AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellants-77 plaintiffs-filed Regular Civil Suit No.194/2002, which was later renumbered as Civil Suit No.269/2004. They sued the Government for a declaration of title to the suit property, besides the consequential reliefs. Maintaining that the property belonged to the State, the Government contested the case. Then, the trial Court has framed the following issues:
Have the plaintiffs proved that they are the owners in possession of the suit property?
Have the plaintiffs proved that the defendant's name has been erroneously entered in Form III, Form I & XIV of the suit property and should that be deleted?
Eventually, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs have filed this First Appeal.
Shri Nitin Sardessai, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, has submitted that though the plaintiffs have examined the surveyor, besides filing a copy of the Sale Deed, the trial Court has discarded that piece of evidence and dismissed the suit. According to him, the impugned judgment requires interference.
Ms. Sulekha Kamat, the learned Additional Government Advocate, has submitted that the plaintiffs cannot push their burden of proof on to the Government. At any rate, according to her, the Government has produced sufficient material, besides examining the Inspector of Survey, to establish that the property does belong to the Government. Therefore, she has urged this Court not to interfere with the judgment.
Heard Shri Nitin Sardessai, the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants, and Ms. Sulekha Kamat, the learned Additional Government Advocate.
Seen from the record, as the plaintiffs sought a declaration and other consequential reliefs, then the burden lay on the plaintiffs to prove their case. To discharge that burden, out of 71 plaintiffs 2 were examined as PW1 and PW2. Besides, they have also examined the surveyor as PW3. On the Government's part, the Inspector of Survey and Land Records was the sole witness, as DW1.
Though the appellants have been claiming under a registered Sale Deed, curiously the Sale Deed recites that the vendor sold half of the total extent of the property. And nowhere in the Sale Deed is it mentioned what that total extent was. Besides, the Sale Deed contains no boundaries, either.
Though the appellants have examined the surveyor, his evidence could not help them. He has not, in specific terms, pointed out that the property the appellants have been claiming under the Sale Deed corresponds to the property physically existing and said to be in the Government's possession.
On the other hand, the plaintiffs themselves have admitted that the Government's name stands reflected in Form No.III, I & XIV of the Revenue Registry. Given this admitted fact, the Government enjoys a statutory presumption under Section 114 (e) of Indian Evidence Act: that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed.
The Government, as I gather, has consistently maintained that the property the appellants have been claiming ought to be different from the suit property. It is, thus, a question of mistaken identity. More particularly, the Government plea gains strength because the Sale Deed throws no light on either the extent or the nature of the property-leave alone the boundaries and other tell-tale signs of its identity. In this context, the trial Court has observed in para 8 of the judgment:
"8. Evidence of plaintiffs strengthens defendant's contention that land which plaintiffs are claiming is not the same as covered by survey no.247/1 and 251/1 of Gaondongori village. Further, it is difficult to believe that in the year 1962 an area of 4,11,000 sq. mts. was sold only for Rs. 600/- as mentioned in the sale deed. The non-mentioning of the boundaries in sale deed and also non mentioning of approximate area of land in the plaint and also absence of words like 'vast land' or 'huge land' in the plaint fortifies defendant's contention that the land which plaintiffs are claiming is not covered under survey no.247/1 and 251/1...."
Under these circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the trial Court's judgment. I accordingly dismiss the first appeal.
No order on costs.