Supreme Court Settles Land Possession Dispute: Rajnarayan Sharma vs. Sirnam Sharma (2017)

Date of the Judgment: 12 September 2017

Citation: (2017) INSC 756

Judges: Arun Mishra, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Can mere entries in revenue records establish possession of land, especially when those entries have been officially cancelled? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a civil appeal concerning a land dispute. The core issue revolved around whether the plaintiffs, who claimed to be sub-lessees, had proven their possession of the disputed land. The bench, comprising Justices Arun Mishra and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, delivered the judgment, with Justice Shantanagoudar authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The dispute originated from a civil suit filed by Sirnam Sharma and another (respondents) seeking declaration of title, injunction, and cancellation of two sale deeds. The first sale deed, dated 16 July 1984, was executed by Bansi in favor of Raghunath. The second sale deed, dated 21 September 1989, was executed by Raghunath in favor of Rajnarayan Sharma (appellant). The respondents claimed to be in possession of the suit land as sub-lessees of Bansi since Samvat 2030, asserting that Bansi could not have sold the land as he was not in possession and was mentally ill.

The defendants argued that Raghunath had legally purchased the land from Bansi through the registered sale deed dated 16 July 1984 and subsequently sold it to Rajnarayan Sharma through a registered sale deed dated 21 September 1989.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. However, the first appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the plaintiffs had not proven their ownership or possession. The High Court, in a second appeal, partly allowed the appeal, stating that while the plaintiffs had no title to the land, they were in possession and could not be dispossessed except by law. The plaintiffs did not challenge the High Court’s finding that they had no title to the land, making it final.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of evidence related to possession of land, particularly revenue records. No specific legal provisions were discussed in the judgment.

Arguments

Plaintiffs’ Submissions:

• The plaintiffs claimed they were sub-lessees of Bansi, having paid Rs. 5,000 in Samvat 2030, and continued in possession since then.
• They relied on Khasra entries for Samvat 2036-2040 and 2041-2045 to demonstrate their possession.
• They argued that Bansi was not in possession of the land and was mentally ill, therefore, he could not have executed a valid sale deed.

Defendants’ Submissions:

• The defendants contended that Raghunath purchased the suit land from Bansi through a registered sale deed dated 16 July 1984.
• Raghunath subsequently sold the land to Rajnarayan Sharma through a registered sale deed dated 21 September 1989.
• The defendants argued that the sale deed dated 16.7.1984 (exhibit D-2) shows that the possession of the suit land was handed over by Bansi to Raghunath.
• They also pointed out that the revenue records were mutated in favor of Raghunath and later Rajnarayan Sharma.

[TABLE] of Submissions:

Innovativeness of the Argument: The plaintiffs’ argument that Bansi was mentally ill and not in possession was an attempt to invalidate the sale deed, which is a common strategy in property disputes. The defendants relied on the registered sale deeds and revenue records, which are standard pieces of evidence in such cases.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in concluding that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land, despite the plaintiffs not having any title or interest in the land.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

• Khasra Entries: The court noted that the plaintiffs relied on Khasra entries for Samvat 2036-2040 and 2041-2045. However, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gohad had cancelled these entries, rendering them invalid as proof of possession.
• Sale Deed dated 16.7.1984 (Exhibit D-2): The court noted that this sale deed indicated that possession of the suit land was handed over by Bansi to Raghunath.
• Sale Deed dated 21.9.1989 (Exhibit D-1): The court noted that this sale deed further supported Rajnarayan Sharma’s claim to possession.
• Mutation of Revenue Records: The court noted that the revenue records were mutated in favor of Raghunath and subsequently Rajnarayan Sharma, based on the sale deeds.

[TABLE] of Authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Khasra entries were rejected as proof of possession because they were cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer.
• The sale deed dated 16.7.1984 (Exhibit D-2) was accepted as evidence that possession was handed over by Bansi to Raghunath.
• The sale deed dated 21.9.1989 (Exhibit D-1) was accepted as evidence of the transfer of land from Raghunath to Rajnarayan Sharma.
• The mutation of revenue records was accepted as evidence of the transfer of possession to Raghunath and later Rajnarayan Sharma.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the lack of credible evidence supporting the plaintiffs’ claim of possession. The cancellation of the Khasra entries by a superior revenue officer significantly weakened their case. Conversely, the registered sale deeds and the mutation of revenue records in favor of the defendants provided strong evidence of their rightful possession. The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence over oral testimony, especially in property disputes.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The court’s decision was heavily influenced by the factual evidence presented, with a lesser emphasis on legal interpretation.

Logical Reasoning:

The court’s reasoning was based on the principle that documentary evidence, especially when supported by official records, holds more weight than oral testimony or cancelled revenue entries. The court found the plaintiffs’ evidence to be insufficient to establish their claim of possession, while the defendants’ evidence was credible and legally valid.

The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s finding that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property. The Court emphasized that the High Court had erred in relying on the revenue entries of Samvat 2036-2040 and 2041-2045, as these entries had been cancelled by a superior revenue officer. The Court stated that:

“…there is no documentary evidence to show that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property and their case is only based on oral evidence, which is controverted by the defendants in their oral evidence…”

The Court also noted that the sale deed dated 16.7.1984 (exhibit D-2) indicated that possession of the suit land was handed over by Bansi to Raghunath. The Court observed that the revenue records were mutated in favor of the defendants based on the sale deeds.

The Court concluded:

“Having regard to the position narrated above, it is clear that there is no documentary evidence to show that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property…the High Court was not justified in holding that the plaintiffs are in possession of the property.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Revenue entries that have been officially cancelled cannot be relied upon as proof of possession.
• Registered sale deeds and mutation of revenue records are strong pieces of evidence for establishing possession of land.
• Oral evidence is generally not sufficient to prove possession in property disputes, especially when contradicted by documentary evidence.
• This judgment emphasizes the importance of maintaining accurate and updated revenue records.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the finding of the High Court that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property. The suit No. 8-A/87 was dismissed in its entirety.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of this case is that cancelled revenue entries cannot be relied upon as proof of possession, and documentary evidence such as registered sale deeds and mutated revenue records are stronger evidence of possession in property disputes. The judgment reinforces the evidentiary value of documentary evidence over oral claims.

This judgment does not significantly change the previous position of law, but reinforces the evidentiary value of documentary evidence over oral claims and cancelled revenue entries in property disputes. It clarifies that mere entries in revenue records are not sufficient to prove possession, especially when those entries have been officially cancelled.

Conclusion

In the case of Rajnarayan Sharma vs. Sirnam Sharma, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, ruling that the plaintiffs had not established their possession of the disputed land. The Court highlighted that canceled revenue entries could not be used as proof of possession, and that registered sale deeds and mutated revenue records held more evidentiary weight. This judgment underscores the importance of documentary evidence in property disputes and reinforces the need for accurate revenue records.