIR 1964 SC 880]”

If Title of Plaintiff is Nullity, Defendant Need Not file a Substantive Suit;

Plaintiff in ejection suit must succeed or fail on his title
If Plaintiff Shows Apparent Title, Defendant to Plead Defects Thereon
Once the plaintiff shows high degree of probability shift the onus

In Bajaranglal Shivchandrai Ruia v. Shashikant N. Ruia, AIR 2004 SC 2546, the defendants contended that the plaintiff’s title, on the basis of the alleged auction sale ‘was a nullity, as it was ultra vires the legal provisions and on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, non-service of demand notice on all the heirs and co-owners’. It was contended from the part of the (original) plaintiff that the sale proceedings could be challenged only by way of a substantive suit, and that the High Court was right in characterising the challenge to the suit by the defendant as a ‘backdoor method’. The Apex Court held as under:

“If the title claimed by the plaintiff was a nullity and wholly void, there was no need for any of the defendants including Bajranglal to challenge it by way of a substantive suit. They could always set up nullity of title as a defence in any proceeding taken against them based upon such title. If, in fact, the sale was a nullity, it was non est in the eye of law and all that defendant had to do was point this out. (See in this connection: Ajudh Raz and Ors. v. Moti S/o Mussadi, [1991] 3 SCC 136 and the opinion of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Abdulla Mian v. Government of Bombay, (1942) 44 Bom LR 577.
In Vidyadhar v. Manikrao and Anr., [1999] 3 SCC 573, the plaintiff had filed a suit on the basis of a sale deed executed by D-2 in his favour and sought the relief of possession of the property from defendant no. 1 who was an absolute stranger to the sale deed. The question which arose was whether defendant No. l, who was in possession, could justify his possession by urging the nullity of sale transaction between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2. In these circumstances, this Court held (vide para 21):
- ‘The above decisions appear to be based on the principle that a person in his capacity as a defendant can raise any legitimate plea available to him under law to defeat the suit of the plaintiff. This would also include the plea that the sale deed by which the title to the property was intended to be conveyed to the plaintiff was void or fictitious or, for that matter, collusive and not intended to be acted upon. Thus, the whole question would depend upon the pleadings of the parties, the nature of the suit, the nature of the deed, the evidence led by the parties in the suit and other attending circumstances.’
Here, the plaintiffs suit is for ejection of the defendant and for possession of the suit property. She must succeed or fail on the title that she establishes. If she cannot succeed in proving her title, the suit must fail notwithstanding that the defendant in possession may or may not have title to the property. (See in this connection: Brahma Nand Puri v. Neki Puri, [1965] 2 SCR 233 at p. 237).
Appellant Bajranglal had sufficiently pleaded in his written statement the defects in the title of the plaintiff and it was, therefore, open for the learned Single Judge to go into this question and decide if the plaintiff had good title or not. …… In our view, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the plaintiff’s title was invalid and non est for contravention of the provisions of Section 206 of the BMC Act and the Regulations made thereunder, is fully justified and brooked no interference in appeal. ……. In our view, the principle in Vidyadhar’s case clearly applies to the case on hand.”

Section 116 of the Evidence Act

Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under:

“Estoppel of tenant; and of licensee of person in possession. No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be heard to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property.”

In Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath, AIR 1976 SC 2335: 1976 4 SCC 838, it is held as under:

“The tenant in such a suit is estopped from questioning the title of the landlord under section 116 of the Evidence Act. The tenant cannot deny that the landlord had title to the premises at the commencement of the tenancy. Under the general law, in a suit between landlord and tenant the question of title to the leased property is irrelevant”.

The principle behind the proposition, which asserts that the owner/landlord has the right to recover the property based on his title if the defendant-tenant raises claim of title, is founded upon the notion that a tenant is precluded from disputing the title of the landlord or owner, as laid down in Section 116 of the Evidence Act.

Bar u/S. 116: Not Extend To Challenge – Landlord Lost Tile After ‘Commencement Of The Tenancy’

D. Satyanarayana v. P. Jagadish (A.P. Sen, B.C. Ray, JJ.), AIR 1987 SC2192, 1987 (4) SCC 424, is a leading decision on this matter.

(Note: ‘D. Satyanarayana v. P. Jagadish’ is said to be an exception to the general rule. See: Masonic Club v. Jamna Lodge, 2014-207 DLT 62; 2014-140 DRJ 396; L. Rs. of Arjun Lal v. L. Rs. of Kundan Lal, 2013 AIR(CC) 2193; 201260 RCR(Civ) 769 (Raj); M. L. Dawar v. M. L. Seth, 2011-125 DRJ 564 (Del); Manoharlal v. Baijnath Jalan, 2005-4 Jhk CR 58; 2005-3 Jhk LJR 474.)

The following are the facts (of D. Satyanarayana v. P. Jagadish) in a nutshell.

The owner had leased the demised premises to a tenant. The (original) tenant sub-leased it to the respondent. The head-lessor (owner) served a notice of eviction on the sub-tenant, alleging that there was unlawful subletting by the lessee. The sub-tenant atoned in favour of the original lessor and started paying monthly rent directly to the superior landlord (owner).

In this decision, it is held that the estoppel or bar under Sec. 116 of the Evidence Act operates only –

(i) during the continuance of the tenancy,
(ii) to the challenge of the title of the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy.

In this decision, it is held as under:

“3. …Section 116 of the Evidence Act provides that no tenant of immovable property shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property. Possession and permission being established, estoppel would bind the tenant during the continuance of the tenancy and until he surrenders his possession. The words ‘during the continuance of the tenancy’ have been interpreted to mean during the continuance of the possession that was received under the tenancy in question, and the Courts have repeatedly laid down that estoppel operates even after the termination of the tenancy so that a tenant who had been let into possession, however, defective it may be, so long as he has not openly surrendered possession, cannot dispute the title of the landlord at the commencement of the tenancy…”
“4. The rule of estoppel embodied under Section 116 of the Evidence Act is that, a tenant who has been let into possession cannot deny his landlord’s title, however defective it may be, so long as he has not openly restored possession by surrender to his landlord…”

It was further held that since (or, after) the date of tenancy, the title of landlord came to an end; for, the head-lessor (owner) served a notice of eviction on the sub-tenant, alleging that there was unlawful subletting by the lessee, and the sub-tenant atoned in favour of the original lessor. It was pointed out –

A tenant is not estopped from contending that the title of the lessor has “since come to an end” (or the landlord lost title after the commencement of the tenancy),

The Apex Court (in D. Satyanarayana v. P. Jagadish) quoted from Mangat Ram & Anr. v. Sardar Meharban Singh, AIR 1987 SC 1656, (1987) 4 SCC 319, (A.P. Sen, V. Balakrishnan Eradi, JJ.) saying:

“Quite recently, this Court in Mangat Ram v. Sardar Meharban Singh, [1987] 1 Scale 964, to which one of us was a party, observed:
“The estoppel contemplated by s. 116 is restricted to the denial of title at the commencement of the tenancy and by implication it follows that a tenant is not estopped from contending that the title of the lessor has since come to an end.”

See also: Fida Hussain v. Fazal Hussain & Ors., AIR (1963) MP 232,
K.S.M. Guruswamy Nadar v. N.G. Ranganathan, AIR (1954) Mad. 402,
S.A.A. Annamalai Chettiar v. Molaiyan & Ors., AIR (1970) Mad. 396 and
Chidambara Vinayagar Devasthanam v. Duraiswamy, ILR (1967) 1 Mad. 624.”

D. Satyanarayanana v. P. Jagdish Distinguished

In E. Parashuraman (v. V. Doraiswamy, AIR 2006 SC 376; 2006-1 SCC 658, it is stated as under:

“18. We have carefully examined the decisions of this Court in D. Satyanarayanana vs. P. Jagdish (supra) and A.V.G.P. Chettiar and Sons and others vs. T. Palanisamy Gounder : (2002) 5 SCC 337 and we are of the view that the principles laid down therein are not applicable to the facts of this case. The exception to the rule of estoppel embodied under Section 116 of the Evidence Act arises if it is shown that since the date of the tenancy of title of the landlord came to an end, or that he was evicted by a paramount title holder, or that even though there was no actual eviction or dispossession from the property, under a threat of eviction, the tenant had attorned to the paramount title holder and a new jural relationship of landlord and tenant had come into existence between them. Such a situation has not arisen in the instant case. In this case there is no finding that the title of the landlord has come to an end. The Corporation has not established its title in any proceeding in accordance with law. In these circumstances the exception to the rule of estoppel embodied in Section 116 of the Evidence Act cannot be pleaded by the appellants.”

Sec. 116 ceases to have applicability once the tenant has been evicted

In Vashu Deo v. Balkishan, 2002-1 SCR 171, it is held that Sec. 116 ceases to have applicability once the tenant has been evicted. (It stands incongruent to the view in D. Satyanarayana v. P. Jagadish where it was held – estoppel operates even after the termination.) It is said as under:

“6. …Section 116 of the Evidence Act, which codifies the common law rule of estoppel between landlord and tenant, provides that no tenant of immovable property or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property. The rule of estoppel so enacted has three main features :
- .(i) the tenant is estopped from disputing the title of his landlord over the tenancy premises at the beginning of the tenancy;
- (ii) such estoppel continues to operate so long as the tenancy continues and unless the tenant has surrendered possession to the landlord; and
- (iii) Section 116 of the Evidence Act is not the whole law of estoppel between the landlord and tenant.
The principles emerging from Section 116 can be extended in their application and also suitably adapted to suit the requirement of an individual case… the rule of estoppel ceases to have applicability once the tenant has been evicted. His obligation to restore possession to his landlord is fulfilled either by actually fulfilling the obligation or by proving his landlord’s title having been extinguished by a paramount titleholder…”

Forfeiture of tenancy under Clause (g) of Section 111 of the TP Act

In Sheela v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash (Ruma Pal, R.C. Lahoti, JJ.), AIR 2002 SC 1264; 2002-3 SCC 375 it is held as under:

“In our opinion, the denial or disclaimer to be relevant for the purpose of Section 12(1)(c) should take colour from Section 116 of the Evidence Act and Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 116 of the Evidence Act embodies therein a rule of estoppel. No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property. This estoppel, so long as it binds the tenant, excludes the tenant from raising a plea disputing the title of his landlord at the commencement of the tenancy. It flows as a corollary therefrom that the proof of landlord-tenant relationship tantamounts during the continuance of tenancy to proof of ownership of landlord over the tenancy premises at the beginning of the tenancy so far as the tenant is concerned. It is significant to note that on the phraseology of Section 116 of the Evidence Act the rule of estoppel applies so long as the tenancy is not terminated and the rule estops the tenant from laying challenge to the ownership of the landlord at the commencement of the tenancy. But the rule of estoppel as incorporated in Section 116 is not exhaustive and it may be extended or suitably modified in its application to other situations as well, retaining the basic feature of the rule.
“Clause (g) of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, insofar as relevant for our purpose, provides that a lease of immovable property determines by forfeiture in case the lessee renounces his character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title in himself. This provision contemplates two fact – situations which entail the lessee having renounced his character as such and they are: (i) when the lessee sets up a title in a third person, or (ii) when he claims title in himself.
“In either case, the tenant has disputed and denied the title of his landlord because a title in third person or title in himself cannot co-exist with the title in the landlord.
13. The law as to tenancy being determined by forfeiture by denial of the lessor s title or disclaimer of the tenancy has been adopted in India from the Law of England where it originated as a principle in consonance with Justice, equity and good conscience. On enactment of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the same was incorporated into clause (g) of Section 111. So just is the rule that it has been held applicable even in the areas where the Transfer of Property Act does not apply (See – Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan vs. Municipal Board of Sitapur and Anr. – AIR 1965 SC 1923). The principle of determination of tenancy by forfeiture consequent upon denial of the lessor s title may not be applicable where rent control legislation intervenes and such legislation while extending protection to tenants from eviction does not recognize such denial or disclaimer as a ground for termination of tenancy and eviction of tenant. However, in various rent control legislations such a ground is recognized and incorporated as a ground for eviction of tenant either expressly or impliedly by bringing it within the net of an act injurious to the interest of the landlord on account of its mischievous content to prejudice adversely and substantially the interest of the landlord.
“14. Denial of landlord’s title or disclaimer of tenancy, is it an act injurious to interest of landlord? How does this rule operate and what makes it offensive Evans & Smith state in the Law of Landlord and Tenant (Fourth Edition, 1993, at p.89) that it is an implied condition of every lease, fixed-term or periodic and formal or informal, that the tenant is not expressly or deny the landlord s title or prejudice it by any acts which are inconsistent with the existence of a tenancy. Disclaimer of the landlord’s title is analogous to repudiation of a contract. The rule is of feudal origin; the courts are not anxious to extend it, and so any breach of this condition must be clear and unambiguous. Hill & Redman in Law of Landlord and Tenant (Seventeenth Edition, para 382, at page 445-446) dealing with “Acts which prejudice lessor s title” state that there is implied in every lease a condition that the lessee shall not do anything that may prejudice the title of the lessor; and that if this is done the lessor may re-enter for breach of this implied condition. Thus, it is a cause of forfeiture if the lessee denies the title of the lessor by alleging that the title of the landlord is in himself or another; or if he assists a stranger to set up an adverse title or delivers the premises to him in order to enable him to set up a title. It is a question of fact, however, what intention underlies the words or the actions of a tenant, whether in fact he is definitely asserting a title adverse to the landlord or, as the case may be, intending to enable someone else to set up such a title. Thus, it is not sufficient that the lessee does not at once acknowledge the title of the landlord and a general traverse in the defence to an action for possession does no more than put the landlord to proof and does not assert that the title is in another. The essential characteristic of disclaimer by tenant as stated in Foa s General Law of Landlord and Tenant (Eight Edition, para 934, at p.589) is that it must amount to a renunciation by the tenant of his character of tenant, either by setting up a title in another, or by claiming title in himself. A mere renunciation of tenancy without more, though it may operate as a surrender, cannot amount to a disclaimer. The denial, though it need not be express and can be implied, must nevertheless be a clear denial and it must be clearly proved.”

Recovery on “GENERAL TITLE” and “SUPERIOR TITLE“

The legal proposition on “General Title” is seen adhered to in Mt. Sewti v.Rattan, AIR 1951 HP 54. It is observed as under:

“It has therefore been held that where a suit for recovery of possession of property based on a lease fails, a subsequent suit to recover the same property on the strength of general title is not barred by res judicata: Zamorin v. Narayanan, 22 Mad. 323 and Kuttt Ali v. Cindan, 23 Mad. 629.”

The legal proposition on “Superior Title” is seen adhered to in Shankarlal v. Gangabisan, AIR 1972 Bom 326, and it is observed as under:

“The plaintiff could have sued upon this document and the claim in that case would have been under the contract. But the plaintiff in the subsequent suit did not sue upon the contract but he sued upon his general title as the owner of the property. He alleged that the defendants were trespassers and that the plaintiff was entitled to get possession and further damages on the basis of his title as stated in the passage we have quoted above. Therefore, the plaintiff was claiming in the second suit on the basis not of a title arising under the contract but dehors the contract. In other words, the plaintiff was seeking to enforce in the subsequent suit his general title as owner and not his title to get back the property under the contract of lease. It is clear therefore that this title was superior to the contract between the parties and it was by virtue of this superior title that the plaintiff claimed in the second suit. The respective causes of action in the earlier suit and in the subsequent suit were therefore entirely distinct and separate.”

Landlord can win the TITLE SUIT if he Proves his GENERAL TITLE

In Biswanath Agarwalla v. Sabitri Bera, (2009) 15 SCC 693, the plaintiff-landlord sued defendant for eviction. The Defendant claimed title over the property. It is held–

“The landlord in a given case^#* although may not be able to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant, but in the event he proves his GENERAL TITLE, may obtain a decree on the basis thereof.”
- ^#^*Tenant challenges title of landlord; and no special law (e.g., BRC Act) bars to give such a relief in ‘civil suit’.
This decision is referred to in TribhuvanShankar v. Amrutlal (S.B. Sinha and Deepak Misra, JJ.), 2014-2 SCC 788.

In Biswanath Agarwalla v. Sabitri Bera, (2009) 15 SCC 693, the question was formulated by the Court as under:

“Whether a Civil Court can pass a decree on the ground that the defendant is a trespasser in a simple suit for eviction is the question involved in this appeal.”

Following were the facts:

The defendant-tenant entered the suit shop in 1970.
Plaintiffs purchased the suit premises in 1980.
The plaintiffs served a notice on the defendant under Sec. 106, TP Act.
Plaintiffs filed Suit for eviction claiming to be the owners and landlords.
Defendant denied that he had ever been a tenant.
He claimed independent title. He claimed to have an agreement for sale with the owner.

The trial judge dismissed the suit on the following findings, in a nutshell –

.i. The plaintiffs proved to be the owner.
ii. The defendant failed to prove his independent title.
iii. The plaintiffs failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant.
iv. The plaintiffs having failed to prove the tenancy, not entitled to a decree.

Appellate Court, relying on AIR 1984 ROC 78 (All.), page 35, and AIR 1984 All. 66 allowed the appeal and decreed the suit.

The High Court dismissed the Second Appeal.

The Apex Court in Appeal, on special leave, (Biswanath Agarwalla v. Sabitri Bera, (2009) 15 SCC 693) proceeded on the proposition on GENERAL TITLE.

The Plaintiffs- respondents contended as under:

.i. Even in a suit for eviction, the plaintiffs would be entitled to obtain a decree for possession relying on or on the basis of his title.
ii. In a suit for eviction, it is for the defendant to show that he has a right to remain on the tenanted premises either as a permanent tenant or otherwise.

The right of the plaintiff (landlord) to recover, on the basis of “GENERAL TITLE” is asserted by the Supreme Court (Biswanath Agarwalla v. Sabitri Bera, (2009) 15 SCC 693) referring following decisions.

1. Radha Devi v. Ajay Kumar Sinha, 1998 (2) BLJR 1061.

The Patna High Court accepted that a landlord is entitled to obtain a decree of eviction on the basis of his GENERAL TITLE, though he could not prove the relationship of landlord and tenant (when the tenant raised false claim of title).

2. Champa Lal Sharma v. Smt. Sunita Maitra, S.B. Sinha, J., (1990) 1 BLJR 268. It was held:

“It, therefore, logically follows that a finding of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant is a sine qua non for passing a decree for eviction against a tenant except in a case, as mentioned hereinbefore*^* the plaintiff on payment of ad valorem Court fee may obtain a decree for eviction on the basis of his general title. (Quoted in: Radha Devi v. Ajay Kumar Sinha, 1998-2 BLJR 1061; Biswanath Agarwala v. Sabitri Bera 2009-15 SCC 693)
- *^* Tenant challenges title of landlord; and no special law (e.g., BRC Act) bars to give such a relief.
“It is also well settled that one such relationship is admitted or established, tenant would be estopped and precluded from challenging the title of the landlord and if he does so, under the general rule, make himself liable for eviction on that ground.
It, therefore, logically follows that a finding of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant is a sine qua non for passing a decree for eviction against a tenant except in a case, as mentioned hereinbefore the plaintiff on payment of ad valorem Court fee may obtain a decree for eviction on the basis of his GENERAL TITLE.”

3. Hajee Golam Hossain Ostagar v. Sheik Abu Bakkar, AIR 1936 Cal. 351.

It was held – in a suit for ejectment, if the defendant claims the right to remain on a land permanently, he was ‘bound to show‘ the right ‘wherefore the onus would be on him‘.

The Apex Court remanded the case with the following direction:

“The plaintiffs may file an application for grant of leave to amend his plaint so as to enable him to pray for a decree for eviction of the defendant on the ground that he is a trespasser.”

In Abdul Waheed Khan v. Bhawani, AIR 1966 SC 1718, it was pointed out that unless jurisdiction was excluded the civil court has jurisdiction entertain a suit based title.

Payment of ad valorem court fee needed to obtain a decree on general title

In Anil Bansal v. Dinesh Kohli, ILR 2017-4 HP 524, it is held as under:

“22. It, therefore, logically follows that a finding of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant is a sine qua non for passing a decree for eviction against a tenant except in a case, as mentioned hereinbefore, the plaintiff on payment of ad valorem court fee may obtain a decree for eviction on the basis of his general title.”

Burden of Proof General Principles and Nuances of Sections 101 to 106

Our Apex Court in Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan Vs. Nawab Kazim Ali Khan, 2022-11 JT 214; 2022-16 Scale 689, authoritatively lays down the General principles as to Burden of Proof. It reads:

12.1. The legal scheme governing various aspects of ‘burden of proof’ in the Indian context, is contained in Sections 101 to 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
12.2. As per Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, when a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. This section is based on the rule, ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, which means that the burden of proving a fact rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue and not upon the party who denies it, because a negative is usually incapable of proof. The burden of proving a fact always lies upon the person who asserts and until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. The court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden lies has been able to discharge his burden. However, the above rule is subject to the general principle that things admitted need not be proved.
12.3. The question as to whether burden of proof has been discharged by a party to the lis or not, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. If the facts are admitted or, if otherwise, sufficient materials have been brought on record so as to enable a Court to arrive at a definite conclusion, it is idle to contend that the party on whom the burden of proof lies would still be liable to produce direct evidence, vide National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rattani (2009) 2 SCC 75: AIR 2009 SC 1499.
12.4. Burden to prove documents lie on plaintiff alone as onus is always on the person asserting a proposition or fact which is not selfevident. This position is summarised in the observation to the effect that, an assertion that a man who is alive was born requires no proof; the onus, is not on the person making the assertion, because it is selfevident that he had been born. But to assert that he had been born on a certain date, if the date is material, requires proof; the onus is on the person making the assertion, vide Robins vs. National Trust & Co. Ltd. 1927 AC 515: 101 IC 903.
12.5. It is also to be noted at this juncture that there is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof. Burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the fact and it never shifts, onus of proof on the other hand, shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. For instance, In a suit for possession based on title, once the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability so as to shift the onus on the defendant, it is for the defendant to discharge his onus and in the absence thereof, the burden of proof lying on the plaintiff shall be held to have been discharged so as to amount to proof of the plaintiffs title, vide RVE Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and VP Temple AIR 2003 SC 4548: (2003) 8 SCC 752.
12.6. In terms of section 102 of the Evidence Act, the initial burden to prove its claim is always on the plaintiff and if he discharges that burden and makes out a case which entitles him to a relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff of the same.
12.7. Where, however, evidence has been led by the contesting parties, abstract considerations of onus are out of place and truth or otherwise must always be adjudged on the evidence led by the parties [Kalwa Devadattam vs. Union, AIR 1964 SC 880]
12.8. As per Section 103, the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. This section amplifies the general rule in section 101 that the burden of proof lies on the person who asserts the affirmative of the issue. It lays down that if a person wishes the court to believe in the existence of a particular fact, the onus of proving that fact, is on him, unless the burden of proving it is cast by any law on any particular person.
12.9. Section 105 is an application of the rule in section 103. When parties to a dispute adduce evidence to substantiate their claim, onus becomes academic and divided, entailing each party to prove their respective plea.
12.10. Section 106 is an exception to the general rule laid down in Section 101, that the burden of proving a fact rest on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue. Section 106 is not intended to relieve any person of that duty or burden but states that when a fact to be proved is peculiarly within the knowledge of a party, it is for him to prove it. It applies to cases where the fact is especially within a party’s knowledge and to none else. The expression ‘especially’ used in Section 106 means facts that are eminently or exceptionally within one’s knowledge. This means a party having personal knowledge of certain facts has a duty to appear as a witness and if he does not go to the witness box, there is a strong presumption against him. In an Election Petition, the initial burden to prove determination of age of returned candidate lies on the petitioner, however, burden lies on the respondent to prove facts within his special knowledge. (Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar [ (2003) 8 SCC 673) ].
12.11. The provisions of Section 106 are unambiguous and categorical in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. If he does so, he must be held to have discharged his burden but if he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106. [Source: Sarkar on Law of Evidence, 20th Edition, Volume 2.]
12.12. In Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar (supra), the controversy was with regard to the improper acceptance of the nomination of the sole respondent therein on the premise that he was under qualified to contest the Bihar Legislative Assemble election from 181, Parbatta Constituency. In the said case, inter alia, the horoscope of the respondent therein and admission register of New St. Xaviers School, Boring Road, Patna and transfer certificate issued by Swami Vivekananda Vidyalaya, Mithapur, Patna, were produced as documents to prove that the successful candidate therein was not eligible to contest the said Assembly election. In the said case, Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act was referred to and it was observed that the register maintained in terms of a statute or by a statutory authority in regular course of business would be a relevant fact and if such vital evidence had been produced, it would clinch the issue. It was observed that there is no reliable evidence on record to show that the date of birth was recorded in the school register on the basis of the statement of any responsible person and that the admission register or a transfer certificate issued by a primary school do not satisfy the requirements of Section 35 of the Evidence Act.

The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Chand and Bros v. Rattan Lal, (2013) 2 SCC 606, has held as under:

18. It is well-settled principle of law that a person who asserts a particular fact is required to affirmatively establish it. In Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh [(2006) 5 SCC 558] (SCC p. 561, para 9), it has been held that the burden of proving the facts rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative issues and not the party who denies it and the said principle may not be universal in its application and there may be an exception thereto. The purpose of referring to the same is that if the plaintiff asserts that the defendant had acknowledged the signature, it is obligatory on his part to substantiate the same. But the question would be what would be the consequence in a situation where the signatures are proven and there is an evasive reply in the written statement and what should be construed as substantiating the assertion made by the plaintiff.
19. In Krishna Mohan Kul v. Pratima Maity [(2004) 9 SCC 468] it has been ruled thus: (SCC p. 474, para 12) “12. … When fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence is alleged by a party in a suit, normally, the burden is on him to prove such fraud, undue influence or misrepresentation.”
20. In Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee [AIR 1964 SC 529] a Constitution Bench of this Court, while dealing with a mode of proof of a will under the Succession Act, 1925 observed that where the caveator alleges undue influence, fraud and coercion, the onus is on him to prove the same.
21. In A. Raghavamma v. A. Chenchamma [AIR 1964 SC 136], while making a distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof, a three-Judge Bench opined thus: (AIR p. 143, para 12) “12. … There is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof: burden of proof lies upon the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts, but the onus of proof shifts. The burden of proof in the present case undoubtedly lies upon the plaintiff to establish the factum of adoption and that of partition. The said circumstances do not alter the incidence of the burden of proof. Such considerations, having regard to the circumstances of a particular case, may shift the onus of proof. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence.”

If Sale on which Title rests is Vitiated, Title will be Nullity

It was held by the Bombay High Court in Sarang Avinash Kamtekar v. Alpha Organic (2005) relying on

(1) Himadri Coke and Petro Ltd. v. Soneko Developers (P) Ltd., (2005) 12 SCC 364;
(2) Bajaranglal Shivchandrai Ruia v. Shashikant N. Ruia, 2004(3) SCR 373; and
(3) A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P., (2007) 4 SCC 221.

that a sale on which title of a party to the suit rests is vitiated, title will be bad in law.

Principle Not Applicable with its Full Vigor in a suit filed by the State

From R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami, AIR 2003 SC 4548, it is clear that, though in a suit for recovery on title, a plaintiff cannot argue that the defendant failed to prove his title.

But, it may not be applicable with its full vigor in a suit filed by the State, for it is the paramount title holder of the property by virtue of the Constitution.

Read Blog: Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.

Law Recognises Efficacy of Possession in Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act

Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act allows one to file a suit for recovery of property, on the strength of his prior possession, if he had lost his possession within 6 months of the suit. In such a case, he need not prove his title; and he can succeed on establishing that he has been dispossessed otherwise than in accordance with law within six months.

Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 reads as under:

6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property. (1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit.
(2) No suit under this section shall be brought
- (a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or
- (b) against the Government.
(3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed.
(4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof.

If Title not Perfected by Adver. Posn, Can one Eject a Trespasser After 6 Months

High Courts differ, as pointed out in Kuttan Narayanan v. Thomman Mathayi, AIR 1966 Ker 179.

Now it is settled that if one fails to exercise his option by filing a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act within six months, he is at liberty to file a suit to recover his possession (with or without declaration) by a regular suit for recovery of possession. It can be based on title or on his possession in assumed or presumed character of ownership (even if title not perfected by doctrine of adverse possession) on the principle that possession is good title against all the world but the rightful owner. See: Kuttan Narayanan v. Thomman Mathayi, AIR 1966 Ker 179; Kanti Lal v. Smt. Shanti Devi, AIR 1997 Raj 230.

Read Blog: POSSESSION is a Substantive Right in Indian Law

Courts Protect Settled Possession

Possession by itself is a substantive right recognised by law.
- Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K.C Alexander, AIR 1968 SC 1165
- Kuttan Narayanan v. Thomman Mathayi, AIR 1966 Ker 179;
- Phirayalal Kapur v. Jia Rani, AIR 1973 Delhi 186;
- Nallammal v. Ayisha Beevi, 2017-5 Mad LJ 864).
It is trite law that courts protect settled possession.
- Poona Ram v. Moti Ram, AIR 2019 SC 813
- Aarti v. Aruna Gautham. 2015 -1 RCR (Civil) 160,
- Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, 2004-1 SCC 769.
- Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao, (1989) 4 SCC 131
- Ram Rattan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1977) 1 SCC 188.
- Puran Singh v. The State of Punjab, (1975) 4 SCC 518
- Munshi Ram v. Delhi Administration, (1968) 2 SCR 455.

Read Blog: Kesar Bai v. Genda Lal – Does Something Remain Untold?

Even Rightful Owner to Take Recourse to law; He cannot take the law in his own hands

In Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, (2004) 1 SCC 769, our Apex Court Court (R.C. Lahoti, B.N. Srikrishna, G.P. Mathur, JJ.) observed that the law will come to the aid of a person in peaceful and settled possession by injuncting even a rightful owner. It is held as under:

“8. It is thus clear that so far as the Indian law is concerned the person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession and in order to protect such possession he may even use reasonable force to keep out a trespasser.
A rightful owner who has been wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake possession if he can do so peacefully and without the use of unreasonable force.
If the trespasser is in settled possession of the property belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law; he cannot take the law in his own hands and evict the trespasser or interfere with his possession.
The law will come to the aid of a person in peaceful and settled possession by injuncting even a rightful ownerfrom using force or taking law in his own hands, and also by restoring him in possession even from the rightful owner (of course subject to the law of limitation), if the latter has dispossessed the prior possessor by use of force.
In the absence of proof of better title, possession or prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title. Law presumes the possession to go with the title unless rebutted. The owner of any property may prevent even by using reasonable force a trespasser from an attempted trespass, when it is in the process of being committed, or is of a flimsy character, or recurring, intermittent, stray or casual in nature, or has just been committed, while the rightful owner did not have enough time to have recourse to law. In the last of the cases, the possession of the trespasser, just entered into would not be called as one acquiesced to by the true owner.” (quoted in: Subramanya Swamy Temple, Ratnagiri v. V. Kanna Gounder, 2009-3 SCC 306; Poona Ram v. Moti Ram, AIR 2019 SC 813)

What is the settled possession or effective possession of a person without title which would entitle him to protect his possession even as against the true owner was made clear in Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, (2004) 1 SCC 769. It reads as under:

“9. …The “settled possession” must be (i) effective, (ii) undisturbed, and (iii) to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt at concealment by the trespasser. The phrase “settled possession” does not carry any special charm or magic in it; nor is it a ritualistic formula which can be confined in a straitjacket. An occupation of the property by a person as an agent or a servant acting at the instance of the owner will not amount to actual physical possession.” (quoted in Samarpan Varishtha Jan Parisar vs Rajendra Prasad Agarwal, AIR 2022 SC 2209)

Even the Rightful Owner cannot Eject a Trespasser with Force

In Karthiyayani Amma v. Govindan, AIR 1980 Ker 224, the Kerala High Court considered the question whether the rightful owner can eject a trespasser in possession with force; and whether a person in illegal possession could sustain a suit for injunction against the true owner, from forcibly dispossessing him from the property. It was held as under:

“The ultimate position, therefore, reduces itself to this:
Can a person in possession without title sustain a suit for injunction against the rightful owner if he proves possession?
Yes. In this case, plaintiff is found to in be possession. On the finding, he should be granted the injunction prayed for. A person in possession can be evicted only in due process of law. Even the rightful owner cannot eject him with force. If he cannot be evicted with force, he continues to be in possession and he can resist invasion of his possession by everyone including the rightful owner. If the rightful owner threatens his peaceful possession, he can approach Courts of Law and pray for the equitable relief of injunction to protect his possession”. (Followed in: Aiysumma v. Mariyamma, 1994-2 CIVCC 52, 1994-1 KerLT 570. )

It is pointed out in Suresh v. Ashok Girdharilal Chandak, 2016-1 MHLJ 171 that ‘bearing in mind the basic principle of law in civil jurisprudence that even a trespasser cannot be evicted without following due process of law and no one can be allowed to take law into his own hands to recover possession of the property without following due process of law and without proving title to the immovable property in possession of a person holding actual physical possession thereof’.

No Injunction in Favour of a Trespasser, Against the ‘True Owner’

It is observed by our Apex Court, in Prataprai N. Kothari v. John Braganza, AIR 1999 SC 1666, as under:

“It is quite obvious that the learned single Judge had not taken note of the principle of possessory title or the principle of law that a person who has been in long continuous possession can protect the same by seeking an injunction against any person in the world other than the true owner. It is also well settled that even the owner of the property can get back his possession only by resorting to due process of law.

