Supreme Court of India· 09 March 2026

Where a plaintiff asserts title derived from his forefathers, what must he produce to discharge the burden?

GOBIND SINGH AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

2026 INSC 211 · CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5168-5169 OF 2011
Coram: Vikram Nath; Sandeep Mehta

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Or.XLI r.27 Code of Civil Proced…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

Cogent title deeds in support of the claim. It is incumbent on a plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title to adduce his best and complete evidence at trial, where it can be produced as a matter of right, and a failure to prove when and on what basis the predecessors came into possession leaves the burden undischarged.

Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or.XLI r.27 — Or.XLI r.27(2) — Additional evidence in appeal — Due diligence — Suit for declaration of title — Ex parte decree against a non-party — Revenue entries — Adverse possession — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or.XLI r.27 — No vested right to additional evidence — Held: Rule 27 is couched in negative terms and permits additional evidence in only three eventualities. Parties have no vested or automatic right to its admission, and it has no application where the appellate court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment on the record already before it. (¶11) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or.XLI r.27(2) — Reasons for admission — Held further: Where additional evidence is admitted the appellate court must record its reasons, a salutary requirement which operates as a check against a too easy reception of evidence at a late stage of litigation. (¶11) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or.XLI r.27 — Filling gaps in one's own case — Held further: Additional evidence is meant only to remove a lacuna in the evidence, not to cure the inherent defects in a party's case; a document unsupported by any foundational pleading cannot be introduced at the appellate stage. (¶11) Declaration of title — Decree obtained without impleading the true owner — Held further: A decree passed behind the back of the lawful owner is non-est against him, and no legal sanctity attaches to revenue entries made on its strength. The onus then lies on the plaintiff to establish title independently. Appeals dismissed. (¶10, 11)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 10When the said decree was assailed by the respondent-defendants before the High Court by way of an appeal, the High Court, while allowing the appeal, recorded the following findings: - i. That the earlier suit instituted by the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs against the State of Madhya Pradesh was decreed ex parte by the Civil Court, without the respondent–Union of India having been impleaded as a party to the said proceedings. It was not binding on the Union of India. ii. That from the pleadings and evidence adduced in the present suit, it emerged that the plaintiffs’ claim over the suit property was founded on adverse possession, predicated on their alleged possession of the land since the time of their forefathers. Their could not be any perfection of rights by adverse possession against the State/Union howsoever long may be the possession. iii. That the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proving ownership over the suit property, having neither produced any documentary evidence nor examined any witness to establish the point of time at which their forefathers came into possession of the land and on what basis. iv. That the plaintiffs had sought to claim perfection of title on the basis of adverse possession in the earlier suit filed by their predecessor and, by doing so, procured a decree of declaration without impleading the respondent-defendants. Consequently, the said decree was held to be not binding on the respondent-defendants, and the plaintiffs were found not to have acquired ownership in the eyes of law. v. While deciding the review petition the application for additional evidence was also dismissed as being without any merit.

Paragraph 11In our considered view, the High Court has committed no error in rendering the impugned judgments and, for the reasons that follow hereinafter, we are not persuaded to interfere and are, accordingly, inclined to dismiss the present appeals.

Acts & Sections

Or.XLI r.27 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Or.XLI r.27(2) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of GOBIND SINGH AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS — 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 account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in what circumstances may an appellate court permit additional evidence to be produced?Do parties to an appeal have a right to have additional evidence admitted under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?Must an appellate court record reasons when it admits additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?Can additional evidence at the appellate stage be used to cure defects in a party's own case?Is a decree of declaration obtained without impleading the true owner binding on him, and what follows for revenue entries made on its strength?Does an appellate court's omission to expressly decide an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 vitiate its judgment?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections