Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Property Title in Smriti Debbarma vs. Prabha Ranjan Deb Barma (2023) INSC 12

Date of the Judgment: January 4, 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 12
Judges: Sanjiv Khanna, J. and J.K. Maheshwari, J.
Can a claimant succeed in a property dispute based solely on the weakness of the defendant’s case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the ownership of a property known as ‘Khosh Mahal’. The Court examined whether the plaintiff had sufficiently proven their title to the property, and in doing so, upheld the High Court’s decision that the plaintiff failed to establish their claim. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice J.K. Maheshwari, with Justice Sanjiv Khanna authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property dispute concerning ‘Khosh Mahal’ in Agartala. Smriti Debbarma, acting as the legal representative of Maharani Chandratara Devi, filed a suit to declare Maharani Chandratara Devi as the owner of the property. The suit also sought to invalidate any transfers made by Bikramendra Kishore Debbarma (also known as Bidurkarta) and his legal representatives. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed rights to the shares and business of M/s. Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited.

Initially, the suit was filed on 19.06.1986. The plaint was amended to include a direction to the Survey and Settlement authority to remove the record of rights standing in the name of defendant nos. 8 to 12. The defendants had purchased portions of the land through sale deeds executed by the Managing Director of M/s. Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited. Maharani Chandratara Devi passed away shortly after filing the suit on 27.12.1988, and Smriti Debbarma was substituted as the plaintiff.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, recognizing her right, title, and interest in the Schedule ‘A’ property. The court also declared any transfers made by Bidurkarta and defendant nos. 1 to 7 as illegal and void. However, the High Court of Gauhati reversed this decision, stating that the plaintiff had failed to establish legal ownership and title to the property. The High Court also noted the potential rights of the state government under the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to the following legal provisions:

• Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the presumption of genuineness for documents that are thirty years old. The court noted that the Deed of Patta (Exhibit-A) enjoys this presumption. The section states:
  
  “Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that persons handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested.”
• Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section states that the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the existence of facts on which they base their claim. The section states:
  
  “Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.”
• Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section specifies that the burden of proof lies on the party who would fail if no evidence were given by either side. The section states:
  
  “The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.”

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides are detailed below:

Plaintiff’s Submissions:

• Title Claim: The plaintiff claimed ownership based on a Deed of Patta (Exhibit-12) executed by Maharaja Durjoy Kishore Debbarma in favor of Bidurkarta, and an Ekrarnama (Exhibit-5) where Bidurkarta acknowledged that the rights belonged to Maharani Chandratara Devi.
• Lease Agreement: The plaintiff contended that Maharani Chandratara Devi had leased the Schedule ‘A’ property to M/s. Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited, and that the lease had expired long back, although no lease deed was placed on record.
• Possession: The plaintiff claimed to have taken possession of the Schedule ‘A’ property after M/s. Indian Airlines Corporation Limited vacated it, and started a guest house, which was unsubstantiated.
• Challenge to Exhibit A: The plaintiff argued that the Deed of Patta (Exhibit-A) in favor of M/s. Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited was a fabricated document, highlighting discrepancies in the dates mentioned.
• Rent Payments: The plaintiff relied on the deposition of Kishalaya Kishore Debbarma (DW-1), who admitted that rent was paid to Maharani Chandratara Devi until 1968, to prove the plaintiff’s claim.

Defendants’ Submissions:

• Ownership of M/s. Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited: The defendants claimed that the property was owned by M/s. Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited, based on a Deed of Patta (Exhibit-A) executed in 1948.
• Lease to Maharani Chandratara Devi: The defendants argued that M/s. Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited had leased the property to Maharani Chandratara Devi, which was later terminated.
• Subsequent Leases: The defendants claimed that the business was leased to defendant no. 2, Prabha Ranjan Debbarma, and M/s. Indian Airlines Corporation Limited paid rent to him.
• Sale Deeds: Defendant nos. 8 to 12 claimed they had purchased portions of the land through sale deeds executed by the Managing Director of M/s. Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited.
• Mutation of Land: Defendant no. 8 had his name mutated in the Survey and Settlement office, indicating his possession.

Innovativeness of the argument: The plaintiff’s argument that the Deed of Patta (Exhibit-A) was fabricated was innovative, but it was not raised before the trial court or the High Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court identified two main issues:

1. Demarcation of land given on lease vide Deed of Patta (Exhibit-12) and Ekrarnama (Exhibit-5).
2. Whether the plaintiff has discharged the burden of proof by establishing her title for a declaratory decree of ownership and her right to possession of the Schedule ‘A’ property.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal. The Court reasoned that the plaintiff had failed to establish her title to the Schedule ‘A’ property and that the weakness of the defendants’ case could not be a basis for granting relief to the plaintiff.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Poona Ram v. Moti Ram (Dead) through Legal Representatives and Others (2019) 11 SCC 309*: The Court followed this authority to reiterate that a person in possession of land, exercising rights of ownership, has a legal right against the entire world except the rightful owner.
• Nair Service Society Limited v. Rev. Father K.C. Alexander and Others, AIR 1968, SC 1165*: The Court followed this authority to support the principle that a person in possession has a right to protect their possession unless someone with a better legal right seeks to dispossess them.
• Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558*: The Court followed this authority to explain the various meanings of ‘burden of proof’ and to emphasize that the burden lies on the party asserting a fact.
• Addagada Raghavamma and Another v. Addagada Chenchamma and Another, AIR 1964 SC 136*: The Court followed this authority to emphasize that the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the existence of a particular state of things on the basis of which she claims relief.
• R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and Another, (2003) 8 SCC 752*: The Court followed this authority to support the principle that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and can be discharged only when he is able to prove title.
• Union of India and Others v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 269*: The Court followed this authority to emphasize that the weakness of the defense cannot be a justification to decree the suit.
• Sebastiao Luis Fernandes (DEAD) Through LRs. And Others v. K.V.P. Shastri (DEAD) Through LRs. And Others, (2013) 15 SCC 161*: The Court followed this authority to reiterate that the plaintiff should have satisfied and discharged the burden under the provisions of the Evidence Act.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the failure of the plaintiff to establish a clear title to the property. The Court emphasized the following points:

• Inadequate Evidence: The plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the land described in the Deed of Patta (Exhibit-12) and Ekrarnama (Exhibit-5) was the same as the Schedule ‘A’ property.
• Contradictory Pleadings: The plaintiff’s pleadings were contradictory, particularly regarding the lease agreement with M/s. Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited.
• Burden of Proof: The Court reiterated that the burden of proving title lies on the plaintiff, and the plaintiff failed to discharge this burden.
• Possession: The Court found that the plaintiff was not in actual or constructive possession of the Schedule ‘A’ property at the time of filing the suit.
• Presumption of Genuineness: The Court noted that the Deed of Patta (Exhibit-A) in favor of M/s. Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited was a registered document, and its genuineness was presumed under Section 90 of the Evidence Act.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“A decree of possession cannot be passed in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that defendant nos. 1 to 12 have not been able to fully establish their right, title and interest in the Schedule ‘A’ property.”

“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.”

Key Takeaways

• A plaintiff seeking a declaration of ownership must prove their title and cannot rely on the weakness of the defendant’s case.
• The burden of proof lies on the party asserting a claim, and they must provide sufficient evidence to support their claim.
• Registered documents, especially those over thirty years old, enjoy a presumption of genuineness under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
• Contradictory pleadings and lack of supporting evidence can lead to the dismissal of a claim.
• Possession of property is a strong indicator of ownership, and the person in possession has a right to protect their possession unless someone with a better legal right seeks to dispossess them.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a plaintiff must establish their own title to a property and cannot succeed solely on the basis of the weakness of the defendant’s case. This reinforces the established principles of burden of proof under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The judgment reaffirms that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting a claim and that they must provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Smriti Debbarma vs. Prabha Ranjan Deb Barma underscores the importance of establishing a clear title in property disputes. The Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that the plaintiff must prove their claim and cannot rely on the weaknesses of the defense. This judgment serves as a reminder that the burden of proof lies on the claimant, and they must provide adequate evidence to substantiate their claims.