Supreme Court Upholds Trial Court Decision in Property Dispute: Rakesh Bhushan Prasad vs. Radha Devi (2021)

Date of the Judgment: September 7, 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 609

Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J.

Can a court overturn a lower court’s decision based on a re-evaluation of historical property records? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a civil appeal concerning a long-standing property dispute. This case revolves around conflicting claims of ownership stemming from family partitions and subsequent mutation records. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, ultimately upheld the trial court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of primary documentary evidence over secondary proceedings. The bench comprised Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna, with the judgment authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

Case Background

The case originated from a title suit filed in 1967 by Shri Banaras Sah, acting for himself and as guardian of his minor sons, against Shri Krishna Kant Prasad. The suit concerned a plot of land measuring 6 kathas in village Parihar, District Sitamarhi, Bihar. The plaintiffs claimed ownership of the land and sought to evict Shri Krishna Kant Prasad, who was in possession of the property. The appellants before the Supreme Court are the legal representatives of Shri Krishna Kant Prasad.

The family history is crucial to understanding the dispute. The Sah family, headed by Ganga Vishun Sah, had two sons: Gudar Sah and Shibshankar Sah. Gudar Sah had two sons, Devi Sah and Akal Sah, while Shibshankar Sah also had two sons, Parmeshwar Sah and Nageshwar Sah. Banaras Sah was the son of Parmeshwar Sah. The second set of defendants, impleaded later, were the legal representatives of Devi Sah, Akal Sah (referred to as the Gudar Sah group), and Nageshwar Sah (referred to as the Nageshwar Sah group).

The plaintiffs claimed that in 1950, they allowed Krishna Kant Prasad to occupy the land without any charges, with the understanding that he would vacate when required. Krishna Kant Prasad, however, contended that he had constructed a tile shed on the land for his family’s residence and that he had received the original title documents. He also stated that he provided medical treatment to the Sah family in return. The plaintiffs disputed this, stating that a phoos hut was already present, which was previously used by Sukhdeo Sah, son-in-law of Parmeshwar Sah.

In 1960-61, Krishna Kant Prasad began construction on the property. He also filed a mutation application, stating that he had acquired rights to the land from Parmeshwar Sah and had been residing there for over twelve years after constructing his house. This application was allowed.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court dismissed the title suit, stating that the plaintiffs failed to establish their title to the land and that the suit was instituted beyond the limitation period. The court also noted that Bharat Sah, from the Gudar Sah group, was not impleaded as a plaintiff, and that the Gudar Sah group held the title to the suit land.

On appeal, the Additional District Judge reversed the trial court’s decision, ruling that the plaintiffs had a valid title and were entitled to evict Krishna Kant Prasad. This decision relied on witness depositions, a written statement by Bharat Sah in partition proceedings, and orders from proceedings under Section 103A of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885, and the preliminary and final judgments in Partition Suit No. 35/1941.

The High Court initially dismissed the second appeal, stating that the first appellate court’s findings were final and no substantial question of law arose. However, the Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal, observing that there was a serious dispute concerning the title of the land. The case was remanded to the High Court for de novo consideration.

On remand, the High Court again dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose. The review application was also dismissed.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the concept of property ownership and the validity of oral partitions. The Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885, is mentioned in the context of proceedings under Section 103A, which deals with the settlement of disputes regarding land ownership. The court also examines the impact of the oral partition of 1921 and the subsequent partition suit No. 35 of 1941 on the title of the suit land.

The court also considered the mutation proceedings. Mutation is the process of recording a change of ownership in revenue records. The mutation application of Krishna Kant Prasad was considered as evidence of his claim over the suit land.

Arguments

Plaintiffs’ Arguments:

• The plaintiffs argued that they were the rightful owners of the suit land based on the oral partition of 1921 and the subsequent partition suit No. 35 of 1941.
• They claimed that Krishna Kant Prasad was merely a permissive occupant of the land, allowed to stay there without any rent or license fee, and was obligated to vacate the land when demanded.
• They contended that Parmeshwar Sah had constructed a phoos hut on the land, which was later used by Krishna Kant Prasad.
• They argued that the mutation application by Krishna Kant Prasad was not valid and did not confer title on him.
• The plaintiffs also argued that item No. 4 of Schedule-Ga in the partition suit No. 35 of 1941 actually refers to Jagannath Sah, son of Nageshwar Sah, as the owner of the suit land.

