Published on: 13 January 2023 at 20:27 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma 2023
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that Plaintiff must establish a legal title to the property and only then is entitled to a decree of possession. The defendants cannot be dispossessed unless the plaintiff has established a better title and rights over the property.
A person in possession of land in the assumed character as the owner, and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership, has a legal right against the entire world except the rightful owner.
It is held that decree of possession cannot be passed in favour of the plaintiff unless it is fully established right, title and interest in the property.
35. The burden of proof to establish a title in the present case lies upon the plaintiff as this burden lies on the party who asserts the existence of a particular state of things on the basis of which she claims relief. This is mandated in terms of Section 101 of the Evidence Act, which states that burden on proving the fact rests with party who substantially asserts in the affirmative and not on the party which is denying it.
This rule may not be universal and has exceptions, but in the factual background of the present case, the general principle is applicable. In terms of Section 102 of the Evidence Act, if both parties fail to adduce evidence, the suit must fail.
Onus of proof, no doubt shifts and the shifting is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence, but this happens when in a suit for title and possession, the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability to shift the onus on the defendant.
In the absence of such evidence, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and can be discharged only when he is able to prove title. The weakness of the defence cannot be a justification to decree the suit.
The plaintiff could have succeeded in respect of the Schedule ‘A’ property if she had discharged the burden to prove the title to the Schedule ‘A’ property which squarely falls on her.
This would be the true effect of Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, it follows that the plaintiff should have satisfied and discharged the burden under the provisions of the Evidence Act, failing which the suit would be liable to be dismissed.
Thus, the impugned judgment by the High Court had rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. We, therefore, uphold the findings of the High Court that the suit should be dismissed.
We clarify that we have not interfered or set aside any observations of the High Court in re the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, or defendants’ claim etc. Notably, M/s. Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited is not a party to the present proceedings.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra