HIGHCOURTOFANDHRAPRADESH

****

FIRSTAPPEALNo.609of2011

Between:

MatamAshokKumarandanother

….APPELLANTS

AND

StateofA.P.Rep.byitsDistrictCollector,

Kurnoolandanother

.....RESPONDENTS

DATEOFJUDGMENTRESERVED: 12.08.2025

DATEOFJUDGMENTPRONOUNCED: 07.01.2026

DATEOFJUDGMENTUPLOADED: 07.01.2026

SUBMITTEDFORAPPROVAL:

THEHON'BLESRIJUSTICERAVINATHTILHARI

&

THEHON'BLESRIJUSTICEMAHESWARARAOKUNCHEAM

1.WhetherReportersofLocalnewspapers

maybeallowedtoseetheJudgments?

Yes/No

2.Whetherthecopiesofjudgmentmaybe

markedtoLawReporters/Journals

Yes/No

3.WhetherYourLordshipswishtoseethe

faircopyoftheJudgment?

Yes/No

_______________________

RAVINATHTILHARI,J

__________________________

MAHESWARARAOKUNCHEAM,J

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

2

*THEHON'BLESRIJUSTICERAVINATHTILHARI

&

THEHON'BLESRIJUSTICEMAHESWARARAOKUNCHEAM

+FIRSTAPPEALNo.609of2011

%07.01.2026

Between:

MatamAshokKumarandanother

….APPELLANTS

AND

StateofA.P.Rep.byitsDistrictCollector,

Kurnoolandanother

.....RESPONDENTS

!CounselfortheAppellants :SriP.VeeraReddy,SeniorCounsel

AssistedbySriKrishnavamsi

RepresentingMs.SodumAnvesha

CounselforRespondentNo.1 :SriKataSambasivaRao,AGP

CounselforRespondentNo.2 :Norepresentation

<Gist:

>HeadNote:

?CasesReferred:

1.(2003)3SCC472

2.(2014)2SCC269

3.(2019)6SCC82

4.(2020)19SCC57

5.(2013)9SCC319

6.2025SCCOnLineSC630

7.(1995)3SCC426

8.(2007)6SCC186

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

3

THEHON’BLESRIJUSTICERAVINATHTILHARI

&

THEHON’BLSRIJUSTICEMAHESWARARAOKUNCHEAM

FIRSTAPPEALNo.609of2011

JUDGMENT:(perHon’bleSriJusticeRaviNathTilhari)

HeardSriP.VeeraReddy,learnedSeniorCounsel,assistedbySri

Krishnavamsi,learnedcounsel,representingMs.SodumAnvesha,learned

counselfortheappellantsandSriKataSambasivaRao,learnedAssistant

GovernmentPleaderappearingforthe1

st

respondent.

2.Norepresentationforthe2

nd

respondent.

3.ThisAppealhasbeenfiledbytheappellants/plaintiffsinO.S.No.6of

2004beingaggrievedfromthejudgmentanddecreedated28.07.2011passed

bytheIIIAdditionalDistrictJudge,KurnoolatNandyal.Thesuitwasfiled

againstthedefendants/respondents1and2fordeclarationoftitleandfor

permanentinjunctioninrespectoftheplaintschedulepropertiesi.e.,anextent

of7.60centsinSy.No.248;extentofAc.0.92cents;andextentofAc.5.15cents

inSy.No.691ofAamuruvillage,RudravaramMandalandanextentofAc.4.57

centsinSy.No.316ofNarasapuramvillage,RudravaramMandal.

I.Facts:

i)Plaintiffs’case:

4.Theplaintiffs/appellantsfiledthesuitwiththeavermentsthattheyare

thebrothers,livingjointlyandtheirfatherbecamementallyunsoundabout12

yearsbackanddisappearedandhiswhereaboutswerenotknown.So,hewas

presumedtobedead.ThegrandfatheroftheplaintiffswasoneMatam

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

4

Seshaiahandhisfather(thegrandfatheroftheplaintiffs)wasoneMatam

Ayyanna.HisfatherwasMatamVeeraBrahmamSwamy.So,thecasesetup

wasthatthefamilynameoftheplaintiffswas‘Matam’andtheirancestorwas

MatamVeeraBrahmamSwamy.Theplaintschedulepropertywassaidtobe

thefamilypropertiesoftheplaintiffsbeingtheirancestralproperty.They

pleadedtobeinpossessionandenjoymentofthesameabsolutelyand

independentlyandalsopayingciststillitwasabolished.Theplaintiffsafter

theygrewupandafterthedeathoftheirfather,developedthelandandhad

beencultivatingbyemployingthemoderntools,irrigatingthelandwithbore-

wellwater.Item-1and2oftheplaintschedulepropertiesconstitutedonefield,

inwhichtheplaintiffs’fatherdugonebore-wellduringhislifetime.The

plaintiffsalsodugtwomorebore-wellsinthesaidland.InitemNo.3,the

plaintiffsdugtwomorebore-wellsandinallthethreeitems,theplaintiffswere

doingintensivecultivationandraisingtwocropsinayear.InitemNo.4there

wasnobore-wellandonlydriedcropswereraised.The1

st

plaintiff,inaddition,

wasalsocarryingaXeroxCentreinCuddapahandthe2

nd

plaintiffwasthen

doingMCAcourseatTirupati,andtheircousinbrother,namely,K.Munnaiah

wassaidtobehelpingtheplaintiffsandsupervisingthecultivation.Theyalso

raisedcropsbypledgingtheoriginaldocumentswithSyndicateBank,Alamur.

TheMandalRevenueOfficer,Rudravaramissuedpattadarpassbooks.The

RevenueDivisionalOfficer,NandyalandMandalRevenueOfficer,Rudravaram

issuedtitledeedsfortheplaintschedulelandinfavouroftheplaintiffsand

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

5

thosetitledeedswerepledgedwiththeSyndicateBank,Alamurforraisingcrop

loan.

5.Theplaintiffsfurtherpleadedthattheoriginalpattadarpassbooks

weretakenbytheRevenueInspectorMallikarjunattheinstanceoftheMandal

RevenueOfficer,Rudravaramon30.08.2004andreceiptwiththesealofthe

MandalRevenueOfficerfortakingpossessionoftwopattadarpassbooksfor

itemNos.1to3oftheplaintschedulepropertywasissuedwhichwasfiledwith

theplaint.ThecircumstancesunderwhichtheRevenueInspectorseizedthose

pattadarpassbookswerepublishedinAndhraJyothi,DailySupplementnews

paperdated04.09.2004.Someofthecistreceiptsavailablewiththeplaintiffs

forpaymentofcistsbytheirpredecessorsintitlewerealsofiled.Itwasalleged

thatthedefendantsweretryingtointerferewiththepeacefulpossessionand

enjoymentoftheplaintscheduleproperty,andso,therewasnecessitytofile

thesuit.

ii)Defendants’case:

6.The1

st

defendant/respondenti.e.,StateofAndhraPradesh,

representedbytheDistrictCollector,Kurnoolremainedexparte.Nowritten

statementwasfiled.