Divergent Views are set out in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner, AIR 2004 SC 1801 also. They are the following:

first, a person in settled possession cannot be disposed by the owner except by recourse of law
second, a trespasser in possession cannotnot seek injunction against the true owner.

In this case, a forceful postulation is posed-

A trespasser ousted can seek restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, (even) against the true owner. If so, can’t the trespasser seek injunction as to possession, against the true owner?

In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner, AIR 2004 SC 1801, the appellants were the plaintiffs whose suit was rejected in terms of Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is held in this decision as under:

“24. There are two different sets of principles which have to be borne in mind regarding course to be adopted in case of forcible dispossession. Taking up the first aspect, it is true that where a person is in settled possession of property, even on the assumption that he has no right to remain in property, he cannot be disposed by the owner except by recourse of law. This principle is laid down in Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. That Section says that if any person is dispossession without his consent from immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit. That a person without title but in “settled” possession – as against mere fugitive possession – can get back possession if forcibly dispossessed or rather, if dispossessed otherwise than by due process of law, has been laid down in several cases. It was so held by this Court in
- Yashwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh, AIR 1968 SC 620,
- Krishna Ram Mohate v. Mrs. Shobha Venkata Rao, (1989) 4 SCC 131 at p. 136;
- Ram Rattan v. State of UP, (1977) 1 SCC 188, and
- State of UP v. Maharaja Dharmender Prasad Singh, (1989) 2 SCC 505.
The leading decision quoted in these rulings is the decision of the Bombay High Court in
- K. K. Verma vs. Union of India, AIR 1954 Bom 358.
25. Now the other aspect of the matter needs to be noted. Assuming a trespasser ousted can seek restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 can the trespasser seek injunction against the true owner?
This question does not entirely depend upon Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, but mainly depends upon certain general principles applicable to the law of injunctions and as to the scope of the exercise of discretion while granting injunction.
In Mahadeo Savlaram Sheike vs. Pune Municipal Corporation, (1995) 3 SCC 33, it was held, after referring to Woodrofe on “Law relating to injunction: L. C. Goyal Law of injunctions:
- David Bean Injunction Jayce on Injunctions and other leading Articles on the subject that the appellant who was a trespasser in possession could not seek injunction against the true owner.
In that context this Court quoted Shiv Kumar Chadha vs. MCD, (1993) 3 SCC 161, wherein it was observed that injunction is discretionary and that:
- “Judicial proceedings cannot be used to protect or to perpetuate a wrong committed by a person who approaches the Court.”
26. Reference was also made to Dalpat Kumar vs. Prahlad Singh (1992) 1 SCC 719 in regard to the meaning of the words prima facie case and balance of convenience and observed in Mahadeos case (supra) that:
- “It is settled law that no injunction could be granted against the owner at the instance of a person in unlawful possession.”
27. The question of forcible possession as claimed is also a matter which can be pressed into service by the parties before the trial Court and if raised the Court shall deal with it considering its relevance to the suit and accept it or otherwise reject the plea in accordance with law. We do not think it necessary to express any opinion in that regard.
28. …. Looking into the nature of dispute it would be appropriate if the trial Court makes an effort to complete the trial within six months from the date of the judgment. The parties are directed to co-operate for disposal of the suit early within the stipulated time. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated without any order as to costs.”

Burden on plaintiff to Prove Title; Weakness of defence would not enable a decree

In Ram Chandra Sakharam Mahajan Vs. Damodar Trimbak, AIR 2007 SC 2577, it is observed –

In a recovery on title suit, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish title.
Court is also entitled to consider the rival title set up by the defendants.
Weakness of defence to establish title, would not enable plaintiff to a decree.

The Apex Court held:

“The suit is for recovery of possession on the strength of title. Obviously, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that title. No doubt in appreciating the case of title set up by the plaintiff, the Court is also entitled to consider the rival title set up by the defendants. But the weakness of the defence or the failure of the defendants to establish the title set up by them, would not enable the plaintiff to a decree. There cannot be any demur to these propositions.”
“14. We find that the trial Court and the appellate Court were not justified in refusing the amendment of the plaint sought for by the plaintiff. No doubt there had been delay in seeking amendment but that delay could have been compensated by awarding costs to the contesting defendants 1 to 9. Therefore, we are satisfied that the amendment sought for by the plaintiff ought to have been allowed. We are inclined to allow the amendment sought for, since it would enable the Court to pin-pointedly consider the real dispute between the parties and would enable it to render a decision more satisfactorily to its conscience. We, therefore, allow the amendment as sought for by the plaintiff at a belated stage. The amendment will be carried out by the plaintiff in the trial Court within three months from this date as per the practice followed in the trial Court. Obviously defendants 1 to 9 would have an opportunity to file an additional written statement to the amended plaint. They will be entitled to file an additional written statement within a period of four months from the date of this judgment.”

Recovery of Possession Based on Title and on Earlier Possession

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Share this:

Related

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment Cancel reply