UNION OF INDIA v. IBRAHIM UDDIN & ANR.

88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R.

A me the information about the same given to us that condition govt. will be liable for the expenses of court I hafiz ahmed is receiver of rent of this land which has been situated at namner the rent which is rupees 22."

The said rent note does not provide any description of the 8 property nor does it bear any date, so it cannot be determined as on what date it was executed; what was the duration of the lease; in whose favour the lease had been executed; and what was the lease rent because it simply mentions that the rent to be Rs.22/-. It is not evident whether it was a rent for a month, or a year or for a total indefinite period. The rent note does not provide any period at all. In fact, such a vague document could not be linked in the circumstances proving the title.

65Copy pinpoint65. Appellant/defendant No.1 produced the certified copies of the Extract from General Land Register prepared on 15.3.1948 in support of its case and denying title of the plaintiff/ respondent No.1. The relevant part thereof reads as under:

SI.No. Survey No.5 Existing Entry E 1 --- ---

F 4. Area in acres 9.447 acres

5. Description Agricultural land

6. Class B-4

G 7. By whom managed Military Estate Officer

8. Landlord Govt. of India

UNION OF INDIA v. IBRAHIM UDDIN & ANR. 89 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

Similarly, another land had also been shown in Survey No.6 in the same manner and showing the similar entries.

The High Court has considered the said entries and rejected the same on the ground that the partition among the ancestors of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 had taken place prior to enactment of the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1925, though there is nothing on record to prove the said partition. More so, the partition made among the ancestors of plaintiff/respondent No.1 in 1819 would not be a conclusive factor to determine the title of ownership in favour of the plaintiff/ respondent No.1. The High Court dealt with the issue in an unwarranted manner as it observed as under:

"Clause B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 and B-5 Classification of land was first time introduced by enactment of Cantonment Land Administration Rule 1925. The General Land Register was prepared near about in the year 1928, whereas the partition is in the year 1819. The appellant also failed to file the notification in the official gazette regarding survey Nos. 5 and 6 which are situated outside the notified area and to establish that such area was declared under Section 43A of the Cantonment Act, 1924. In the circumstances, I do not find that it is a case where this court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC can set aside the findings of fact' arrived at by the court below." F

66Copy pinpoint66. The General Land Register and other documents maintained by the Cantonment Board under the Cantonment Act, 1924 and the Rules made thereunder are public documents and the certified copies of the same are admissible in evidence in view of the provisions of Section 65 read with Section 74 of G the E;:vidence Act. It is settled legal position that the entries made in General Land Register maintained under Cantonment Land Administration Rules is conclusive evidence of title. (Vide: Chief Executive Officer v. Surendra Kumar Vakil, AIR 1999 SC 2294; and Union of India & Ors. v. Kam/a Verma, (2010) H

90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R.

A 13 sec 511).

67Copy pinpoint67. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the appellate courts dealt with the case in an unwarranted manner giving a complete go-by to the procedure prescribed by law. 8

68Copy pinpoint68. The appellate courts examined the title of government instead of the plaintiff/respondent no.1. Such a course was not warranted. The title of government cannot be disputed. In any event possession of government for decades is not disputed. C The plaintiff shifted the case from time to time but failed to prove his title.

69Copy pinpoint69. To sum up: In view of the above discussion, we reach the following conclusion: D (i) The first appellate court as well as the High Court committed grave error in shifting the burden of proof on the Union of India, appellant/defendant No.1, though it could have been exclusively on the plaintiff/respondent No.1 to prove his case. E (ii) There is nothing on record to prove the grant/gift by the Maratha Government in favour of ancestors of plaintiff/respondent No.1 in the year 1800.

(iii) Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 miserably failed to prove the pedigree produced by him.

(iv) The alleged partition in the year 1819 among the ancestors of plaintiff/respondent No.1 even if had taken place, cannot be a proof of title of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 over the suit property as the pedigree has not been proved. Presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act in respect of 30 years' old document coming from proper custody relates to the signature, execution and H

UNION OF INDIA v. IBRAHIM UDDIN & ANR. 91 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.] attestation of a document i.e. to its genuineness but it does not give rise to presumption of correctness of every statement contained in it. The contents of the document are true or it had been acted upon have to be proved like any other fact. More so, in case the Will is ignored, there is nothing on record to show as how the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 could claim the title.

(v) The rent note produced by the appellant/defendant No.1 before the court below does not prove anything in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. The c same being a vague document is incapable of furnishing any information and, thus, is liable to be rejected. The said document does not make it clear as who has executed it and in whose favour the same stood executed. It does not bear any date as it cannot be ascertained when it was executed. The lease deed cannot be executed without the signature/thumb impression of the lessee. The said lease does not contain any signature/thumb impression of any lessee and also the tenure of the lease has not been mentioned therein. The rent has been mentioned as Rs.22/- without giving any detail as to whether it was per day, fortnightly, monthly, quarterly or yearly or for ever. More so, there is no reference to the said rent note in the pleadings contained in the plaint, therefore, it is just to be ignored.

(vi) Had there been any Will in existence and not available with the plaintiff/respondent No.1 for any reason whatsoever at the time of institution of the suit, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 could have definitely mentioned that Will had been executed in his favour by his maternal grand-father which could not be traced. Therefore, the application H

92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 8 S.C.R.

A under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was liable to be rejected. Even otherwise, the Will in absence of any pleading either in the plaint or first appeal could not be taken on record. More so, the Will was not proved in accordance with law i.e. Section 68 of the B Evidence Act.

(vii) The court cannot travel beyond the pleadings as no party can lead the evidence on an issue/point not raised in the pleadings and in case, such evidence has been adduced or a finding of fact has been c recorded by the Court, it is just to be ignored. Though it may be a different case where in spite of specific pleadings, a particular issue is not framed and parties having full knowledge of the issue in controversy lead the evidence and the court records D a finding on it.

(viii) The first appellate court committed a grave error in deciding the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC much prior to the hearing of the appeal. Thus, E the order allowing the said application is liable to be ignored as the same had been passed in gross violation of the statutory requirement.

(ix) The documents produced by the Union of India have not been properly appreciated by the first appellate court and the High Court.

(X) The courts below further committed an error holding that in case the document is taken on record, the document as well as the content thereof would be deemed to have been proved.

(xi) The appellate courts have also wrongly rejected the certified copies of the documents prepared by the Cantonment Board which were admissible in evidence. H

UNION OF INDIA v. IBRAHIM UDDIN & ANR. 93 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.)

(xii) The High Court committed a grave error in not addressing itself to the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission of the appeal and it ought to have decided the same or after discussing the same a finding could have been recorded that none of them was substantial question of law.

(xiii) The suit was barred by the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, for the reason that plaintiff/ respondent No.1, admittedly, had not been in possession and he did not ask for restoration of possession or any other consequential relief.

(xiv) The first appellate court as well as the High Court recorded a finding that the Union of India failed to prove its title over the suit land. The said courts did not realise that this was not the issue to be determined, rather the issue had been as to whether the plaintiff/respondent No.1 was the owner of the suit land. E (xv) The first appellate court has not decided the issue of admission of documents in correct perspective and recorded a perverse finding.

(xvi) Question of filing a document in rebuttal of a Will could not arise. The other party has to admit or deny F the document as required under Order XII CPC. There could be no Will in favour of the Union of India by the predecessors of the plaintiff, on the basis of which it could also claim title. G (xvii) The courts below had wrongly drawn adverse inference against the appellant/defendant No.1 for not producing the documents as there was no direction of the court to produce the same. Neither the plaintiff/respondent No.1 had ever made any H

94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R.

A application in this respect nor he fifed any application under Order XI CPC submitting any interrogation or for inspection or production of document.

(xviii) The appellate courts have decided the appeals in unwarranted manner in complete derogation of the statutory requirements. Provisions of CPC and Evidence Act have been flagrantly violated.

70Copy pinpoint70. In view of above, appeal succeeds and is allowed, judgments and decrees of the first and second appellate courts are set aside and the judgment and decree dated 20.1.1998 passed by Civil Court in Original Suit No.442 of 1995 is restored. No costs.

B.B.B. Appeal allowed.