7.The2

nd

defendantinthesuit/RespondentNo.2,namely,Veera

BrahmamMatam,representedbyitsManagerandSuccessors-in-Office,

CuddapahDistrict,BrahmamgariMatam,filedwrittenstatement.Themain

pleadingsoftheplaintweredenied.Itwassubmittedthatthepredecessorsof

theplaintiffswerebeingcalledas‘Matam’peoplesincetheywereassociated

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

6

withtheservicetoSriPothuluriVeeraBrahmendraSwamyMuttat

Kandimallayapalli,popularlyknownasSriBrahmamgariMatam.Itwaspleaded

thatthe2

nd

defendantalonegotrightandtitleovertheplaintschedule

properties.Theplaintiffsortheirancestorshadnorightandtitleoverthe

plaintscheduleproperties.Theplaintiffswerenottheactualcultivatorsofthe

plaintschedulepropertiesandtheywereengagedinotheravocations.The

plaintiffswerenottheresidentsofeitherAlamurorNarasapuramvillagesand

theywerelivingatKadapaandTirupathi.Thedocumentsfiledbytheplaintiffs

werethecreateddocumentsandthe2

nd

defendantwastheabsoluteownerand

possessoroftheplaintscheduleproperty,whichwasafamousreligious

institutionhavinglakhsofdevoteesallovertheStateofAndhraPradesh.The

suitwassaidtobenotmaintainable.

iii)Issues:

8.Inviewofthepleadings,thefollowingissueswereframedbythe

learnedtrialCourt.

1)“Whethertheplaintiffsareentitledfordeclarationoftitleinrespectofthesuit

scheduleproperties?

2)Whethertheplaintiffsareentitledforconsequentialreliefofperpetualinjunction?

3)Whetherthecivilcourthasnojurisdictiontoentertainthesuit?

4)Towhatrelieftheplaintiffsareentitled?”

iv)Evidences:

9.Onbehalfoftheplaintiffs,PWs1to4,viz.,PW1-MatamAshokKumar,

PW2-B.Ratnamaiah,Asst.Manager,SyndicateBank,Alamur,PW3-Kambam

LakshmiMunaiahandPW4-B.SyedSharif,wereexaminedandExs.A1toA33,

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

7

viz.,Exs.A1toA28–Cistreceipts,Ex.A29-PattadarPassbookof1

st

plaintiff,

Ex.A30-ReceiptissuedbyMandalRevenueOfficer,Ex.A31-Pattadarpassbookof

1

st

plaintiff,Ex.A32-Pattadarpassbookof2

nd

plaintiff,Ex.A33-Newspapercutting;

andExs.X1toX9,viz.,Ex.X1-Attestedcopyofcroploanapplicationoffirst

plaintiff,Ex.X2-Attestedcopyofcroploanapplicationof2

nd

plaintiff,Ex.X3-

AttestedcopyofsimplemortgageloanapplicationofPW1,Ex.X4-Attestedcopy

ofTitleDeedof1

st

plaintiff,Ex.X5-AttestedcopyofTitleDeedof1

st

plaintiff,

Ex.X6-AttestedcopyofTitleDeedof2

nd

plaintiff,Ex.X7-Attestedcopyofcrop

loanstatementofPW1,Ex.X8-AttestedcopyofcroploanstatementofPW2

andEx.X9-AttestedcopyofmortgageloanstatementofPW1,weremarked.

10.Onbehalfofthedefendants,DWs.1and2,viz.,DW1-P.Penchalaiah

andDW2-D.S.RameshBabu,thethenRevenueInspectorofRudravaram,

wereexaminedandExs.B1toB8,viz.,Ex.B1-TruecopyofR.H,Ex.B2-Letter

addressedfortheDistrictCollector,Kurnool,Ex.B3-TruecopyofR.S.R,Ex.B4-

TruecopyofR.H,Ex.B5-Truecopyof10(1)forFasliNo.1379,Ex.B6-Truecopy

ofAdangalfasliNo.1414,Ex.B7-TitleDeedandEx.B8-Pattadarpassbook,and

Exs.X10toX15,viz.,Ex.X10-Re-settlementregisterphotocopyattestedbythe

Tahsildar,RudravaramforSurveyNos.248,249,691ofAlamur,Ex.X11-Photo

copyof10(1)AdangalforlandbearingSurveyNo.248,249,691attestedby

Tahsildar,Rudravaram,Ex.X12-PhotocopyofNo.3AdangalforSy.No.248,249,

691forFaslis1415to1417,Ex.X13-Photocopyof10(1)accountfortheland

bearingSurveyNo.316,Ex.X14-PhotocopyofR.S.R.RegisterandEx.X15-Photo

copyofNo.3Adangal(attested)fortheFaslies1415to1417,weremarked.

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

8

v)JudgmentoflearnedTrialCourt:

11.ThelearnedtrialCourtobservedthattheplaintiffs’casewasbased

mainlyonEx.A29,Ex.A31andEx.A32,pattadarpassbookstoprovethatthe

plaintschedulepropertiesbelongedtothem.TheyhadalsofiledExs.A1toA28

toshowthattheirpredecessorspaidciststotherevenueauthoritiestillitwas

abolished.Thosedocumentsarethecistreceipts.TheircasewasthatMatam

VeerabramhaSwamy,thegreatgrandfatheroftheplaintiffs,wastheoriginal

ownerofthepropertyanditcamedowntotheplaintiffsbysuccession.The

learnedtrialCourtobservedthattheplaintiffsdidnotfileanydocumentary

evidencetoprovethattheplaintschedulepropertiesoriginallybelongedto

MatamVeerabhramhaSwamy.Noregistereddocumentoranyrevenue

adangalwasfiledtoprovethesameorthatitbelongedtoanyoftheancestors

oftheplaintiffs.The2

nd

defendanthadalsofiledExs.B7andB8,thetitledeed

andpattadarpassbooksforitemNo.4oftheplaintscheduleproperty.The

learnedtrialCourtobservedthatexceptfilingofExs.A1toA28,thecistreceipts

andExs.A29toA32,theplaintiffsdidnotfileanyevidencetoprovethatthe

plaintschedulepropertybelongedtotheirancestors.So,theplaintiffsfailedto

dischargetheirinitialburden.

12.Thusconsidered,thelearnedtrialCourtrecordedfindingsonissue

Nos.1and2thattheplaintiffshadnorightandtitleovertheplaintschedule

propertiesandtheplaintschedulepropertiesbelongedtothe2

nd

defendant.

Theplaintiffswerenottheowners.Thesetwoissueswereansweredagainst

theplaintiffsandinfavourofthe2

nd

defendant.OnissueNo.3,thelearned

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

9

trialCourtheldthattheCivilCourthadthejurisdictiontoentertainthesuit.

Theissuewasansweredinfavouroftheplaintiffsandagainstthe2

nd

defendant.

ConsequentupontheansweronissueNos.1and2,thelearnedTrialCourt

heldonissueNo.4thatthesuitdeservedtobedismissed.Finally,thesuitwas

dismissedbyjudgmentanddecree,dated28.07.2011.

II.Submissionsofthelearnedcounsels:

i)FortheAppellants:

13.LearnedseniorcounselfortheappellantsSriP.VeeraReddy

submittedthattheplaintiffs’surnameis‘Matam’andhereferredtothe

pedigree.

14.Learnedcounselfortheappellantssubmittedthatinviewofthe

documentaryevidenceintheformofcistreceiptsandExs.A29toA32,the

burdenwasonthedefendantstodisprovethetitle.Hesubmittedthatinthe

writtenstatement,thedefendantNo.2admittedthecultivationbytheplaintiffs,

referringtopara-4ofthewrittenstatementofthe2

nd

defendant.

15.Learnedcounselfortheappellantssubmittedthatthoughthe

defendants’casewasthattheplaintschedulepropertywasthemuttproperty,

butnodocumentwasproducedtoprovethat.Inparagraph-5ofthewritten

statement,thedefendantpleadedignoranceabouttheplaintiffs’caseofbeing

inpossessionandalltheoriginalpattadarpassbookshavingbeensnatched

away.So,hesubmittedthatpleadingignoranceisnodenialandconsequently,

theplaintiffspleadingthat,theplaintiffswereinpossessionandenjoymentof

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

10

theplaintschedulepropertyshallbetakenasproofbyadmissionofthe2

nd

defendantasthedenialwasbypleadingignorance.

16.Learnedcounselfortheappellantsalsoreferredtoparagraph-6ofthe

writtenstatementtocontendthatthedefendants’casewasthattheplaintiffs

andtheirmenintheAlamurvillagewereencroachersovertheendowment

properties,andtheywerecontemplatingtoinitiateproceedingsbeforethe

DeputyCommissionerEndowment,KurnoolunderSection83oftheAndhra

PradeshCharitableandHinduReligiousInstitutionsandEndowmentsAct,1987

togetthemevicted,butinthemeantimetheplaintiffsfiledthesuit,so,

pleadingfurtherthatthedefendantswereatlibertytotakestepsrequiredto

takebackpossessionfromtheplaintiffs.Referringtotheaforesaidpleadingsin

thewrittenstatement,learnedSeniorCounselfortheappellantsvehemently

submittedthatthepossessionoftheplaintiffswasthusadmittedandanysuit

orproceedingfortheevictionoftheplaintiffs,thoughtermingthemas

encroachers,wasnotfilednorproceedinginitiated,underSection83ofthe

EndowmentsAct,andthedefendantsalsohavingfailedtoprovethetitletothe

plaintschedulepropertiesbeingthepropertyoftheendowment/2

nd

defendant,

thelearnedtrialCourtshouldhavedecreedthesuitfordeclarationoftitle,as

thepossessionfollowstitleintheabsenceofproofofabettertitle.

17.Learnedcounselfortheappellantsplacedrelianceonthejudgmentof

theHon’bleApexCourtinChiefConservatorofForestsv.Collector

1

ii)Forthe1

st

Respondent:

1

(2003)3SCC472

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

11

18.LearnedAsst.Govt.Pleaderforthe1

st

respondentsubmittedthat

thereisnoillegalityinthejudgmentofthelearnedtrialCourt.Hesubmitted

thatthepropertybelongedtotheMuttandnottotheplaintiffs.Hesubmitted

thatbyconsideringthedocumentaryevidence,asalsotheoralevidenceon

record,thefindinghasbeenrecordedbythelearnedtrialCourtdismissingthe

suit.Hesubmittedthatbytakingadvantageofthenameoftheirfather,the

plaintiffscreatedExs.A29,A31andA32i.e.,thepattedarpassbooksofthe1

st

plaintiffandthepattedarpassbookofthe2

nd

plaintiff.Hesubmittedthatthe

burdenofproofwasontheplaintiffstoprovetheirrightandtitleovertheplaint

scheduleproperty.Thesuitfordeclarationcouldnotbedecreedbasedonthe

weaknessifanyofthecaseofthedefendants.Theplaintiffshavetostandon

thestrengthoftheirowncase.

III.Pointsfordetermination:

19.Thefollowingpointarisesforourconsiderationanddetermination:

“WhetherthelearnedtrialCourtcommittederroroffactandlaw

indismissingthesuitoftheappellantfordeclarationofrightandtitle

overtheplaintscheduleproperty?”

IV.Analysis:

20.Wehaveconsideredtheaforesaidsubmissionsandperusedthe

materialonrecord.

21.Weareoftheconsideredviewthatoncethesuitwasfiledfor

declarationoverthesuitschedulepropertybytheplaintiffs,theburdenwason

theplaintiffstoprovethetitletothesuitscheduleproperty.

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

12

22.InUnionofIndiav.VasaviCooperativeHousingSociety

Limited

2

theHon’bleApexCourtclearlylaiddownthatinasuitfordeclaration

oftitle,theburdenalwaysliesontheplaintifftomakeoutandestablishaclear

caseforgrantingsuchadeclarationandtheweakness,ifany,ofthecaseset

upbythedefendantswouldnotbeagroundtograntrelieftotheplaintiff.The

Hon’bleApexCourtheldthatthelegalpositionisclearthattheplaintiffinasuit

fordeclarationoftitleandpossessioncouldsucceedonlyonthestrengthofits

owntitleandthatcouldbedoneonlybyadducingsufficientevidenceto

dischargetheonusonit,irrespectiveofthequestionwhetherthedefendants

haveprovedtheircaseornot.TheHon’bleApexCourtfurtherobservedthat

evenifthetitlesetupbythedefendantsisfoundagainstthem,intheabsence

ofestablishmentoftheplaintiff'sowntitle,theplaintiffmustbenon-suited.

23.Paragraphs15and19ofVasaviCooperativeHousingSociety

Limited(supra)readasunder:

“15.Itistritelawthat,inasuitfordeclarationoftitle,theburdenalways

liesontheplaintifftomakeoutandestablishaclearcaseforgrantingsucha

declarationandtheweakness,ifany,ofthecasesetupbythedefendantswould

notbeagroundtograntrelieftotheplaintiff.

19.Thelegalposition,therefore,isclearthattheplaintiffinasuitfor

declarationoftitleandpossessioncouldsucceedonlyonthestrengthofitsown

titleandthatcouldbedoneonlybyadducingsufficientevidencetodischarge

theonusonit,irrespectiveofthequestionwhetherthedefendantshaveproved

theircaseornot.Weareoftheviewthatevenifthetitlesetupbythe

defendantsisfoundagainst(sicthem),intheabsenceofestablishmentofthe

plaintiff'sowntitle,theplaintiffmustbenon-suited.”

2

(2014)2SCC269

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

13

24.InJagdishPrasadPatel(dead)throughLRsv.Shivnath

3

the

Hon’bleApexcourtheldthatinthesuitfordeclarationoftitleandpossession,

theplaintiffscouldsucceedonlyonthestrengthoftheirowntitleandnoton

theweaknessofthecaseofthedefendants.Theburdenisontheplaintiffsto

establishtheirtitletothesuitpropertiestoshowthattheyareentitledfora

decreefordeclaration.

