Summary
The Supreme Court upheld a decree for possession in favour of private landowners against the State of Haryana and its PWD, holding that the State cannot perfect title to its citizens' land by adverse possession, that by pleading adverse possession without specifically denying the plaintiffs' title the State impliedly admitted it, and that its possession was in any case permissive.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiffs had proved their title, and on whom the burden of proof lay when the defendants did not specifically deny title but pleaded adverse possession.
- Whether the State can claim title by adverse possession over land of its own citizens, and whether its possession here was adverse or permissive.
- Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC in reversing the First Appellate Court.
Provisions considered
- Order VIII Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Because the State's written statement did not specifically deny the plaintiffs' ownership and relied on adverse possession, the plaintiffs' title was deemed admitted and could not be disputed for the first time at the appellate stage. (¶¶ 8.1, 8.4)
- Section 35, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Jamabandi entries, as public records kept by officials in the course of duty, were treated as carrying a presumption of correctness; though they do not by themselves confer title, they are admissible evidence of possession supporting ownership when corroborated. (¶ 8.2)
- Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Whether the State can claim adverse possession against citizens and whether that plea admits the plaintiffs' title were substantial questions of law, and the First Appellate Court's judgment ignored material evidence, so the High Court's interference in second appeal was justified. (¶ 13)
Held
- A defendant who does not specifically deny the plaintiff's title and instead pleads adverse possession impliedly admits that title; allegations not specifically denied are deemed admitted under Order VIII Rule 5 CPC. (¶¶ 8.1, 8.4)
- Revenue entries do not by themselves confer title but are admissible as evidence of possession and can support ownership when corroborated; here the jamabandis, together with registered sale deeds of 1960 and 1973 and mutations sanctioned in 1982 produced before the Supreme Court, established a chain of title. (¶¶ 8.2, 8.3)
- Though a plaintiff suing for possession on title must prove ownership, the plaintiffs did so, and once the defendants relied on adverse possession without denying title, the burden shifted to them to prove adverse possession. (¶ 9)
- Following Vidya Devi v. State of H.P., (2020) 2 SCC 569, the State, as a welfare State, cannot invoke adverse possession to perfect title over the property of its own citizens; allowing this would undermine citizens' constitutional rights and public trust. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- The State's possession, recorded in the Misal Hakiyat of 1879-80 as conditional ('till the existence of an orchard'), was permissive and could not found adverse possession; placing bitumen drums, temporary structures and a boundary wall in 1980 lacked hostility and the required duration. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- The First Appellate Court erred in casting the burden of proving ownership on the plaintiffs despite the implied admission, in disregarding revenue records without reason, and in calling the plaintiffs land grabbers on conjecture; the High Court rightly set its judgment aside. (¶¶ 13, 14)
Result
Appeal by the State of Haryana and PWD dismissed; High Court judgment restoring the Trial Court's decree for possession in favour of the plaintiffs affirmed.