Case title: Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust vs Ganga Bai Menariya.
Case no.: Civil Appeal No.722 Of 2012
Decided on: 20.02.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath, Hon’ble Justice.
Hon’ble Justices stated that, “a suit simpliciter for injunction may not be maintainable as the title of the property of the plaintiff/respondent was disputed by the appellants/defendants. In such a situation it was required for the respondent/plaintiff to prove the title of the property while praying for injunction.
“When five different suits were filed by different persons while filing the documents with the paper book filed in this Court, it was incumbent upon the appellants to place on record correct copies of the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court for each of the case.”
BRIEF FACTS:
A civil suit was filed to resolve a disagreement over the ownership and possession of a parcel of land. The petitioners claimed to have bought the land from the village Panchayat in 1959 and requested a perpetual injunction as well as ownership of the land. The appellants, however, claimed that the land was government property designated for cattle grazing. The First Appellate Court overturned the Trial Court’s ruling and decreed the suit in favour of the respondents. The High Court upheld the appellate court’s decision, noting that evidence supported the respondents’ ownership claim and entitlement to a permanent injunction. As a result, this appeal is being made.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:
After carefully analysing the evidence, the court determined that the respondents had failed to prove the document on the basis of which they claimed a right of possession of the property in question, and that nothing on record demonstrated that the due process required for leasing out/selling the land in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs by private negotiation was followed. The village Panchayat, from whom the land was taken, was not joined as a party to admit or deny the allegations made by the respondents in the plaint.
Respondents contend that document was over 30 years old, there was a presumption of truth under Section 90 of the Evidence Act. The court held that if a document is more than 30 years old and is produced from proper custody, a presumption exists that the signatures and every other part of such document that purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person are in that person’s handwriting, and that if a document is executed or attested, it was executed and attested by the persons by whom it asserts to be executed and attested. This does not imply a presumption that the recitals are correct.
The First Appellate Court’s and the High Court’s judgements and decrees were overturned, and the Trial Court’s order was restored.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith
