Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal challenging the High Court’s decision that restored the plaintiff’s ownership and possession over a disputed parcel of land. The Court held that mere presence of waste or manure on a plot cannot constitute lawful possession and that the High Court was correct in finding the trial court and first appellate court’s rejection of title and possession as perverse. The Court upheld the declaration of ownership and injunction in favour of the plaintiff, reiterating that defendants who never contested the suit cannot pursue appeals later.
Facts
The dispute revolved around a residential property with an adjoining open plot. The plaintiff purchased the land through a sale deed (Ext. 81) which described the property as measuring 150 square metres. The plaintiff alleged that the neighbouring defendants began dumping waste and storing manure in the open portion, despite objections, leading to threats and the filing of a suit seeking declaration of ownership, possession, and permanent injunction.
The suit was compromised with defendants 1–7, but defendants 8–12 pursued the contest. Notably, only the 9th defendant filed a written statement; defendants 8 and 10–12 did not contest the case. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding inconsistencies in revenue records and reasoning that no recovery of possession was sought. The first appellate court agreed, citing Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, and held that the title deed showed only 109.70 sq. m. The High Court, however, reversed these findings, holding that the sale deed indeed covered 150 sq. m., and manure dumping did not establish possession by the defendants.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff established ownership and possession over the entire 150 sq. m. property, including the open plot.
- Whether discrepancies in revenue records during pendency of the suit invalidated the plaintiff’s title.
- Whether dumping waste/manure could amount to possession by the defendants.
- Whether defendants who did not contest the trial proceedings could maintain an appeal.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellants argued that the plaintiff’s sale deed was limited to 109.70 sq. m., as per revenue records available at the time of purchase. They claimed the disputed open plot was part of their ancestral property, used for storing manure and waste pursuant to an oral partition of 1974. They also submitted that the High Court erred in interfering with concurrent factual findings of the trial and first appellate courts, where no substantial question of law arose.
It was further contended that the correction of revenue records during the pendency of the suit undermined their credibility. The appellants sought restoration of the trial court’s dismissal.
Respondent’s Arguments
The plaintiff/respondent contended that the sale deed clearly conveyed 150 sq. m., inclusive of the open plot. The revenue records had been corrected to reflect this, and public records should be presumed valid unless disproved. The claim of oral partition by the 9th defendant was unsupported by evidence, nor was any relationship shown with the plaintiff’s vendor’s family.
The plaintiff argued that manure dumping was trespass, not possession, and that the trial and appellate courts erred in refusing declaratory relief. The High Court rightly corrected these perversities, restoring lawful ownership and possession.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reaffirmed key principles:
- Title prevails over possession claims when supported by a registered sale deed and corrected revenue records.
- Possession requires lawful control, not casual acts like dumping manure.
- Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act gives discretion in granting declaratory relief, but discretion must be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily deny relief when ownership is established.
- Oral partitions must be proved with cogent evidence; mere assertions are insufficient.
The Court stressed that appellate interference is justified where lower courts’ findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence.
Precedent Analysis
- Trojan & Co. v. Nagappa Chettiar (1953) – Courts cannot travel beyond pleadings; applied here to reject defendants’ oral partition plea without proof.
- State of A.P. v. Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Co. (2013) – Revenue entries must be presumed valid unless disproved; relied upon to uphold corrected revenue records.
- Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594 – Clarified when declaratory relief under Section 34 Specific Relief Act can be granted; applied here to hold that title and possession having been established, declaration was justified.
These precedents guided the Court in upholding the High Court’s findings.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed that the trial court wrongly relied on the temporary manure dumping to deny possession. It held: “Mere presence of waste or manure cannot be a valid ground to find possession.”
The claim of oral partition was dismissed as a bald assertion without proof. The Court emphasised that the vendor’s son, being the original owner, had validly transferred the property to the plaintiff, and the corrected revenue records confirmed the extent of 150 sq. m.
The Court also criticised the appellants (defendants 8, 10–12), who never contested the suit but joined the appeal later, holding that they could not piggyback on the 9th defendant’s defence. It upheld the High Court’s correction of perversity in findings.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decree declaring the plaintiff’s ownership and possession over the entire 150 sq. m. property, including the open plot. It held that the trial and appellate courts erred in law and fact, and the High Court rightly intervened. The appeals were found meritless.
Implications
The judgment underscores that title deeds and revenue records outweigh casual possession claims. It cautions trial courts against denying relief on flimsy grounds and confirms that dumping waste cannot constitute legal possession.
It also clarifies that non-contesting defendants cannot later appeal, ensuring procedural discipline in civil litigation. The decision provides greater protection for landowners against false claims based on unproven oral partitions.
FAQs
Q1. Can dumping manure or waste prove possession in property disputes?
No. The Supreme Court held that such acts do not constitute lawful possession and cannot override ownership rights.
Q2. Why was the oral partition claim rejected?
Because it was unsubstantiated, with no evidence of relationship or partition deeds, making it a bald assertion without legal effect.
Q3. Can non-contesting defendants file an appeal?
No. Defendants who do not contest a suit cannot later file appeals; only contesting parties can challenge findings.
