Govt.Of Goa Tr.Chief Sec. vs Maria Julieta Dsouza (D)

REPORTABLE 2024 INSC 88 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 722 OF 2016

GOVERNMENT OF GOA ...Appellant(s) THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY Vs.

MARIA JULIETA D’SOUZA (D) & ORS. ...Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.

1. This is an appeal against the final judgment of the High

Court of Bombay at Goa allowing the first appeal against the

judgment of the Trial Court dated 25.07.2007 that dismissed the

suit filed by the respondent herein.

2. The suit came to be filed by the respondent(s) herein for

declaration of title and injunction. The Trial Court dismissed

the suit on two grounds: first, the plaintiff could not

establish her title by way of a clear document of title in her

favour. Second the suit is itself barred by limitation.

3. In appeal, the High Court considered the matter in detail

and in so far as the first ground is concerned, the High Court

referred to various documents including deeds evidencing the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi presence of title in favour of the plaintiffs’ predecessor Date: 2024.02.06 17:30:40 IST Reason:

followed by their continuous possession and came to the

1 conclusion that her title over the property is well-established.

So far as limitation is concerned, the High Court held that the

suit is within the period of limitation, apart from also noting

that the question of limitation was not pressed by the

Government before the Trial Court.

4. We heard Ms. Ruchira Gupta, who was well-prepared on law

and fact. She prepared a detailed list of dates and has also

taken us through the relevant portions of the pleadings in the

suit and other documents. She has pointed out the findings of

fact as arrived by the Trial Court. Referring to the reasoning

of the High Court, she submitted that the High Court had wrongly

shifted the burden of proof on to the State (defendant) rather

than requiring the plaintiff to prove its title. She further

submitted that the High Court wrongly asked for proof of

possession of the property rather than for proof of title of

the property, which is the only inquiry in a suit for

declaration. In support of her submission, she has referred to

the precedents of this Court in Sebastiao Luis Fernandes (Dead)

through LRs. v. K.V.P. Shastri (Dead) through LRs.1 and Union

of India v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited2.

5. Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the

opinion that the High Court has correctly reappreciated the

facts and evidence while exercising first appellate jurisdiction

and has also followed the law as applicable in proving a suit

1(2013)15 SCC 161 2(2014)2 SCC 269

2 for declaration. The High Court has also examined the plea of

limitation and held that the suit is within the period of

limitation.

6. While Ms. Ruchira Gupta submitted that the High Court

wrongly shifted the plaintiff’s burden to prove its own case

for declaration on to the State and that the plaintiff must

prove its own case, we found that what she was submitting was

not about the burden of proof but the standard of proof. We will

explain this in the context of fact as well as law.

7. On fact, the High Court referred to multiple pieces of

evidence, orders, and documents and string them together to come

to a clear conclusion that the title subsists in the plaintiff.

Suffice for us to say that these pieces of evidence were adduced

and proved by the plaintiff alone. The High Court did not solely

rely on the lack of evidence by the State to establish its own

title in coming to its conclusion. Thus, the burden of proof

was well-discharged by the plaintiff and the High Court

correctly examined and concluded its findings based on the

plaintiff’s evidence.

8. On law, the position is as follows. There is a clear

distinction between burden of proof and standard of proof. This

distinction is well-known to civil as well as criminal

practitioners in common law jurisprudence. What Ms. Ruchira

sought to point out is that the documents relied on by the

plaintiff did not point out the existence of title at all. She

is right to the extent that no single document in itself

3 concludes title in favour of the plaintiff, but this is not an

issue of burden of proof. This is a matter relating to the

sufficiency of evidence. While inquiring into whether a fact is

proved3, the sufficiency of evidence is to be seen in the context

of standard of proof, which in civil cases is by preponderance

of probability. By this test, the High Court has correctly

arrived at its conclusion regarding the existence of title in

favour of the plaintiff on the basis of the evidence adduced.

9. For these reasons, Civil Appeal arising out of judgment

of the High Court in First Appeal No. 282 of 2007 dated

21.10.2010 is dismissed.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

11. No order as to costs.

…………………………………………………………………………J. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]

…………………………………………………………………………J. [ARAVIND KUMAR]

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 31, 2024

3 Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act defines the terms as:

“Proved”.––A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists

4