Page 1 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4702 OF 2004

Union of India and others … Appellants

Versus

Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society

Ltd. and others … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1.The Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., the first

respondent herein instituted a suit No.794 of 1988 before

the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking a declaration of

title over land comprising 6 acres 30 guntas in Survey

No.60/1 and 61 of Kakaguda village and recovery of the

vacant possession from Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 7, the

appellants herein, after removal of the structure made

therein by them. The plaintiff has also sought for an

Page 2 2

injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with

the above-mentioned land and also for other

consequential refliefs. The City Civil Court vide its

judgment dated 31.07.1996 decreed the suit, as prayed

for, against which the appellants preferred C.C.C.A.

No.123 of 1996 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh

at Hyderabad. The High Court also affirmed the judgment

of the trial Court on 6.9.2002, but noticed that the

appellant had made large scale construction of quarters

for the Defence Accounts Department, therefore, it would

be in the interest of justice that an opportunity be given to

the appellants to provide alternative suitable extent of

land in lieu of the scheduled suit land, for which eight

months’ time was granted from the date of the judgment.

Aggrieved by the same, the Union of India and others have

filed the present appeal.

FACTS

2.The plaintiff’s case is that it had purchased the land

situated in Survey Nos.60, 61 and 62 of Kakaguda Village

from Pattedar B.M. Rama Reddy and his sons and others

during the year 1981-82. The suit land in question forms

Page 3 3

part of Survey Nos.60 and 61. The suit land in question

belonged to the family of B. Venkata Narasimha Reddy

consisting of himself and his sons Anna Reddy, B.V. Pulla

Reddy and B.M. Rama Reddy and Anna Reddy’s son

Prakash Reddy. Land in old Survey No.53 was allotted to

Rama Reddy vide registered family settlement and

partition deed dated 11.12.1939 (Ex.A2). In the

subsequent re-settlement of village (Setwar of 1353

FASLI), the land in Survey No.53 was re-numbered as

Survey No.60, 61 and 62. Ever since the allotment in the

family partition of the above-mentioned land, vide the

family partition deed dated 19.03.1939, Rama Reddy had

been in exclusive possession and enjoyment and was

paying land revenue. Rama Reddy’s name was also

mutated in the Pahanies.

3.Plaintiffs further stated that the first defendant had

it’s A.O.C. Centre building complex in Tirumalagiri village

adjoining the suit land Survey No.60 of Kakaguda village.

The first defendant had also requisitioned 4 acres and 28

guntas in Survey No.60 of Kakaguda Village in the year

Page 4 4

1971 along with the adjoining land in Tirumalagiri for

extension of A.O.C. Centre. Further, it was stated that 6

th

Defendant took possession of the above-mentioned land

and delivered possession of the same to other defendants.

The 3

rd

Defendant later vide his letter dated 18.12.1979

sent a requisition for acquisition of 4.38 guntas in Surevy

No.60 for the extension of A.O.C. Centre. Notification was

published in the official Gazette dated 18.09.1980 and a

declaration was made on 30.06.1981 and compensation

was awarded to Rama Reddy vide Award dated

26.07.1982.

4.The Plaintiffs, as already stated, had entered into

various sale deeds with Rama Reddy during the year

1981-82 by which land measuring 13 acres and 08 guntas

in Survey No.60, 11 acres and 04 guntas in Survey No.61

and 17 acres and 20 guntas in Survey No.62 were

purchased, that is in all 41 acres and 32 guntas. Plaintiffs

further stated that the land, which was purchased by it

was vacant, but persons of the Defence Department

started making some marking on the portions of the land

Page 5 5

purchased by the plaintiff, stating that a substantial

portion of the land purchased by the plaintiff in Survey

No.60/1 and 61 belonged to the Defence Department and

treated as B-4 in their records. Plaintiff then preferred an

application dated 12.09.1983 to the District Collector

under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act for demarcation

of boundaries. Following that, Deputy Director of Survey

issued a notice dated 21.01.1984 calling upon the plaintiff

and 3

rd

Defendant to attend to the demarcation on

25.01.1984. Later, a joint survey was conducted. The 3

rd

Defendant stated that land to the extent of 4 acres and 35

guntas in Survey No.60 and 61 corresponds to their G.L.R.

(General Land Register) No.445 and it is their land as per

the record. The Deputy Director of Survey, however,

stated that lands in Survey Nos.60 and 61 of Kakaguda

village are patta lands as per the settlement records and

vacant, abutting Tirumalagiri village boundaries to Military

Pillers and not partly covered in Survey No.60. Plaintiff

later filed an application for issuing of a certificate as per

the plan prepared by the Revenue Records under Section

19(v) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Plaintiff further stated

Page 6 6

that pending that application, officers of Garrison

Engineers, on the direction of the 3

rd

Defendant, illegally

occupied land measuring 2 acres and 29 guntas in Survey

No.60 and 4 acres and 01 guntas in Survey No.61. Thus, a

total extent of land 6 acres and 30 guntas was encroached

upon and construction was effected despite the protest by

the plaintiff. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff

preferred the present suit, the details of which have

already been stated earlier.

5.The 3

rd

Defendant filed a written statement stating

that an area of land measuring 7 acres and 51 guntas, out

of Survey No.1, 60 and 61 of Kakaguda village comprising

G.L.R. Survey No.445 of Cantonment belongs to the first

Defendant, which is locally managed and possessed by

Defendant No.3 being local representative of Defendant

No.1 and D-3 and is also the custodian of all defence

records. Further, it was also stated that, as per the G.L.R.,

the said land was classified as B-4 and placed under the

management of Defence Estates Officer. It was also

stated that the suit land is part of review Survey Nos.60

Page 7 7

and 61 and the plaintiff is wrongly claiming that the said

land was purchased by it. Further, it was also stated that

the plaintiff is threatening to encroach upon another 6

guntas of land alleged to be situated in Survey Nos.60/1

and 61. It has been categorically stated that, as per the

records maintained by the 3

rd

Defendant, land measuring

7 acres and 51 guntas, forming part of G.L.R. Survey

No.445 of the Cantonment is part of Survey Nos.1, 60 and

61 of Kakaguda village. It is owned, possessed and

enjoyed by Defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 7.

6.The plaintiff, in order to establish its claim, examined

PWs 1 to 4 and produced Exs. A-1 to A-85 and Exs. X-1 to

X-10 besides Exs. A-86 to A-89 on behalf of DW1. On

behalf of the defendants DW1 was examined and Exs D-1

to D-7 are produced.

7.The primary issue which came up for consideration

before the trial court was whether the plaintiff has got

ownership and possession over 6 acres and 30 guntas

covered by Survey No.60/1 and 61 of Kakaguda village for

which considerable reliance was placed on the settlement

Page 8 8

record (Setwar Ex.A-3 of 1353 Fasli). On the other hand,

the defendants placed considerable reliance on G.L.R.

Survey No.445 of the Cantonment which is part of Survey

No.1, 60 and 61 of Kakaguda village, wherein, according

to the defendants, the suit land falls. PW2, the Deputy

Inspector of Survey stated, according to Setwar, land in

Survey Nos.60, 61 and 62 is patta land of Prakash Reddy

and others and such Survey numbers corresponds to Old

Survey No.53. The evidence of PW-3 and 4 also states

that the land is covered by old Survey No.53 which figures

in Survey Nos.60, 61 and 62. Ext. A-3 Setwar, is a

settlement register prepared by the Survey Officer at the

time of revised survey and settlement in the year 1358

Fasli in which the names of the predecessors in title of the

plaintiff are shown as pattedars. In other words, Ex-A-3 is

the exhibit of rights and title of plaintiff’s predecessors in

title.

8.Defedants, as already indicated, on the other hand,

pleaded that the total extent of Survey No.53 was only 33

acres and 12 guntas and if that be so, after sub-division

Page 9 9

the extent of sub-divided survey numbers would also

remain the same, but the extent of sub-divided Survey

Nos.60, 61 and 62 were increased to 41 acres and 32

guntas in the revenue records without any notice to the

defendants which according to the defendants, was

fraudulently done by one Venkata Narasimha Reddy, the

original land owner of Survey No.53 of Kakaguda village,

who himself was the Patwari of Kakaguda village. Further,

it was the stand of the Defendants that in exercise of

powers under The Secunderabad and Aurangabad

Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1930, the G.LR. of

1933 was prepared by Captain O.M. James after making

detailed enquiries from the holder of occupancy rights as

well as general public. Further, it is also stated that

certain land within the villages were handed over by the

then Nizam to British Government for military use. Land

in question measuring 7 acres and 51 guntas in G.L.R.

1933 at Survey No.581 was used by the British

Government as murram pits and it was classified as Class-

C land vested in the Cantonment Authority. G.L.R. 1933

was re-written in the year 1956 in view of the provisions of

Page 10 10

Rule 3 of Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937

and said Survey No.581 was re-written as G.L.R. Survey

No.445. Further, in view of the classification of the land,

as stipulated in Cantonment Land Administration rules,

1937, land pertaining to G.L.R. Survey No.445 was re-

classified as B-4 (vacant land) reserved for future military

purposes and management was transferred from

cantonment authority to Defence Estate.

9.The above-mentioned facts would indicate that the

plaintiff traces their title to the various sale deeds, Ext.A-3

Setwar of 1353 Fasli and the oral evidence of the survey

officials and the defendants claim title and possession of

the land on the basis of the G.L.R. The question that falls

for consideration is whether the evidence adduced by the

plaintiff is sufficient to establish the title to the land in

question and to give a declaration of title and possession

by the civil court.

10.Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing

for the appellants submitted that G.L.R. 445 measuring an

area of 7 acres and 51 guntas is classified as B-4 and

Page 11 11

placed under the management of the Defence Estate

Officer. Column 7 of the G.L.R. would indicate that the

landlord is the Central Government. Out of 7 acres and 51

guntas, land admeasuring 6 acres has been handed over

to Defence Accounts Department for construction of

Defence Staff Quarters as per survey No.445/A, as per the

records as early as in 1984. Further, it was pointed out

that the appellant had already constructed approximately

300 quarters in 6 acres of land. Learned senior counsel

submitted that since the extent of land mentioned in old

Survey No.53 as well as in the settlement and partition

deed, do not tally to the extent of land mentioned in Ext.A-

3 and burden is heavy on the side of the plaintiff to show

and explain as to how the registered family settlement

and partition deed did not take place in the disputed land.

Learned senior counsel also submitted that the High Court

has committed an error in ignoring the G.L.R. produced by

the defendants, even though there is no burden on the

defendants to establish its title in a suit filed by the

plaintiff for declaration of title and possession.

Page 12 12

11.Shri P.S. Narasimha, learned senior counsel and Shri

Basava Prabhu Patil, learned senior counsel appearing for

the respondents submitted that the city civil court as well

as the High Court have correctly appreciated and

understood the legal position and correctly discarded the

entries made in the G.L.R. Learned senior counsel

submitted that the correctness and evidentiary value of

G.L.R. entries have to be appreciated in the context of the

history of the Secunderabad Cantonment. Reference was

made to the provisions of Cantonment Act, 1924 and it

was pointed out that the Secunderabad and Aurangabad

Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1930 do not apply

to the Kakaguda village. Learned senior counsel have also

referred to Ex.A6, the Sesala Pahani for the year 1955-58,

of Kakaguda village, Ex.A7, the Pahani Patrika for the year

1971-72, Ex.A8, the Pahani Patrika for the year 1972-73

and submitted that they would indicate that Methurama

Reddy, the predecessor in title, was the Pattedar of Survey

Nos.60 and 61 of Kakaguda village. It was pointed out that

the entries made therein have evidentiary value. Learned

counsel pointed out that the Settlement Register prepared

Page 13 13

under the Statutes and Pahanies maintained under the

Hyderabad Record of Rights in Land Regulations of 1358,

Fasli have considerable evidentiary value. Further, it was

also pointed out that the land in question is pot kharab

land, which is not normally treated as land in Section 3(j)

of Ceiling Act and hance may not figure in a Settlement or

Partition Deed, hence not subjected to any revenue

assessment. Learned senior counsel submitted that the

plaintiff has succeeded in establishing its title to the

property in question, as was found by the city civil court

as well as the High Court which calls for no interference by

this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

12.It is trite law that, in a suit for declaration of title,

burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and

establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and

the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants

would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff.

