The State of Punjab vs Bhagwantpal Singh Alias Bhagwant Singh (Deceased)

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO…………OF 2024 Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.................of 2024 (@ Diary No.17885 of 2020)

THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS BHAGWANTPAL SINGH ALIAS BHAGWANT SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. ...RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal, by the State of Punjab assails the

correctness of the judgment and order dated

14.09.2018 passed in RSA No.447 of 2004 (O & M),

whereby the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Neetu Khajuria Date: 2024.07.12 17:31:41 IST Reason: SLP (CIVIL) D. NO. 17885 OF 2020 Page 1 of 27 Chandigarh allowed the second appeal of the plaintiff-

respondent, set aside the judgment and decree of the

First Appellate Court, and restored the judgment and

decree of the Trial Court decreeing the suit for

possession.

4. The dispute relates to land admeasuring 2176.6 sq.

yards located in Khewat No.702/1146/Khasra

No.116/26/2/15 situated at Samana, Tehsil-Samana,

District-Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the “land in

suit”). According to the appellant, the land in suit

belonged to one Shri Inder Singh, predecessor in

interest of the respondents. Shri Inder Singh had

donated the land in suit to the appellants for the

construction of a Veterinary Hospital in 1958 and had

also handed over the possession of the same. The

appellant-State constructed a veterinary hospital over

the land in suit in 1958-1959. The Veterinary Hospital

has been existing and is functional over the land in

suit ever since. During his lifetime, Shri Inder Singh SLP (CIVIL) D. NO. 17885 OF 2020 Page 2 of 27 never objected or filed any suit alleging trespass or

unauthorized occupation by the State. However, after

the death of Shri Inder Singh, his son Shri

Bhagwantpal Singh (since deceased) filed a suit for

possession of the land in suit in the year 2001, that is

after almost 43 years of it being donated to the State.

The suit was registered as Civil Suit No.98 of 2001

before the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division),

Samana.

5. The appellant filed written statement denying the

plaint allegations and also raising plea regarding the

suit being barred by limitation and also urged that

since no relief for declaration had been sought and the

suit was only for relief for possession, it was not

maintainable. It was specifically averred in the written

statement that the land in suit had been donated by

Shri Inder Singh for the purpose of establishing a

Veterinary Hospital in the year 1958, and possession

was also delivered. The State thereafter, from the SLP (CIVIL) D. NO. 17885 OF 2020 Page 3 of 27 funds of the State Government, constructed a

Veterinary Hospital soon thereafter in the year 1958-

59, and since then, the same has been functional.

6. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed

the following issues: -

“1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit land? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for possession of the suit land? OPP

3. Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable? OPD

4. Whether the suit is within time ? OPP

5. Relief.”

7. The parties led evidence based on which the Trial

Court decreed the suit vide order dated 20.05.2003.

The findings recorded by the Trial Court are as follows:

(i) As the defendant had raised the plea of adverse

possession, therefore, they admitted the ownership

of the plaintiffs;

SLP (CIVIL) D. NO. 17885 OF 2020 Page 4 of 27

(ii)There being no document regarding the alleged gift,

the same does not stand proved;

(iii) The mere resolutions of the Municipal Council are

not sufficient to prove that the land had been

donated by the father of the plaintiff.

8. The Appellant-State preferred an appeal which was

registered as C.A. No.44 of 2003. The Additional

District Judge allowed the appeal of the appellant-

State setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court and

dismissed the suit. The findings recorded by the

Appellate Court are as follows:

(i) The fact that the Veterinary Hospital had been

established in 1958-59 and it was being run ever

since then, the filing of the suit after more than

four decades was barred by time.

(ii) The owner of the property having allowed the State

to take possession, construct the Veterinary

Hospital, and run the same over the land in suit

since 1958-59 itself proves that the land had been SLP (CIVIL) D. NO. 17885 OF 2020 Page 5 of 27 actually donated by Shri Inder Singh, father of the

original plaintiff.

(iii) Shri Inder Singh, during his lifetime, having never

agitated about the construction of the hospital or

the existence of the hospital building over the land

in suit, also reflects that he had, in fact, donated

the land in suit.

(iv) The plaintiff, having admitted that, he had been

witnessing the Veterinary Hospital being run over

the land in suit since 1981 but did not take any

steps thereafter also proves that, in fact,

ownership had been transferred to the State in

1958 itself.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff-respondent

preferred a second appeal before the High Court

registered as RSA No.447 of 2004. By the impugned

order, the High Court has allowed the appeal, set

aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court, and

restored that of the Trial Court. The findings recorded SLP (CIVIL) D. NO. 17885 OF 2020 Page 6 of 27 by the High Court are as follows:

(i) The Appellant-State failed to establish possession

over the land in suit.

(ii) The basic ingredients for claiming adverse

possession were neither pleaded nor any evidence

led in that regard.

(iii) The pleadings in the written statement filed by the

appellant-State did not mention the details

regarding the date of possession, date of

knowledge to the whole world, duration of

possession, and much less Animus Possidendi.

10. It is this judgment of the High Court which is under

challenge in the present appeal.

11. Sri Sanjay R. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the appellant made the following

submissions:-

(i) The suit for possession filed by the respondents,

was clearly barred by time in view of Article 65 of

the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides the SLP (CIVIL) D. NO. 17885 OF 2020 Page 7 of 27 limitation for a suit for possession of an immovable

property based on title to be 12 years. In the

present case, the possession of the appellants was

since 1958, even the admitted position by the

respondents to their knowledge was from 1981. As

such, the suit filed in the year 2001 was hopelessly

barred by time from both the dates i.e. 1958 as

also 1981.

(ii) The burden to prove ownership would lie on the

person challenging the ownership of the person in

possession in view of Section 110 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872. In the present case, the

respondents admitted the possession of the

appellants and were only challenging the

ownership of the appellants. As such, the burden

was cast upon the respondents to prove their

ownership.

(iii) The appellants had claimed to be in possession of

the land in suit since 1958 and had also asserted SLP (CIVIL) D. NO. 17885 OF 2020 Page 8 of 27 that it had constructed a Veterinary Hospital soon

thereafter, for which it had also filed documentary

evidence. Sri Inder Singh, the predecessor in

interest of the plaintiff-respondent, who had

donated the land in suit for construction of

Veterinary Hospital, never challenged the same nor

ever objected to the constructions being raised

over it. He was the owner in possession of the suit

land. The appellants, being in clear and

continuous possession of the suit land since 1958,

had perfected its rights as owners.

(iv) In support of his submission, Sri Hegde, relied

upon the following judgments:-

(1) Chuharmal Vs. CIT1; (2) Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan Vs. Damodar Trimbak Tanksale (D)2; (3) Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi

1 (1988) 3 SCC 588 2 (2007) 6 SCC 737 SLP (CIVIL) D. NO. 17885 OF 2020 Page 9 of 27 Reddy3; (4) T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. M. Mallappa4; (5) Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Rattan Chand5; (6) Sawarni Vs. Inder Kaur6; (7) Jattu Ram Vs. Hakam Singh7;

12. Mr. Hegde, thus, submitted that the impugned

judgment of the High Court deserves to be set-aside.

13. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the respondents made the following

submissions:-

(i) The impugned judgment of the High Court did not

suffer from any perversity, as such, did not

warrant any interference by this Court.

(ii) The plea of adverse possession was neither pleaded

nor proved, as such the High Court rightly set

3 (2008) 4 SCC 594 4 (2021) 13 SCC 135 5 (1993) 4 SCC 349 6 (1996) 6 SCC 223 7 (1993) 4 SCC 403 SLP (CIVIL) D. NO. 17885 OF 2020 Page 10 of 27 aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court

which was based on the plea of adverse possession.

(iii) The State Government cannot claim adverse

possession for which reliance was placed upon the

following judgments:-

(1) State of Kerala Vs. Joseph8; (2) State of Haryana Vs. Mukesh Kumar and Ors.9; (3) Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India10;

(iv) No written deed of gift, much less registered, was

placed on record by the appellants to support its

claim of donation/gift by Sri Inder Singh.

(v) The suit is not barred by limitation, in as much as,

the respondents came to know of the construction

only in September, 2000 and, thereafter, they

immediately gave legal notice and filed the suit for

possession.

