Appeal against a decree dismissing the claim for a rasta and co-ownership. Appellant relied on khata khatauni entries. Court held these do not establish title and dismissed the appeal for lack of substantial question of law.
The appeal filed via RSA 175/2019 was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~15
Through: Ms. Suman Chaudhary, Advocate.
versus
GAON SABHA MUNDELA KALAN & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Adv. for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
O R D E R
% 12.11.2024
CM APPL. 38547/2019
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/11/2024 at 12:23:14
“20. In addition to the abovementioned reason, the contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the appellants failed to get the mutation of entries of the suit land incorporated in record shows that there was no intention on their part to act upon the contents of the two sale deeds, cannot be accepted as mere mutation of entries does not confer title upon the deceased Respondent 1 in the immovable property. In Sawarni v. Inder Kaur [Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223] , this Court held as under: (SCC p. 227, para 7)
21. In Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand [Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand, (1993) 4 SCC 349] , this Court held that the entries in jamabandi are not proof of title in respect of an immovable property. In Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh [Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh, (1993) 4 SCC 403] , this Court observed that entries made by patwari in official record are only for the purpose of records and do not by itself prove the correctness of the same nor can statutory presumption be drawn on the same, particularly, in the absence of corroborative evidence. The respondent cannot claim to have acquired title over the suit property by
2 (2016) 12 SCC 235
3 (1996) 6 SCC 223
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/11/2024 at 12:23:14
pleading adverse possession only in the absence of the name of the appellants in the revenue records. In Kishan Singh v. Arvind Kumar [Kishan Singh v. Arvind Kumar, (1994) 6 SCC 591] and P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma [P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma, (2007) 6 SCC 59] , this Court held that in cases where the possession was initially permissive, the burden lies heavily on that person alleging adverse possession to prove that the possession has become adverse. Mere possession for long time does not convert permissive possession into adverse possession.”
7. The learned Trial Court, in paragraph No.11, has considered the aforesaid aspect, which reads as under:-
“In his plaint, in paras 2, 3 &4, plaintiff had stated the manner in which he had constructed a house in khasra no.106/71 and based on said construction, he had obtained right over 4 1/2 feet rasta on the eastern side of said plot in khasra no. 106/71. He talked about allotment of said khasra number in favour of Bhagwan Singh and Tarif Singh, its devolvement to legal heirs of Bhagwan 'Singh and Tarif Singh and partition of the said plot by LRs of the said Bhagwan Singh and Tarif Singh. All the said chain of events were bald assertions only as plaintiff did not specify certain relevant facts based on said assertions viz. the person / authority which had alloted suit land in question in favour of Bhagwan Singh and Tarif Singh,, the date when said khasra number was alloted to Bhagwan Singh and Tarif Singh, the terms and conditions of said allotment, the basis on which Bhagwan Singh and Tarif Singh had become joint owners in equal shares in said khasra numbers, the legal procedure adopted by LRs of Bhagwan Singh and Tarif Singh in partitioning the said land and the recognition of 4 1/2 feet wide rasta by any government department. In the absence of any such details, I find that plaintiff failed to plead the legal procedure in which he had obtained his right over said suit land and rasta. He failed to prove the same in his evidence also. The net result is that plaintiff failed to prove himself as co-owner of residential plot-in khasra no.106/71. In fact, documents viz khatoni Ex. PW-1/1 and Ex. PW-1/3 relied by the plaintiff did not help his cause as those documents are a statement of proprietors and tenants holding with a detail of fields and a note of the rent paid by each of them. Those documents did not indicate or prove plaintiff as co-owner of suit land in question. Besides that, demarcation report Ex. PW-1/4 only talked about the location of khasra no.106/72 having no relevance to khasra no. 106/71. The complaint Ex. PW-1/8 and photographs Ex. PW-1/5 to Ex. P'W-l/7 also did not prove plaintiff as co-owner of suit land in question or the rasta in question. It was incumbent on plaintiff to have proved his ownership
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/11/2024 at 12:23:14
over suit land in question as his right to the rasta in question, depended upon his right to occupy suit land in question. Plaintiff failed to do so, much to his own disadvantage”
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
NOVEMBER 12, 2024/DPA
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/11/2024 at 12:23:14
3 issues framed by the court
Whether khatas prove title to immovable property
Whether mutation of entries confers title
Whether substantial question of law arose in the appeal
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prem Nath Khanna v. Narinder Nath KapoorRelied on¶12
Prem Nath Khanna v. Narinder Nath Kapoor (2016) 12 SCC 235 · Who else cites this
Sawarni v. Inder KaurRelied on¶12
Sawarni v. Inder Kaur (1996) 6 SCC 223 · Who else cites this
Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan ChandRelied on¶13
Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand (1993) 4 SCC 349 · Who else cites this
Jattu Ram v. Hakam SinghRelied on¶13
Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh (1993) 4 SCC 403 · Who else cites this
Kishan Singh v. Arvind KumarRelied on¶13
Kishan Singh v. Arvind Kumar (1994) 6 SCC 591 · Who else cites this
P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. RevammaRelied on¶13
P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma (2007) 6 SCC 59 · Who else cites this
KRISHAN
GAON SABHA MUNDELA KALAN
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