25.Paragraphs44and45ofJagdishPrasadPatel(dead)through

LRs(supra)readasunder:

“44.Inthesuitfordeclarationoftitleandpossession,therespondent-

plaintiffscouldsucceedonlyonthestrengthoftheirowntitleandnotonthe

weaknessofthecaseoftheappellant-defendants.Theburdenisonthe

respondent-plaintiffstoestablishtheirtitletothesuitpropertiestoshowthat

theyareentitledforadecreefordeclaration.Therespondent-plaintiffshave

neitherproducedthetitledocumenti.e.patta-leasewhichtherespondent-

plaintiffsarerelyinguponnorprovedtheirrightbyadducinganyother

evidence.Asnotedabove,therevenueentriesreliedonbythemarealsoheldto

benotgenuine.Inanyevent,revenueentriesforfewkhataunisarenotproofof

title;butaremerestatementsforrevenuepurpose.Theycannotconferanyright

ortitleonthepartyrelyingonthemforprovingtheirtitle.

45.Observingthatinasuitfordeclarationoftitle,therespondent-plaintiffs

aretosucceedonlyonthestrengthoftheirowntitleirrespectiveofwhetherthe

appellant-defendantshaveprovedtheircaseornot,inUnionofIndiav.Vasavi

Coop.HousingSocietyLtd.[UnionofIndiav.VasaviCoop.HousingSociety

Ltd.,(2014)2SCC269:(2014)2SCC(Civ)66],itwasheldasunder:(SCCp.

275,para15)

“15.Itistritelawthat,inasuitfordeclarationoftitle,theburdenalways

liesontheplaintifftomakeoutandestablishaclearcaseforgrantingsucha

3

(2019)6SCC82

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

14

declarationandtheweakness,ifany,ofthecasesetupbythedefendantswould

notbeagroundtograntrelieftotheplaintiff.”

26.Thepropertywasenteredinthenameofthe2

nd

defendant–Veera

BrahmamMatambyitsManagerandthesamewasestablishedfromthe

revenuerecordentries.Theplaintiffshadtoestablishtheirtitleandalsothe

titleoftheirpredecessors.Theirclaimwasbasedonthepleadingsthat,the

propertywasinthenameofVeeraBrahmamMatamandtheyalsousedthe

MatamintheirnameasthesonsofMatamVeerabrahmendraSwamy.So,they

wereco-relatingtheMatampropertytobetheirancestralproperty,andthesuit

fordeclarationwasfiled.Theyalsosubmittedthattheywereinpossession,

basedonthecistreceiptsExs.A1toA28andtherevenuerecordentriesin

Exs.A29toA32.Theplaintiffswerethereforerequiredtoprovetheirpedigree

andconnectionwiththeproperty,itbeinganancestralpropertyaspertheir

case.Merelybecauseof‘Matam’beingcommon,thesuitfordeclarationcould

notbedecreed.Thecistreceiptsortheentryinthepattedarpassbooksbeing

themutationentries,wouldnotprovetitletothesuitproperty.Theplaintiffs

couldsucceedonlyonthestrengthoftheircase,byadducingevidenceoftitle,

andnototherwise,evenifaccordingtothemthe2

nd

defendantfailedtoprove

itstitletothesuitproperty.

27.ThelearnedtrialCourtinitsjudgmentrightlyheldthattheclaimof

theplaintiffswasbasingonExs.A1toA28cistreceipts,andthepattedar

passbooksofthe1

st

and2

nd

plaintiff,buttheplaintiffsdidnotadduceany

evidenceabouttherightandtitleoftheirpredecessors,withconvincing

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

15

evidence,andintheabsenceofanyconvincingevidence,theplaintiffscould

notsucceedbasingontheentriesintherevenuerecords.

28.Italsoheld,byrelyingonExs.X10toX15,B6andB7,thatthe2

nd

defendantinthesuitSriPotuluruVeeraBrahmendraSwamyMuttwasthe

ownerandpattedaroftheplaintschedulepropertyinwhichtheplaintiffshad

norightandtitle.Withrespecttotheevidence,Exs.X1toX9,filedbythe

plaintiffstoshowthattheywereinpossessionandenjoymentoftheproperties,

thelearnedtrialCourtrightlyheldthatthosetransactionsbetweenthe

plaintiffsandPW2werebehindthebackofthe2

nd

defendantandtherefore,

basedontheevidenceofPW2andExs.X1toX9theplaintiffscouldnotbeheld

tobetheownersoftheplaintschedulepropertyagainstthe2

nd

defendant.

29.Further,Ex.X3,i.e.,copyofthesimplemortgageloanapplicationof

PW1,isdated12.11.2007.Bythattimethesuitwasalreadypending.

Consequently,thedocumentappearingduringthependencyofthesuitwasof

nolegalevidentiaryvaluesoastoholdtitleoftheplaintiffsoverthesuitland

basedonthatdocument,thattheplaintiffshadalsotakenloanand

consequently,itshouldbepresumedthattheplaintiffsweretheowners.

30.Inthewrittenstatement,the2

nd

defendanthadspecificallytakena

standthattheplaintiffshadtostrictlyprovethatMatamSeshaiahisthe

grandfatheroftheplaintiffsandthattheirfatherwasAyyannaandthat

Ayyanna’sfatherwasoneMatamVeeraBrahmaSwamy.Theplaintiffshadto

strictlyprovethattheirfamilynamewas‘Matam’andMatamVeeraBrahma

Swamywastheirancestor.Thedefendantsspecificallypleadedthatthe

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

16

plaintiffs’predecessorswerebeingcalledas‘MatamPeople’andtheywere

associatedwithservicetoSriPothuluriVeeraBrahmendraSwamyMuttat

Kandimallayyapalli,popularlyknownas‘SriBrahmamgariMatam’.The

defendants’setupthecasethattheplaintiffshadtostrictlyprovethattheir

housenameorsurnamewas‘Matam’eversincetheirancestors.The

defendantsspecificallydeniedthatthefamilynameoftheplaintiffs,as‘Matam’

andtheirancestorwasMatamVeeraBrahmaSwamy.

31.ThelearnedtrialCourtclearlyobservedandheldthattheplaintiffs

didnotfileanydocumentaryevidencethattheplaintschedulementioned

propertiesoriginallybelongedtoSriPothuluriVeeraBrahmendraSwamy.Any

registeredoranyrevenueadangalwasnotfiledtoprovethattheplaint

schedulementionedpropertiesbelongedtoMatamVeerabrahmaSwamyorthe

ancestorsoftheplaintiffs.ThelearnedtrialCourtrecordedthattheplaintiffs

didnotfileanyregistereddocumentorregisteredsaledeedoranyother

registeredinstrumenttoprovethattheplaintschedulementionedproperty

belongedtotheirancestors.Theplaintiffsontheotherhandwantedto

establishtheirrightandtitlebasingonExs.A29,A31andA32thepattedar

passbooksintheirfavour.Ontheotherhand,the2

nd

defendantfiledExs.B7

andB8,thepattedarpassbooksforItemNo.4oftheplaintscheduleproperties

andthosepattedarpassbookswereissuedinfavouroftheCommissioner,

Endowments,Hyderabad.Further,thedocumentsExs.X11toX15werefiledby

thedefendantswhichshowedthat,SriPotuluruVeeraBramhendraSwamywas

thepattedarandtheMatamwasinitspossessionandenjoyment.Torebut

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

17

thoseExs.X11toX15,theplaintiffsdidnotadduceanyevidencetodisprovethe

contentsofthoseexhibits.