8 (2023) SCC Online SC 961 9 (2011) 10 SCC 404 10 (2004) 10 SCC 779 SLP (CIVIL) D. NO. 17885 OF 2020 Page 11 of 27

(vi) The revenue records (Jama bandis) established the

ownership rights of the respondents. The

submission to the contrary by the appellants is

contrary to law. The revenue records carried

presumption of correctness unless rebutted. In the

present case, the appellants failed to rebut the said

presumption. He relied upon the following

judgments in support of the said submission: -

(1) Partap Singh Vs. Shiv Ram11; (2) Vishwa Vijai Bharti Vs. Fakhrul Hasan and Ors12;

(vii). Lastly, it was submitted by Sri Luthra that the

appeal was filed with a delay of 492 days without

any satisfactory explanation. As such, the appeal

was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay

itself. In support of the said submission, he relied

upon the following two judgments:-

(1) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.

11 (2020) 11 SCC 242 12 AIR 1976 SC 1485 SLP (CIVIL) D. NO. 17885 OF 2020 Page 12 of 27 Bherulal13; (2) Office of the Chief Post Master

General and Others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr.14;

14. Having considered the submissions and having

perused the material available on record, our analysis

runs as under.

15. A copy of the plaint filed by the respondents is filed as

Annexure (P-18). It is as vague as possible and is very

brief running into ten paragraphs. Its contents are

briefly referred to hereunder:-

(a) The plaint schedule property is described in the

beginning of the plaint. Paragraph-1 states that

plaintiff is owner of the land in dispute, for which,

Jama Bandi of the year 1996-97 is filed.

Paragraph-2 states that defendants without

consent of plaintiff have constructed a veterinary

13 (2020) 10 SCC 654 14 (2012) 3 SCC 563 SLP (CIVIL) D. NO. 17885 OF 2020 Page 13 of 27 hospital illegally and unauthorizedly over the suit

land. Paragraph-3 states that the defendants

neither purchased the said land from the plaintiff

nor paid any compensation to the plaintiff, as such,

their possession is unauthorized and illegal. The

plaintiff being its owner is entitled to vacant

possession. Paragraph 4 states that despite

repeated request to hand over vacant possession

by removing the debris (malba), no heed has been

paid to the said request. Paragraph-5 mentions

that a registered notice dated 09.11.2000 was

served upon the defendants calling upon them to

hand over possession, but no reply was received in

response to the same. Copy of the notice and

acknowledgement of receipt were attached with the

plaint. Paragraph-6 states that cause of action

arose on 1st March, 2001 as the defendants did not

give any reply to the notice. Paragraph-7 states

that suit property was situated within the SLP (CIVIL) D. NO. 17885 OF 2020 Page 14 of 27 jurisdiction of the Court. Paragraph-8 mentions

regarding the valuation and the court fee paid.

Paragraph-9 mentions that there was no prior

litigation pending between the parties regarding

the subject matter. Paragraph-10 is the relief

clause wherein it was prayed that suit of plaintiff

for possession of the suit property be decreed.

16. The plaint, to our opinion ought to have been rejected

on the ground of being vague and not carrying

necessary and material particulars. The plaintiff very

conveniently avoided stating in the plaint as to when

the defendants constructed the Veterinary Hospital;

they also did not mention any details of the period

when request was said to have been made for

delivering vacant possession; the first date and

document mentioned in the plaint is of the legal notice

dated 09.11.2000.

17. In the case of Ram Singh Vs. Gram Panchayat Mehal SLP (CIVIL) D. NO. 17885 OF 2020 Page 15 of 27 Kalan15, this Court observed and held that when the

suit is barred by any law, the plaintiff cannot be

allowed to circumvent that provision by means of

clever drafting so as to avoid mention of those

circumstances, by which the suit is barred by law of

limitation.

18. Herein, it is evident that the plaintiff purposely

drafted/filed a vague plaint which lacked the essential

details of when the hospital was constructed, when

the plaintiff became aware of such construction, when

the right of ownership devolved upon the plaintiff,

when his father passed away, his letter of 24.04.1981

to the Tehsildar etc. It is nothing but a clear attempt

by Respondent at surpassing the bar under limitation

law for filing the suit since the existence of the

hospital was a fact well known to him since long ago.

19. The appellants filed their written statement denying

15 (1986) 4 SCC 364 SLP (CIVIL) D. NO. 17885 OF 2020 Page 16 of 27 the plaint allegations; three preliminary objections

were also raised to the effect that suit was not

maintainable in its form; the appellants were in

continuous possession over the suit land and; the suit

was time barred. It was further specifically stated that

the land in suit was donated by Sri Inder Singh in

1958 for construction of Government Veterinary

Hospital and, further, Municipal Council, Samana

and the State of Punjab had made financial

contribution for construction of the building of the

hospital in the year 1959 and since then, the hospital

is functioning, which is well known to the public of

Samana as also to the plaintiff. In support of the fact

that the hospital was constructed and that the

possession was with the State-appellant, various

resolutions of 1958-59, other revenue records were

filed. It was also specifically stated that as the land

had been donated, there was no question of payment

of consideration or compensation to the plaintiff. SLP (CIVIL) D. NO. 17885 OF 2020 Page 17 of 27

20. A replication was filed by the plaintiff-respondent.

21. Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.-1 and filed

documentary evidence which were exhibited. On the

other hand, the State examined Dr. Rajendra Kumar

Goyal as D.W-1 and Jagdish Chand as D.W.-2 and

had also filed several documents relating to

resolutions passed by the Municipal Council in the

year 1958-59, also the correspondence between the

Veterinary Officer and the Executive Officer of the

Municipal Council sometimes in 1981, as also the

documents to show that the plaintiff was aware of the

existence of the Veterinary Hospital in the year 1981

as he had made an enquiry from the concerned

Tehsildar regarding the exact location of the

Veterinary Hospital.

22. A perusal of all such documents (Ex's- DW2/C,

DW2/B, D-2, D-3, D-4 and D-5) filed by the

SLP (CIVIL) D. NO. 17885 OF 2020 Page 18 of 27 defendant-State clearly establishes that the land had

been donated by Sri Inder Singh, father of the plaintiff

in the year 1958-1959 and, thereafter, after arranging

for funds from various sources, the hospital had been

constructed in 1959 and has, eversince then, been

functional. The above documents are resolutions of

the Municipal Council of 1958-59 and also Utilization

Certificates of funds utilized for construction of the

hospital. The document (Ex.DW2/A) also goes to

prove that there was a communication from the

Executive Officer of the Municipal Council dated

01.07.1981 giving details of the allotment, the

construction, the finances and also the functionality

of the hospital. This communication further mentions

that somebody had destroyed the file of the gift and

the construction of the hospital for which an enquiry

was pending. Nevertheless, the facts stated therein

clearly reflect that there was a hospital in existence

much before 1981. Another document filed by the SLP (CIVIL) D. NO. 17885 OF 2020 Page 19 of 27 defendant-appellant was Ext.-D (8), which is a letter

written by the plaintiff dated 24.04.1981 requiring the

Tehsildar, Samana to verify and give a report

regarding location of the Veterinary Hospital. The said

letter also bears endorsement of the Tehsildar and

other Revenue Officials and also contains the

signature of the plaintiff. This letter clearly shows that

the plaintiff was aware of the existence of the

Veterinary Hospital in 1981. Thus, he had made a

false and incorrect statement in his deposition that

the hospital was constructed only two years ago.

Another fact worth mentioning here would be that,

during cross examination, the plaintiff stated that he

did not remember as to whether the hospital was in

existence since 1958-59 or not.

23. Considering this letter dated 24.04.1981, even if we

assume that the Respondent became aware of the

hospital’s existence on this date for the very first time,

SLP (CIVIL) D. NO. 17885 OF 2020 Page 20 of 27 yet the suit filed by him shall not fall within the

limitation period. Article 65 of the Limitation Act

clearly stipulates that in a suit for possession of

immovable property, the period of limitation will be

twelve years from when the possession of the

defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. In the

facts and circumstances of the case, the Respondent-

plaintiff’s suit is clearly barred by limitation.

24. The argument that State could not claim adverse

possession is not germane to the present case. Fact

remains and has been duly established from the

record that the hospital had been constructed on the

land belonging to the predecessor in interest of the

plaintiff sometime in the year 1958-59. At that time,

Sri Inder Singh, father of the plaintiff who was the

owner of the said land was alive and he did not object

to it, which clearly indicates that he had donated the

land for construction of Veterinary Hospital in Tehsil,

SLP (CIVIL) D. NO. 17885 OF 2020 Page 21 of 27 Samana. In those good old times, it used to be a usual

practice of big landlords donating their lands for

public cause. It is unfortunate that after 43 years, his

son filed the suit for possession without seeking

declaration, as in case, he would have sought relief of

declaration, the suit would have been further barred

by time for the said relief also. The defendant having

been in possession without any hindrance since 1958,

the suit filed would only be a mockery of justice if

decreed. If the plaintiff's case was that it was never

donated but still the hospital had been constructed,

then the plaintiff should have instituted a suit for

possession within 12 years. Having not done so, the

suit was clearly barred by time for the relief of

possession.

