Court emphasizes burden of proof on plaintiffs in property title disputes, dismisses appeal citing lack of evidence.
In a significant judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit seeking the declaration of title over a property, reiterating the essential legal principle that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff in such cases. The judgment came in the case of Matam Ashok Kumar and others versus the State of Andhra Pradesh, where the plaintiffs claimed ancestral ownership of certain properties based on their family name and alleged possession.
The appeal was against a 2011 decision by the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool, which rejected the plaintiffs' claim for declaration of title and permanent injunction over several parcels of land. The appellants contended that their family name, 'Matam,' linked them to the property historically, but the court found no substantial evidence to support this claim.
The High Court, with Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Maheswara Rao Kuncheam presiding, analyzed the evidence presented, including cist receipts and pattadar passbooks, and concluded that these documents did not sufficiently establish the plaintiffs' title. The court emphasized that revenue records or mutation entries are not proof of ownership and that plaintiffs must rely on solid evidence of title to succeed.
The judgment also addressed the principle of "possession follows title," noting that possession does not imply ownership unless supported by legal title. The court reiterated that mere possession or resemblance of family name with the property does not establish ownership without documentary evidence proving ancestral ties.
The defendants, including the State of Andhra Pradesh, maintained that the property belonged to a religious institution, Sri Pothuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamy Mutt, and not to the plaintiffs. The court found this argument convincing in light of the evidence, including the property being recorded in the name of the Endowment Commissioner.
The High Court's decision reinforces the legal standard that plaintiffs in title declaration suits must unequivocally demonstrate their title through credible evidence, failing which their claims cannot be upheld.
Bottom Line:
In a suit for declaration of title, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish a clear case for declaration by adducing cogent evidence of title, and mere revenue records or mutation entries do not confer ownership or prove title to the suit property.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 110 (now Section 113 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's role in maintaining the integrity of property law and the importance of adhering to evidentiary standards in legal proceedings.
Matam Ashok Kumar v. State of A.P., (Andhra Pradesh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2834227