Defendants’ Arguments:

• The defendants, legal representatives of Krishna Kant Prasad, argued that Krishna Kant Prasad had acquired title to the suit land through a gift from Parmeshwar Sah.
• They stated that Krishna Kant Prasad had constructed a tile shed on the land and had been in possession of the land for over twelve years.
• They contended that the oral partition of 1921 had allocated the suit land to the Gudar Sah group, and not to the plaintiffs.
• They relied on the mutation application and the statements of villagers to support their claim that Krishna Kant Prasad was the owner of the property.
• They also pointed out that Bharat Sah and Rajinder Prasad, from the Gudar Sah group, had filed affidavits and a deed of relinquishment accepting Krishna Kant Prasad’s claim.

Sub-Submissions Categorized by Main Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the plaintiffs have established their title over the suit land and hence were entitled to a decree of possession against Krishna Kant Prasad.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Cases:

• Partition Suit No. 35 of 1941, Court of the 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Darbhanga.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 103A of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885: This section deals with the settlement of disputes regarding land ownership.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The preliminary decree of partition in Suit No. 35 of 1941 [Exhibit P-6] was relied upon to establish that the suit land was part of Sirsia Gaddi properties which fell in the share of Gudar Sah group in the oral partition of 1921.
• The final decree of partition in Suit No. 35/1941 [Exhibit P-7] was also relied upon to affirm that the suit land was part of Sirsia Gaddi properties which fell in the share of Gudar Sah group.
• The mutation application of Krishna Kant Prasad [Exhibit D/4] was relied upon to establish that Krishna Kant Prasad had claimed to have received the suit land from Parmeshwar Sah.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Documentary Evidence: The Court placed significant emphasis on the documentary evidence, particularly the preliminary and final decrees in Partition Suit No. 35 of 1941 and the mutation application of Krishna Kant Prasad. These documents provided a clear picture of the ownership and possession of the suit land.
• Historical Context: The Court carefully analyzed the historical context of the property dispute, including the oral partition of 1921 and the subsequent partition suit. The court found that the suit land was part of the Sirsia Gaddi properties, which fell in the share of Gudar Sah group in the oral partition of 1921.
• Mutation Proceedings: The Court gave weight to the mutation proceedings, where Krishna Kant Prasad had stated that he had received the suit land from Parmeshwar Sah. The court also noted that the mutation application was allowed, which further supported Krishna Kant Prasad’s claim.
• Statements of Witnesses: While the court did consider the statements of witnesses, it gave more importance to the documentary evidence and the admissions made by the parties in the partition suit and mutation proceedings.
• Affidavits and Deed of Relinquishment: The Court considered the affidavits and deed of relinquishment filed by Bharat Sah and Rajinder Prasad, which supported Krishna Kant Prasad’s claim.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• Importance of Documentary Evidence: The judgment emphasizes the importance of primary documentary evidence, such as partition decrees and mutation records, in property disputes.
• Historical Context: Courts will consider the historical context of property ownership, including oral partitions and subsequent partition suits.
• Mutation Proceedings: Mutation proceedings are significant in determining possession and ownership claims.
• Burden of Proof: The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish their title over the suit property.
• Upholding Trial Court Decisions: The Supreme Court can uphold the decision of the trial court if it finds that the trial court’s decision is correct based on the evidence on record.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in property disputes, the courts will give more importance to the primary documentary evidence, such as partition decrees and mutation records, and the historical context of the property ownership. The court also held that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish their title over the suit property.

This judgment reinforces the importance of maintaining accurate property records and the need for clear evidence of ownership. It also clarifies that secondary proceedings, such as mutation proceedings, cannot override the primary documentary evidence.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the legal representatives of Krishna Kant Prasad and set aside the judgment of the first appellate court affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision, dismissing the title suit filed by the plaintiffs. The judgment emphasizes the importance of primary documentary evidence, historical context, and mutation proceedings in determining property ownership. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish their title over the suit land, and therefore, the trial court’s decision was correct.