13.The High Court, we notice, has taken the view that

once the evidence is let in by both the parties, the

question of burden of proof pales into insignificance and

Page 14 14

the evidence let in by both the parties is required to be

appreciated by the court in order to record its findings in

respect of each of the issues that may ultimately

determine the fate of the suit. The High Court has also

proceeded on the basis that initial burden would always be

upon the plaintiff to establish its case but if the evidence

let in by defendants in support of their case probabalises

the case set up by the plaintiff, such evidence cannot be

ignored and kept out of consideration.

14.At the outset, let us examine the legal position with

regard to whom the burden of proof lies in a suit for

declaration of title and possession. This Court in Maran

Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira

reported in AIR1959 SC 31 observed that “in a suit for

declaration if the plaintiffs are to succeed, they must do so

on the strength of their own title.” In Nagar Palika, Jind

v. Jagat Singh, Advocate (1995) 3 SCC 426, this Court

held as under:

“the onus to prove title to the property in

question was on the plaintiff. In a suit for

ejectment based on title it was incumbent

Page 15 15

on the part of the court of appeal first to

record a finding on the claim of title to the

suit land made on behalf of the plaintiff.

The court is bound to enquire or

investigate that question first before going

into any other question that may arise in a

suit.”

15.The legal position, therefore, is clear that the plaintiff

in a suit for declaration of title and possession could

succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could

be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge

the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the

defendants have proved their case or not. We are of the

view that even if the title set up by the defendants is

found against, in the absence of establishment of

plaintiff’s own title, plaintiff must be non-suited.

16.We notice that the trial court as well as the High

Court rather than examining that question in depth, as to

whether the plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing their

title on the scheduled suit land, went on to examine in

depth the weakness of the defendants title. Defendants

Page 16 16

relied on the entries in the GLR and their possession or re-

possession over the suit land to non-suit the Plaintiffs.

The court went on to examine the correctness and

evidentiary value of the entries in the GLR in the context

of the history and scope of Cantonment Act, 1924, the

Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1925 and tried to

establish that no reliance could be placed on the GLR.

The question is not whether the GLR could be accepted or

not, the question is, whether the plaintiff could prove its

title over the suit property in question. The entries in the

GLR by themselves may not constitute title, but the

question is whether entries made in Ext.A-3 would confer

title or not on the Plaintiff.

17.This Court in several Judgments has held that the

revenue records does not confer title. In Corporation of

the City of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah and another

(1989) 3 SCC 612 held that “it is firmly established that

revenue records are not documents of title, and the

question of interpretation of document not being a

document of title is not a question of law.” In Guru

Page 17 17

Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand and others (1993) 4

SCC 349 this Court has held that “that the entries in

jamabandi are not proof of title”. In State of Himachal

Pradesh v. Keshav Ram and others (1996) 11 SCC 257

this Court held that “the entries in the revenue papers, by

no stretch of imagination can form the basis for

declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff.”

18.The Plaintiff has also maintained the stand that their

predecessor-in-interest was the Pattadar of the suit land.

In a given case, the conferment of Patta as such does not

confer title. Reference may be made to the judgment of

this Court in Syndicate Bank v. Estate Officer &

Manager, APIIC Ltd. & Ors. (2007) 8 SCC 361 and

Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat v. Nori

Venkatarama Deekshithulu & Ors. (1991) Supp. (2)

SCC 228.

19.We notice that the above principle laid down by this

Court sought to be distinguished by the High Court on the

ground that none of the above-mentioned judgments,

there is any reference to any statutory provisions under

Page 18 18

which revenue records referred therein, namely, revenue

register, settlement register, jamabandi registers are

maintained. The High Court took the view that Ext.A-3 has

evidentiary value since the same has been prepared on

the basis of Hyderabad record of Rights in Land

Regulation, 1358 Fasli. It was also noticed that column 1

to 19 of Pahani Patrika is nothing but record of rights and

the entries in column 1 to 19 in Pahani Patrika shall be

deemed to be entries made and maintained under

Regulations.

20.We are of the view that even if the entries in the

Record of Rights carry evidentiary value, that itself would

not confer any title on the plaintiff on the suit land in

question. Ext.X-1 is Classer Register of 1347 which

according to the trial court, speaks of the ownership of the

plaintiff’s vendor’s property. We are of the view that

these entries, as such, would not confer any title.

