RAMAR UDAYAR v. Subburaya Udayar (Died)
SA.397/2004 · 2026:MHC:3527 · S.A. No.397 of 2004
Coram: Justice R.Sakthivel
The defendant's possession on the date of the suit is thereby admitted. The plaintiff must then succeed on the strength of his own title, and where the preponderance of probabilities lies with the defendant the suit must fail.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.13 — s.40 — Declaration of title — Antecedent title — Revenue records — Preponderance of probabilities —
Declaration of title — Antecedent title — Burden on the plaintiff —
Held: A plaintiff who claims antecedent title and does not claim adverse possession must prove that title by adducing sufficient evidence; failure to produce any acceptable document of title defeats the claim to declaration. (¶25)
Revenue records — Patta and adangal extract — No conferment of title —
Held further: Revenue records alone do not confer any title or right over the suit property, and where the other compelling evidence on record shows otherwise they do not suffice to assert title. (¶23)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.13 — s.40 — Judgment in a suit between other parties — Not binding —
Held further: A judgment and decree in a suit to which the party was not made a party, and which concerned a different property, is not binding upon him, and declining to act upon it contravenes neither section 13 nor section 40. (¶21)
Recovery of possession — Admitted possession of the defendant — Preponderance of probabilities —
Held further: Where the plaintiff himself seeks recovery of possession, the defendant's possession on the date of suit is admitted, and the preponderance of probabilities lying with the defendant, no interference is warranted. Second Appeal dismissed. (¶24, 25)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 24From the above narrative, it could be seen that the documents primarily relied on the side of plaintiff do not satisfactorily establish his case. The plaintiff has miserably failed to establish that the western 1 Acre 37 Cents in the Suit survey number was owned by his father or family at any point of time and thereby, failed to establish his title over the entire extent of Suit survey number. On the other hand, the defendant's case is that the western side 1 Acre 37 cents was orally allotted to Sivamalai, the daughter of Velayutham in an oral arrangement. Thereafter, vide Ex.A.42 - Sale Deed, he purchased the western most extent of 71 Cents in the Suit survey number from the legal heirs of Velayutham including Sivamalai. The property covered under Ex-A.42 is the suit property herein. Ex-B.1 - Karnam Adangal Record standing in the name of Velayutham in respect of the entire extent of Suit survey number, which has been admitted by D.W.1 in his cross-examination as issued during resettlement in 1919, probablizes that the entire extent of Suit survey number was originally owned by Velayutham. Only thereafter, Velayutham executed Ex-A.1 - Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff's father in respect of the eastern 1 Acres 38 Cents. Further, under Ex-B.2 - Settlement Deed dated March 2, 1926, Velayutham settled the entire extent in Suit survey number and some more properties in favour of his wife and minor son. Though the same is invalid qua the eastern 1 Acre 38 Cents already sold under Ex-A.1, it can be taken to show that the entire extent of Suit survey number was owned by Velayutham. As it could be seen from the above, the documents let in by the plaintiff support the case of the defendant. Admittedly, the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, that is why the plaintiff has sought for the relief of recovery of possession as well. In the absence of title, the plaintiff cannot claim the suit property. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the defendant has established his case by way of preponderance of probabilities.
Paragraph 25As regards Substantial Question of Law Nos.(ii) and (iii), admittedly plaintiff does not claim adverse possession; he claims antecedent title over the western portion of the Suit survey number measuring 1 Acres 37 Cents including the suit property, which title must be proved by adducing sufficient evidence. As stated above, the plaintiff has failed to let in satisfactory evidence to prove his title over the suit property. The plaintiff has not let in any acceptable document proving his alleged title qua the western 1 Acres 37 Cents in the Suit survey number and he himself has admitted that no document of title is available qua western 1 Acre 37 Cents as stated above. It is settled law that mere revenue records do not confer title. And in view of the relief of recovery of possession sought for by the plaintiff, the defendant's possession on the date of Suit is admitted. Preponderance of probabilities lies in favour of the defendant as stated above. In these circumstances, the First Appellate Court after considering the entire evidence as well as the facts and circumstances, rightly allowed the Appeal Suit and non-suited the plaintiff. Therefore, there is no warrant to interfere with the Judgment and Decree passed by the First Appellate Court. Substantial Question of Law Nos.(ii) & (iii) are answered accordingly in favour of the defendant. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of RAMAR UDAYAR v. Subburaya Udayar (Died) — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India