32.ThelearnedtrialCourtalsoconsideringEx.X12-photocopyofadangal,

inwhichthenameoftheplaintiffswereshownasenjoyersofthelandbearing

Sy.Nos.248,249and691forFaslis1415to1417,heldthattheplaintiffsdidnot

fileanyR.S.R.Registeroranyotherdocumenttoprovethattheirancestors

weretheownersofthepropertyandsomerelybasingonentryinEx.X12,it

wasrightlyheldthat,itwasdifficulttosaythattheplaintiffsweretheowners

oftheproperty.InviewofExs.B7andB8,andintheabsenceofanydocument

oftitleinplaintiffs’favour,thelearnedtrialCourtrightlyrecordedthatthe

plaintiffsfailedtodischargetheirburdenandtheyweretryingtotake

advantageoftheweaknessofthedefendants’case.

33.ThelearnedtrialCourtrightlyrecordedthattheplaintiffsfailedto

dischargetheirinitialburdenbyprovingthattheplaintschedulementioned

propertiesbelongedtothem.ExceptfilingofExs.A1toA28cistreceipts,

Exs.A29,A31andA32pattedarpassbooks,theplaintiffsdidnotfileany

evidencetoprovethattheplaintschedulementionedpropertiesbelongedto

theirancestors.

34.Paragraph-4ofthewrittenstatementofthe2

nd

defendant,upon

whichlearnedcounselfortheappellantsplacedmuchreliance,itsrelevantpart

readsasunder:

“4…………Theplaintiffsallegedintensivecultivationinplaintschedule

propertiesandraisingofcropswouldnotbeacriteriathattheyaretheabsolute

ownersthereof.Totheknowledgeofthisdefendanttheplaintiffsarenotatall

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

18

actualcultivatorsofplaintschedulepropertiesasadmittedlytheyareengagedin

otheravocations…….”

35.Inourview,theaforesaidavermentscannotbesaidtobethe

admissionofthedefendantNo.2withrespecttothecultivationoftheplaintiffs,

orbasedthereonanyadmissionbythedefendantNo.2oftheplaintiffsbeing

theowners.DefendantNo.2clearlydeniedthesuitpropertytobetheancestral

propertyoftheplaintiffsandalsopleadedthatitwasfalsetoallegethatthe

plaintiffsandtheirpredecessorshadbeeninpossessionandenjoymentofthe

plaintschedulepropertyabsolutely.Theplaintiffs’caseof‘intensivecultivation’

intheplaintwasreferredbythe2

nd

defendant,inpara-4ofthewritten

statementas‘allegedintensivecultivation’.Thatwouldnotconstitutean

admission.Further,withrespecttotheplaintavermentsofdeclarationetc.,it

wassaidinparagraph-2ofthewrittenstatementthattheplaintiffshadtoprove

thesamestrictly.Itwasclearlystatedthattheplaintschedulelandswerethe

endowmentpropertiesbelongingtoSriPothuluriVeeraBrahmendraSwamy

Mutt,Kandimallayapalliandanyamountoftheallegedspendingbythe

plaintiffsoncultivationordevelopmentoftheendowmentpropertieswouldnot

divesttitleandrightsofthedefendantMatamintheplaintscheduleproperties.

So,weareoftheconsideredviewthatbasedonthepleadingsofthedefendant

No.2inpara-4ofthewrittenstatement,itcannotbesaidthattheplaintiffs’

allegedtitletothesuitpropertywasadmittedandthereforetheplaintiffswere

notrequiredtoprovetheirplaintcaseoftitletothesuitproperty.Theburden

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

19

ofproofwasontheplaintiffsanditcannotbesaidtohavebeendischarged

videparas-4or/and6ofthewrittenstatement.

36.Withrespecttopara-5ofthewrittenstatement,onwhichthe

argumenthasbeenadvancedthat,thedenialthereunderisbysaying‘isnot

aware’andsothereisnodenialintheeyesoflaw.Weareoftheviewthat,

firstly,theavermentofthe2

nd

defendantinpara-5withrespectto‘isnot

aware’,isnotfortheentirecontentsofpara-5oftheplaint,butonlywith

respecttotheplaintiff’scasethatifMandalRevenueOfficer,Rudravaram

issuedPattadarPassBooksandtheRevenueDivisionalOfficerofNandyalalong

withM.R.O,RudravaramissuedTitledeedsfortheplaintschedulelandin

favouroftheplaintiffsandthetitledeedsforallthelandswerepledgedwith

SyndicateBank,Alamurforraisingcroploanandtheoriginalswerewiththe

Bankandtheloanwassubsisting.Thesaidignoranceofthedefendantisonly

withrespecttotheplaintiffs’caseofissuanceofpattadarpassbooksandthe

titledeedsandtheloan,which,inourviewcannotbesaidtobetheignorance

pleadedwithrespecttothemaincaseoftheplaintiffsfordeclarationonthe

basisofpossessionor/andthepropertybeingtheancestralproperty.The

documents,saidtohavebeenissuedbytheMandalRevenueOfficeretc.,were

alsosaidtobecollusivedocumentstoprovetheplaintiffs’claim,havingno

legalvaluebeingopposedtothevariousrecordsmaintainedbythe

Government/revenuedepartment.Thecistreceiptswerealsosaidtobenot

sufficienttoprovetheplaintiffs’titlefortheplaintscheduleproperties.The

revenuerecordmaintainedbytherevenuedepartmentwasalsosaidtobe

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

20

clearlyshowingthatalltheplaintschedulepropertieswerebelongingtothe2

nd

defendant,whohadgotrightandtitleoverthesameandnottheplaintiffsand

theirancestors.Itiswellsettledinlawthatthepleadingsaretobereadasa

whole.Whenreadasawhole,theentirewrittenstatement,includingthe

remainingcontentsofpara-5,itdoesnotfollowthattheignorancewaspleaded

withrespecttothemaincaseoftheplaintiffsfordeclaration.Therearespecific

denialsandclearcasehasbeensetupthattheplaintiffsarenottheowners

andtheyaretakingtheadvantageofonlytheirsurname‘Matam’andtryingto

co-relatethepropertyofthe2

nd

defendantwiththeirancestors.Sothe

submissionsadvancedbythelearnedcounselfortheappellantsthatthe

defendantpleadinginpara-5‘isnotaware’andtherefore,therewasadmission

intheabsenceofcleardenial,iswhollyunsustainableandisunacceptable.

37.Learnedcounselfortheappellantssubmittedthatbasedonthe

possessionoftheplaintiffs,thesuitshouldhavebeenallowedasthepossession

wasadmittedandthepossessionfollowstitle.

38.Section110oftheEvidenceActreadsasunder:

“110.Burdenofproofastoownership.––Whenthequestionis

whetheranypersonisownerofanythingofwhichheisshowntobein

possession,theburdenofprovingthatheisnottheownerisonthepersonwho

affirmsthatheisnottheowner.”

39.InNazirMohamedv.J.Kamala

4

itwasheldthatthemaxim

“possessionfollowstitle”islimitedinitsapplicationtoproperty,whichhaving

regardtoitsnature,doesnotadmittoactualandexclusiveoccupation,asin

4

(2020)19SCC57

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

21

thecaseofopenspacesaccessibletoall.Thepresumptionthatpossession

mustbedeemedtofollowtitle,arisesonlywherethereisnodefiniteproofof

possessionbyanyoneelse.

40.Paragraphs47and48ofNazirMohamed(supra)readasunder:

“47.Apersonclaimingadecreeofpossessionhastoestablishhis

entitlementtogetsuchpossessionandalsoestablishthathisclaimisnotbarred

bythelawsoflimitation.Hemustshowthathehadpossessionbeforethe

allegedtrespassergotpossession.

48.Themaxim“possessionfollowstitle”islimitedinitsapplicationto

property,whichhavingregardtoitsnature,doesnotadmittoactualand

exclusiveoccupation,asinthecaseofopenspacesaccessibletoall.The

presumptionthatpossessionmustbedeemedtofollowtitle,arisesonlywhere

thereisnodefiniteproofofpossessionbyanyoneelse.Inthiscase,itis

admittedthattheappellant-defendantisinpossessionandnottherespondent-

plaintiff.”

41.InChiefConservatorofForests(supra),theHon’bleApexCourt

heldthatSection110oftheEvidenceActembodiestheprinciplethat

possessionofapropertyfurnishesprimafacieproofofownershipofthe

possessorandcastsburdenofproofonthepartywhodenieshisownership.

Thepresumptionisrebuttableandisattractedwhenthepossessionisprima

facielawfulandwhenthecontestingpartyhasnotitle.

42.Paragraphs19,20and21ofChiefConservatorofForests(supra)

areasunder:

“19.Section110oftheEvidenceActreadsthus:

“110.Burdenofproofastoownership.—Whenthequestioniswhetherany

personisownerofanythingofwhichheisshowntobeinpossession,the

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

22

burdenofprovingthatheisnottheownerisonthepersonwhoaffirmsthathe

isnottheowner.”

20.Itembodiestheprinciplethatpossessionofapropertyfurnishesprima

facieproofofownershipofthepossessorandcastsburdenofproofontheparty

whodenieshisownership.Thepresumption,whichisrebuttable,isattracted

whenthepossessionisprimafacielawfulandwhenthecontestingpartyhasno

title.

21.ThisCourtinNairServiceSocietyLtd.v.K.C.Alexander[AIR1968SC

1165:1968KerLT182]observed:(AIRp.1173,para15)

“Thatpossessionmayprimafacieraiseapresumptionoftitlenoonecan

denybutthispresumptioncanhardlyarisewhenthefactsareknown.Whenthe

factsdisclosenotitleineitherparty,possessionalonedecides.”

43.InStateofA.P.v.StarBoneMill&FertiliserCo.

5

theHon’ble

ApexCourtheldthattheprincipleenshrinedinSection110oftheEvidenceAct

isbasedonpublicpolicywiththeobjectofpreventingpersonsfromcommitting

breachofpeacebytakinglawintotheirownhands,howevergoodtheirtitle

overthelandinquestionmaybe.ThesaidpresumptionisreadunderSection

114oftheEvidenceAct,andappliesonlyinacasewherethereiseitherno

proof,orverylittleproofofownershiponeitherside.Themaxim“possession

followstitle”isapplicableincaseswhereproofofactualpossessioncannot

reasonablybeexpected,forinstance,inthecaseofwastelands,orwhere

nothingisknownaboutpossessiononewayoranother.Presumptionoftitleas

aresultofpossession,canariseonlywherefactsdisclosethatnotitlevestsin

anyparty.Possessionoftheplaintiffisnotprimafaciewrongful,andtitleofthe

plaintiffisnotproved.Itcertainlydoesnotmeanthatbecauseamanhastitle

5

(2013)9SCC319

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

23

oversomeland,heisnecessarilyinpossessionofit.Itinfactmeans,thatifat

anytimeamanwithtitlewasinpossessionofthesaidproperty,thelawallows

thepresumptionthatsuchpossessionwasincontinuationofthetitlevestedin

him.Apersonmustestablishthathehascontinuedpossessionofthesuit

property,whiletheothersideclaimingtitle,mustmakeoutacaseof

trespass/encroachment,etc.Wheretheapparenttitlewaswiththeplaintiffs,it

isincumbentuponthedefendant,thatinordertodisplacethisclaimof

apparenttitleandtoestablishbeneficialtitleinhimself,hemustestablishby

wayofsatisfactoryevidence,circumstancesthatfavourhisversion.Even,a

revenuerecordisnotadocumentoftitle.Itmerelyraisesapresumptionin

regardtopossession.Presumptionofpossessionand/orcontinuitythereof,both

forwardandbackward,canalsoberaisedunderSection110oftheEvidence

Act.

44.Paragraphs18to21ofStarBoneMill&FertiliserCo.(supra)are

reproducedasunder:

“18.InGurunathManoharPavaskarv.NageshSiddappa

Navalgund[(2007)13SCC565:AIR2008SC901]thisCourtheldasunder:

(SCCp.568,para12)

“12.Arevenuerecordisnotadocumentoftitle.Itmerelyraisesa

presumptioninregardtopossession.Presumptionofpossessionand/or

continuitythereofbothforwardandbackwardcanalsoberaisedunderSection

110oftheEvidenceAct.”

19.InNairServiceSocietyLtd.v.K.C.Alexander[AIR1968SC1165],

dealingwiththeprovisionsofSection110oftheEvidenceAct,thisCourtheld

asunder:(AIRp.1173,para15)

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

24

“15.…possessionmayprimafacieraiseapresumptionoftitlenoonecan

denybutthispresumptioncanhardlyarisewhenthefactsareknown.Whenthe

factsdisclosenotitleineitherparty,possessionalonedecides.”

20.InChiefConservatorofForestsv.Collector[(2003)3SCC472:AIR

2003SC1805],thisCourtheldthat:(SCCp.484,para20)

“20.…presumption,whichisrebuttable,isattractedwhenthepossessionis

primafacielawfulandwhenthecontestingpartyhasnotitle.”

21.TheprincipleenshrinedinSection110oftheEvidenceActisbased

onpublicpolicywiththeobjectofpreventingpersonsfromcommittingbreach

ofpeacebytakinglawintotheirownhands,howevergoodtheirtitleoverthe

landinquestionmaybe.Itisforthispurpose,thattheprovisionsofSection6

oftheSpecificReliefAct,1963,Section145oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,

1973,andSections154and158ofthePenalCode,1860,wereenacted.Allthe

aforesaidprovisionshavethesameobject.Thesaidpresumptionisreadunder

Section114oftheEvidenceAct,andappliesonlyinacasewherethereiseither

noproof,orverylittleproofofownershiponeitherside.Themaxim

“possessionfollowstitle”isapplicableincaseswhereproofofactual

possessioncannotreasonablybeexpected,forinstance,inthecaseof

wastelands,orwherenothingisknownaboutpossessiononewayoranother.

Presumptionoftitleasaresultofpossession,canariseonlywherefacts

disclosethatnotitlevestsinanyparty.Possessionoftheplaintiffisnotprima

faciewrongful,andtitleoftheplaintiffisnotproved.Itcertainlydoesnotmean

thatbecauseamanhastitleoversomeland,heisnecessarilyinpossessionofit.

Itinfactmeans,thatifatanytimeamanwithtitlewasinpossessionofthesaid

property,thelawallowsthepresumptionthatsuchpossessionwasin

continuationofthetitlevestedinhim.Apersonmustestablishthathehas

continuedpossessionofthesuitproperty,whiletheothersideclaimingtitle,

mustmakeoutacaseoftrespass/encroachment,etc.Wheretheapparenttitleis

withtheplaintiffs,itisincumbentuponthedefendant,thatinordertodisplace

thisclaimofapparenttitleandtoestablishbeneficialtitleinhimself,hemust

establishbywayofsatisfactoryevidence,circumstancesthatfavourhisversion.

Even,arevenuerecordisnotadocumentoftitle.Itmerelyraisesapresumption

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

25

inregardtopossession.Presumptionofpossessionand/orcontinuitythereof,

bothforwardandbackward,canalsoberaisedunderSection110ofthe

EvidenceAct.”

45.Recently,inYerikalaSunkalammav.StateofAndhraPradesh

6

theHon’bleApexCourt,ontheprincipleenshrinedinSection110ofthe

EvidenceAct(nowSection113oftheBSA),heldthatpresumptionoftitleasa

resultofpossessioncanariseonlywherefactsdisclosethatnotitlevestsinany

partyandthepossessionoftheplaintiffisnotprimafaciewrongful.Itdoesnot

meanthatbecauseamanhastitleoversomeland,heisnecessarilyin

possessionofit.It,infact,means,thatifatanytimeamanwithtitlewasin

possessionofthesaidproperty,thelawallowsthepresumptionthatsuch

possessionwasincontinuationofthetitlevestedinhim.Apersonmust

establishthathehascontinuedpossessionofthesuitproperty,whiletheother

sideclaimingtitle,mustmakeoutacaseoftrespass/encroachment,etc.Where

theapparenttitleiswiththeplaintiffs,itisincumbentuponthedefendant,that

inordertodisplacethisclaimofapparenttitleandtoestablishbeneficialtitlein

himself,hemustestablishbywayofsatisfactoryevidence,thecircumstances

thatfavourhisversion.TheHon’bleApexCourtheldthatSection113ofthe

BharatiyaSakshyaAdhiniyam(BSA),2023,embodiestheprinciplethat

possessionofapropertyfurnishesprimafacieprincipleofownershipofthe

possessorandcastsburdenofproofonthepartywhodenieshisownership.

Thepresumption,whichisrebuttable,isattractedwhenthepossessionisprima

facielawfulandwhenthecontestingpartyhasnotitle.

6

2025SCCOnLineSC630

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

26

46.Paragraphs83and84ofYerikalaSunkalamma(supra)readas

under:

“83.TheprincipleenshrinedinSection110oftheEvidenceAct(now

Section113oftheBSA)isbasedonpublicpolicywiththeobjectofpreventing

personsfromcommittingbreachofpeacebytakinglawintotheirownhands,

howevergoodtheirtitleoverthelandinquestionmaybe.Itisforthispurpose

thattheprovisionsofSection6oftheSpecificReliefAct,1963,Section145of

theCriminalProcedureCode,1973,andSections154and158oftheIndia

PenalCode,1860,wereenacted.Alltheaforesaidprovisionshavethesame

objective.ThesaidpresumptionisreadunderSection114oftheEvidence

Actandappliesonlyinacasewherethereiseithernoproof,orverylittle

proofofownershiponeitherside.Themaxim“possessionfollowstitle”is

applicableincaseswhereproofofactualpossessioncannotreasonablybe

expected,forinstance,inthecaseofwastelands,orwherenothingisknown

aboutpossessiononewayoranother.Presumptionoftitleasaresultof

possessioncanariseonlywherefactsdisclosethatnotitlevestsinany

partyandthepossessionoftheplaintiffisnotprimafaciewrongful.It

certainlydoesnotmeanthatbecauseamanhastitleoversomeland,heis

necessarilyinpossessionofit.It,infact,means,thatifatanytimeaman

withtitlewasinpossessionofthesaidproperty,thelawallowsthe

presumptionthatsuchpossessionwasincontinuationofthetitlevestedin

him.Apersonmustestablishthathehascontinuedpossessionofthesuit

property,whiletheothersideclaimingtitle,mustmakeoutacaseof

trespass/encroachment,etc.Wheretheapparenttitleiswiththeplaintiffs,it

isincumbentuponthedefendant,thatinordertodisplacethisclaimofapparent

titleandtoestablishbeneficialtitleinhimself,hemustestablishbywayof

satisfactoryevidence,circumstancesthatfavourhisversion.Evenarevenue

recordisnotadocumentoftitle.Itmerelyraisesapresumptioninregard

topossession.Presumptionofpossessionand/orcontinuitythereof,both

forwardandbackward,canalsoberaisedunderSection110ofthe

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

27

EvidenceAct.[See:StateofAndhraPradeshv.StarBoneMillandFertiliser

Company,(2013)9SCC319]

84.Section113oftheBSAasdiscussedaforesaid,embodiestheprinciple

thatpossessionofapropertyfurnishesprimafacieprincipleofownershipofthe

possessorandcastsburdenofproofonthepartywhodenieshisownership.The

presumption,whichisrebuttable,isattractedwhenthepossessionisprima

facielawfulandwhenthecontestingpartyhasnotitle.”

47.Fromtheaforesaidjudgment,itisevidentthatthepresumptionof

ownershipisrebuttableandthatthepresumptioncanberaisedonlywhenthe

possessionisvalidorlawful.Inthepresentcase,evenifthesubmissionofthe

appellants’counselbeacceptedforthetimebeingthattheappellantshadbeen

inpossession,eventhen,theappellantshadtoestablishthattheirpossession

atanytimewaswithtitleandhecontinuedinpossessionwhichprimafaciewas

notunlawful.Intheabsenceoftherebeinganydocumentshowingthetitle

andthepossessionnottobeunlawful,thepresumptionunderSection110of

theEvidenceActcannotbeinvoked.HereinExs.X7,X8,theproperty(item

No.4)isrecordedinthenameoftheEndowmentCommissioner.Theplaintiffs’

caseisoftitleinplaintiffs’ancestors,sotheirtitlehadtobeprovedandmerely

becauseofpossession,ifso,byraisingpresumptionoftitle,suitfordeclaration

couldnotbedecreed.

48.Thecontentionbasedonmutationentrysoastodeclaretitlecarryno

force.Thelawiswellsettledthatmutationentriesdonotconfertitlenorare

evidenceoftitle.