Plaintiffs have to show, independent of those entries, that

the plaintiff’s predecessors had title over the property in

question and it is that property which they have

Page 19 19

purchased. The only document that has been produced

before the court was the registered family settlement and

partition deed dated 11.12.1939 of their predecessor in

interest, wherein, admittedly, the suit land in question has

not been mentioned.

21.Learned senior counsel appearing for the

respondents submitted that the land in question is pot

kharab and since no tax is being paid, the same would not

normally be mentioned in the partition deed or settlement

deed. The A.P. Survey and Settlement Mannual, Chapter

XIII deals with pot kharab land, which is generally a non-

cultivable land and if the predecessors in interest had

ownership over this pot kharab land, the suit land, we fail

to see, why there is no reference at all to the family

settlement and partition deed dated 11.12.1939.

Admittedly, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff got

this property in question through the above-mentioned

family settlement and partition deed. Conspicuous

absence of the suit land in question in the above-

mentioned deed would cast doubt about the ownership

Page 20 20

and title of the plaintiffs over the suit land in question. No

acceptable explanation has been given by the plaintiff to

explain away the conspicuous omission of the suit land in

the registered family settlement and partition deed. Facts

would also clearly indicate that in Ext-A1, the suit land has

been described in old Survey No.53 which was allotted to

the plaintiff’s predecessors in title. It is the common case

of the parties that Survey No.53 was sub-divided into

Survey Nos.60, 61 and 63. Admittedly, the old Survey

No.53 takes in only 33 acres and 12 guntas, then

naturally, Survey Nos.60, 61 and 63 cannot be more than

that extent. Further, if pot kharab land is not recorded in

the revenue record, it would be so even in case of sub-

division of Old Survey No. 53. The only explanation was

that, since the suit land being pot kharab land, it might

not have been mentioned in Ex.A.

22.A family settlement is based generally on the

assumption that there was an antecedent title of some

kind in the purchase and the arrangement acknowledges

and defines what that title was. In a family settlement-

Page 21 21

cum-partition, the parties may define the shares in the

joint property and may either choose to divide the

property by metes and bounds or may continue to live

together and enjoy the property as common. So far as

this case is concerned, Ex.A1 is totally silent as to whose

share the suit land will fall and who will enjoy it. Needless

to say that the burden is on the plaintiff to explain away

those factors, but the plaintiff has not succeeded. On

other hand, much emphasis has been placed on the failure

on the part of the defendants to show that the

applicability of the GLR. The defendant maintained the

stand that the entries made in GLR, maintained under the

Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937, in the

regular course of administration of the cantonment lands,

are admissible in evidence and the entries made therein

will prevail over the records maintained under the various

enactment, like the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)

Land Revenue Act, 1317 Falsi, the Hyderabad Record of

Rights in Land Regulation, 1358 Falsi, the Hyderabad

Record of Rights Rules, 1956 etc. In order to establish

that position, reliance was placed on the judgments of this

Page 22 22

Court in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr. (2012)

8 SCC 148, Union of India & Ors. v. Kamla Verma

(2010) 13 SCC 511, Chief Executive Officer v.

Surendra Kumar Vakil & Ors. (1999) 3 SCC 555 and

Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Andhra Circle,

Secundrabad v. Mohd. Mohiuddin & Ors. (2003) 12

SCC 315. Both, the trial Court and the High Court made a

detailed exercise to find out whether the GLR Register

maintained under the Cantonment Land Administration

Rules, 1937 and the entries made there under will have

more evidentiary value than the Revenue records made

by the Survey Department of the State Government. In

our view, such an exercise was totally unnecessary.

Rather than finding out the weakness of GLR, the Courts

ought to have examined the soundness of the plaintiff

case. We reiterate that the plaintiff has to succeed only

on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the

case set up by the defendants in a suit for declaration of

title and possession.

Page 23 23

23.In such circumstances, we are of the view that the

plaintiff has not succeeded in establishing his title and

possession of the suit land in question. The appeal is,

therefore, allowed and the judgment of the trial court,

affirmed by the High Court, is set aside. However, there

will be no order as to costs.

…..………………………J.

(K.S. Radhakrishnan)

………………………….J.

(A.K. Sikri)

New Delhi,

January 07, 2014