Summary
The legal representative of Maharani Chandratara Devi sued for title to and possession of 'Khosh Mahal' land in Agartala. She relied on a 1951 deed of patta in favour of Bidurkarta and his 1952 ekrarnama acknowledging the Maharani's rights. The trial court decreed the suit, but the Gauhati High Court reversed it. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The patta and ekrarnama described a smaller, differently bounded plot with no hotel building. The court surveyor could not identify the suit land with it, the plaint area was enlarged only after the survey report, and an older registered patta stood in the hotel company's name. The plaintiff's own pleadings admitted the company's possession. Under Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act, a plaintiff seeking title and possession must prove a better title, and cannot succeed on the weakness of the defence.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff proved title to and the right to possession of the Schedule 'A' property ('Khosh Mahal'), Agartala, on the basis of the 1951 Deed of Patta and the 1952 Ekrarnama, as against defendants in possession.
Provisions considered
- Sections 101 and 102, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The burden of proving title lies on the plaintiff who asserts it, shifting only once a high degree of probability is created; if neither side adduces evidence the suit fails, and the defendants' weakness cannot found a decree. (¶¶ 30, 31)
- Section 90, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The registered Deed of Patta of 1948 in favour of M/s. Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited, being over thirty years old, carries a presumption of due execution, and the plea of fabrication raised for the first time in this Court was not entertained. (¶ 25)
Held
- The land in the 1951 patta and 1952 ekrarnama was not shown to be the suit property: their description mentioned no hotel building, the court surveyor could not match it with the identified land, the plaint area was enlarged after the survey to mirror the company's 1948 patta, and the Maharani's own power of attorney gave the smaller area. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
- The plaintiff's pleadings accepted that the hotel company had possession; the claim to have taken possession after Indian Airlines vacated in 1986 was unsubstantiated; purchasers from the company were in possession; and the 18-year delay in suing after rent stopped in 1968 was unexplained. (¶¶ 26, 28, 29)
- A person in possession as owner has a right against all except the true owner, so the plaintiff had to prove a better title; the defendants' failure to prove the leases did not relieve her of the burden, and the High Court rightly dismissed the suit, its observations on the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act being left undisturbed. (¶¶ 27, 30, 31)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 878 of 2009 against the Gauhati High Court (Agartala Bench) judgment dated 17.05.2006 in F.A. No. 40 of 1997 dismissed, and the dismissal of Title Suit No. 66 of 1986 upheld; no costs.