Supreme Court Upholds State’s Possession of Land Donated for Veterinary Hospital: State of Punjab vs. Bhagwantpal Singh (2024)

Date of the Judgment: July 10, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 518

Judges: Vikram Nath, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Can a landowner reclaim property that was donated for a public cause decades after the donation and subsequent use by the recipient? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving land donated for a veterinary hospital. The core issue revolved around whether the suit for possession filed by the original owner’s successor was maintainable given the long period of possession by the State and the absence of a formal gift deed. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, with Justice Vikram Nath authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves a plot of land measuring 2176.6 square yards in Samana, Punjab. The State of Punjab claimed that in 1958, the land was donated by Shri Inder Singh for the construction of a veterinary hospital. The State asserted that it constructed the hospital in 1958-1959 and has been operating it ever since. Shri Inder Singh never raised any objections during his lifetime. However, after his death, his son, Shri Bhagwantpal Singh, filed a suit in 2001 seeking possession of the land. The suit was filed approximately 43 years after the alleged donation and the establishment of the hospital.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the State’s claim of adverse possession implied an admission of the plaintiff’s ownership and that the alleged gift was not proven due to a lack of documentation. The First Appellate Court reversed this decision, ruling that the long-standing existence of the hospital and the owner’s inaction indicated a donation. The High Court, in a second appeal, sided with the plaintiff, stating that the State failed to establish adverse possession due to a lack of specific pleadings and evidence.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section states that when the question is whether any person is the 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.
  “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.”
• Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963: This article provides a limitation period of 12 years for a suit for possession of immovable property based on title, starting from when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.
• Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963: This article provides a limitation period of three years for a suit for declaration.

Arguments

Appellant (State of Punjab)’s Arguments:

• The suit was barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the State had been in possession since 1958, or at least since 1981 when the plaintiff admitted knowledge of the hospital.
• The burden of proof was on the plaintiff to prove their ownership, as per Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, since the State was in possession.
• The State had been in continuous possession since 1958, and the original owner, Shri Inder Singh, never objected to the construction of the hospital, implying a valid donation. The State had perfected its rights as owners.

The State relied on the following cases:

• Chuharmal Vs. CIT [1988] 3 SCC 588: To argue that the burden of proof lies on the person challenging the ownership of the person in possession.
• Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan Vs. Damodar Trimbak Tanksale (D) [2007] 6 SCC 737: To support the argument that title follows possession.
• Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy [2008] 4 SCC 594: To argue that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to prove their ownership.
• T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. M. Mallappa [2021] 13 SCC 135: To support the argument that the State had perfected its rights as owners.
• Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Rattan Chand [1993] 4 SCC 349: To support the argument that title follows possession.
• Sawarni Vs. Inder Kaur [1996] 6 SCC 223: To support the argument that the State had perfected its rights as owners.
• Jattu Ram Vs. Hakam Singh [1993] 4 SCC 403: To support the argument that title follows possession.

Respondent (Bhagwantpal Singh)’s Arguments:

• The High Court’s judgment was correct and did not warrant interference.
• The State did not properly plead or prove adverse possession.
• The State cannot claim adverse possession.
• There was no written or registered gift deed to support the State’s claim of donation.
• The suit was not barred by limitation because the respondents came to know of the construction only in September 2000.
• Revenue records established the respondents’ ownership rights, and the State failed to rebut the presumption of correctness of these records.
• The appeal was filed with an unacceptable delay of 492 days.

The Respondent relied on the following cases:

• State of Kerala Vs. Joseph [2023] SCC Online SC 961: To argue that the State cannot claim adverse possession.
• State of Haryana Vs. Mukesh Kumar and Ors. [2011] 10 SCC 404: To argue that the State cannot claim adverse possession.
• Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India [2004] 10 SCC 779: To argue that the State cannot claim adverse possession.
• Partap Singh Vs. Shiv Ram [2020] 11 SCC 242: To argue that the revenue records carried presumption of correctness.
• Vishwa Vijai Bharti Vs. Fakhrul Hasan and Ors [AIR 1976 SC 1485]: To argue that the revenue records carried presumption of correctness.
• State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bherulal [2020] 10 SCC 654: To argue that the appeal was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.
• Office of the Chief Post Master General and Others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [2012] 3 SCC 563: To argue that the appeal was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section but addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether the suit for possession was barred by limitation.
2. Whether the burden of proof was correctly placed on the State to prove ownership instead of the plaintiff.
3. Whether the State had established its possession and right over the land.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 3 SCC 588 to emphasize that the burden of proof lies on the person challenging the ownership of the person in possession.
• The Court relied on Ram Singh Vs. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan [1986] 4 SCC 364 to support its view that a plaintiff cannot circumvent the law of limitation by clever drafting of the plaint.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The long and continuous possession of the land by the State since 1958-59 for a public purpose, which was not challenged by the original owner during his lifetime.
• The plaintiff’s knowledge of the existence of the hospital since 1981, and his failure to take any action for about 20 years.
• The vague and incomplete plaint filed by the plaintiff, which lacked essential details about the construction of the hospital and the plaintiff’s knowledge of it.
• The documentary evidence provided by the State, which included resolutions of the Municipal Council and correspondence from 1958-59, supporting the claim of donation and construction of the hospital.
• The application of Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which placed the burden of proof on the plaintiff to prove that the State was not the owner, since the State was in possession.
• The bar of limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which rendered the suit for possession time-barred.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Court rejected the argument that the State could not claim adverse possession, stating that the issue was not germane to the case. The Court also rejected the argument that the revenue records established the respondents’ ownership rights, stating that these records are only for revenue purposes and do not confer any title.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the facts, documentary evidence, and the principle of law that possession follows title unless the contrary is established. The Court also noted that the plaintiff’s vague plaint and the long delay in filing the suit were attempts to circumvent the law of limitation.

The Court observed, “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.”

The Court also stated, “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 Court further stated that, “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.”

Key Takeaways

• A suit for possession of immovable property must be filed within 12 years from when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff, as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
• The burden of proof lies on the person challenging the ownership of the person in possession, as per Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• Revenue records (Jama Bandis) are primarily for revenue purposes and do not confer title to land.
• Vague and incomplete plaints can be rejected by the court, especially if they are an attempt to circumvent the law of limitation.
• Long and continuous possession of land, especially for public purposes, can establish rights over the land, even in the absence of a formal gift deed.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the judgment of the First Appellate Court, which had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a suit for possession filed after a long period of possession by the defendant, especially when the defendant is the State and the possession is for a public purpose, is not maintainable. The court also reiterated that the burden of proof lies on the person challenging the ownership of the person in possession as per Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This judgment clarifies that long and continuous possession, coupled with the inaction of the original owner, can establish rights over the land, even without a formal gift deed. This case reinforces the principle that revenue records do not confer title and that suits must be filed within the prescribed limitation period.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the State of Punjab, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and upholding the First Appellate Court’s decision to dismiss the suit filed by Bhagwantpal Singh. The Court emphasized that the suit was barred by limitation, the burden of proof was wrongly shifted to the State, and the State had established its possession and right over the land. This judgment highlights the importance of timely action in asserting property rights and the significance of long and continuous possession, especially when the possession is for a public purpose.