25. As already discussed above, various documents were

filed and proved by the defendant-appellant regarding

the donation, the transfer of possession, the

SLP (CIVIL) D. NO. 17885 OF 2020 Page 22 of 27 construction of the Veterinary Hospital and its

functionality since more than 40 years before the suit

was filed. In fact, the evidence establishes that the

donation was documented, and possession

transferred and acted upon and for the very purpose,

for which the donation was made.

26. The title of the land in suit had passed on to the State

after the donation and transfer of possession and after

construction, the hospital continued for more than

four decades before filing of the suit. The plaintiff, son

of the donor, also waited for 20 years despite admitted

knowledge of the hospital running over the land in

suit and did not take any action.

27. Article 65 under the Schedule to the Limitation Act

provides limitation of 12 years for filing a suit for

possession based on title. In the present case, merely

because the name of the plaintiff continued in the

revenue records (Jama Bandis), it would not confer SLP (CIVIL) D. NO. 17885 OF 2020 Page 23 of 27 any title upon him. Revenue records (Jama Bandis)

are only entries for the purpose of realising tax by the

Municipal Corporations or land revenue by Gram

Sabhas. The plaintiff having failed to claim relief of

declaration, the suit itself would not be maintainable.

Further, for a suit for declaration, period of limitation

would be three years under Article 58 of the Schedule

to the Limitation Act, which in the present case was

long lost.

28. There is nothing on record available from the cross-

examination of defendants 1 and 2 that the

documents which they proved were either incorrect,

doubtful or suspicious. The documents exhibited by

the defendants could not be ignored as they were

public documents, copies of which were filed and duly

proved. Even if the deed was not placed on record but

due explanation was given, the facts of the case and

the evidence on record clearly established the case of

SLP (CIVIL) D. NO. 17885 OF 2020 Page 24 of 27 the defendant-appellant that the land in suit had been

donated by Sri Inder Singh, father of the plaintiff way

back in 1958. The lethargy/carelessness on the part

of the State in not getting the revenue records

corrected on the basis of the gift deed would not take

away the rights conferred on the State under the gift

deed.

29. The case-laws relied upon by Sri Luthra on the

question of State not being entitled to claim adverse

possession as also the presumption of revenue

records being correct, have no application and are of

no help to the respondents in the light of the

discussion made above.

30. It is settled law that in a suit for possession, the

burden of proof lies on the plaintiff. As per Section 110

of the Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proof as to

ownership of a property lies on the person challenging

the ownership of the person in possession. Section SLP (CIVIL) D. NO. 17885 OF 2020 Page 25 of 27 110 of Evidence Act is produced as follows:

“110.Burden of proof as to ownership- When the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner.”

31. This Court had summarized the provision in

Chuharmal v. CIT (supra) as follows:

“6. …Section 110 of the Evidence Act is material in this respect and the High Court relied on the same which stipulates that when the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the onus of proving that he is not the owner, is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner. In other words, it follows from well settled principle of law that normally, unless contrary is established, title always follows possession.”

32. In view of the clear finding that the hospital is

functioning on the suit land since 1958, the Trial

Court as well as the High Court have wrongly shifted

the proof of ownership on the Appellant, whereas it

lay on the Respondent by virtue of Section 110 of the

SLP (CIVIL) D. NO. 17885 OF 2020 Page 26 of 27 Evidence Act.

33. In view of the above discussion, the appeal deserves

to be allowed and is, accordingly, allowed.

34. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside

and that of the First Appellate Court dismissing the

suit of the plaintiff-respondent is confirmed.

……………………………………J. (VIKRAM NATH)

……………………………………J. (K.V. VISWANATHAN)

NEW DELHI JULY 10, 2024

SLP (CIVIL) D. NO. 17885 OF 2020 Page 27 of 27