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

28

49.InNagarPalikav.JagatSingh

7

theHon’bleApexCourtheldin

paragraph7withrespecttotherevenueentries,thatthosedonotconferany

title,asunder:

“7.Theclaimoftherespondentwasthathehadpurchasedthesuitland

throughasaledeedintheyear1970.Thereafterhefiledasuiton17-4-1971for

permanentinjunctionagainsttheappellant.Thatsuitwasultimatelywithdrawn

on7-11-1977withpermissiontofileafreshsuit.Ultimately,thesuitwith

whichweareconcernedwasfiledon23-8-1979.Inthisbackgroundany

relianceonentriesintherevenuerecordsafter1971wasofnotmuch

consequenceandvalue,becausetherespondenthadalreadyinstitutedtheearlier

suitwhichwasthenpending.Inanycase,anorderofmutationinthename

oftherespondentintherevenuerecordscannotbeasourceoftitle.Inthe

caseofNirmanSinghv.LalRudraPartabNarainSingh[AIR1926PC100:

53IA220],inrespectofmutationofnamesinrevenuerecords,itwassaid:

“Theyarenothingofthekindashasbeenpointedouttimesinnumerableby

theJudicialCommittee.Theyaremuchmoreinthenatureoffiscalinquiries

institutedintheinterestoftheStateforthepurposeofascertainingwhich

oftheseveralclaimantsfortheoccupationofcertaindenominationsof

immovablepropertymaybeputintooccupationofitwithgreater

confidencethattherevenueforitwillbepaid.

Itislittlelessthanatravestyofjudicialproceedingtoregardthetwo

ordersoftheExtraCommissionerofBahraichandMrM.L.Ferrar,Deputy

Commissioner,asjudicialdeterminationsexpellingpropriovigoreany

individualfromanyproprietaryrightorinterestheclaimsinimmovable

property.”

7

(1995)3SCC426

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

29

50.InSurajBhanv.FinancialCommissioner

8

withrespecttothe

entriesintherevenuerecords,theHon’bleApexCourtheldthatthosedonot

conferanyownership.Paragraph9ofthesaidjudgmentreadsasunder:

“9.Thereisanadditionalreasonastowhyweneednotinterferewiththat

orderunderArticle136oftheConstitution.Itiswellsettledthatanentryin

revenuerecordsdoesnotconfertitleonapersonwhosenameappearsin

record-of-rights.Itissettledlawthatentriesintherevenuerecords

orjamabandihaveonly“fiscalpurpose”i.e.paymentoflandrevenue,and

noownershipisconferredonthebasisofsuchentries.Sofarastitletothe

propertyisconcerned,itcanonlybedecidedbyacompetentcivilcourt

(videJattuRamv.HakamSingh[(1993)4SCC403:AIR1994SC1653]).As

alreadynotedearlier,civilproceedingsinregardtogenuinenessofwillare

pendingwiththeHighCourtofDelhi.Inthecircumstances,weseenoreasonto

interferewiththeorderpassedbytheHighCourtinthewritpetition.”

51.TheHon’bleApexCourtinJagdishPrasadPatel(dead)through

LRs.(supra)heldthattherevenueentriesforfewkhatauniswerenotproofof

title,butweremerestatementsforrevenuepurpose.Theycouldnotconfer

anyrightortitleonthepartyrelyingonthemforprovingtheirtitle.

52.InVasaviCooperativeHousingSocietyLimited(supra),with

respecttotherevenuerecordentries,theHon’bleApexCourtreiteratedthat

revenuerecordsarenotdocumentsoftitleandthequestionofinterpretationof

adocumentnotbeingadocumentoftitleisnotaquestionoflaw.Theentries

intherecordofrightsitselfwouldnotconferanytitleontheplaintifftothesuit

land.Anentryintherevenuepapersbynostretchofimaginationcanformthe

basisfordeclarationoftitleinfavouroftheplaintiffs.

8

(2007)6SCC186

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

30

53.Para-21ofVasaviCooperativeHousingSocietyLimited(supra)

readsasundr:

“21.ThisCourtinseveraljudgmentshasheldthattherevenuerecordsdo

notconfertitle.InCorpn.oftheCityofBangalorev.M.Papaiah[(1989)3

SCC612]thisCourtheldthat:(SCCp.615,para5)

“5.…Itisfirmlyestablishedthattherevenuerecordsarenotdocumentsof

title,andthequestionofinterpretationofadocumentnotbeingadocumentof

titleisnotaquestionoflaw.”

InGuruAmarjitSinghv.RattanChand[(1993)4SCC349]thisCourthasheld

that:(SCCp.352,para2)

“2.…thatentriesintheJamabandiarenotproofoftitle.”

InStateofH.P.v.KeshavRam[(1996)11SCC257]thisCourtheldthat:(SCC

p.259,para5)

“5.…anentryintherevenuepapersbynostretchofimaginationcan

formthebasisfordeclarationoftitleinfavouroftheplaintiffs.”

V.Conclusion:

54.Inconclusion,weholdthat:

i)Inasuitfordeclarationoftitle,theburdenofproofisalwaysonplaintiffs

toprovethetitlebyadducingcogentevidencetothesatisfactionofthe

Court.

ii)Whenthesuitfordeclarationwasfiledbasedontitletothesuitproperty

infavouroftheplaintiffs’ancestorsandsoafterthem,intheplaintiffs,

theplaintiffshadtoprovethetitleoftheirancestorstosuitpropertyby

adducingcogentevidenceoftitle.

iii)Meremutationinrevenuerecordsdoesnotconferanytitlenorisaproof

oftitle.

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

31

iv)Possessionfollowstitle,isthepresumptionthatmayberaisedunder

Section110oftheEvidenceAct(Section113oftheBharatiyaSakshya

Adiniyam(BSA),2023.Toraisesuchpresumption,thepossessionmust

atanytimebewithtitleandthepersonmusthavecontinuedwith

possessionwhichwasprimafacienotunlawfulandthecontestingparty

hadnotitle.Thismaximisapplicableincaseswhereproofofactual

possessioncannotreasonablybeexpected,forinstance,inthecaseof

wastelands,orwherenothingisknownaboutpossessiononewayor

another.Thepresumptionisrebuttable.

v)Thepropertybeingrecordedinthenameofthe2

nd

defendant

(EndowmentCommissioner)Exs.X7&X8,thepresumptionthat

possessionfollowstitle,cannotbeattractednorinvokedtogrant

declarationoftitle,intheabsenceofanydocumentoftitleinfavourof

theplaintiffs’ancestors,sincetheclaimitselfwasbasedontitle.

vi)Mereresemblanceofthesurname‘Matam’wouldnotmaketheproperty

recordedinthenameof‘Mutt’theancestralpropertyoftheplaintiffs.

vii)Theplaintiffshavingfailedtoestablishtitlebyadducingdocumentoftitle

thesuitfordeclarationcouldnotsucceed.

viii) ThejudgmentofthelearnedtrialCourtdoesnotsufferfromany

erroroffactorlaw.Itdoesnotcallforanyinterferenceintheexercise

ofourappellatejurisdiction.

RNT,J&MRK,J

ASNo.609of2011

32

VI.Result:

55.Intheresult,theappeallacksmeritandisdismissed.

56.Noorderastocosts.

Pendingmiscellaneouspetitions,ifany,shallstandclosedin

consequence.

_______________________

RAVINATHTILHARI,J

______________________________

MAHESWARARAOKUNCHEAM,J

Date:07.01.2026

Dsr

Note:

LRcopytobemarked

B/o

Dsr