High Court correctly held that plaintiff’s documents did not prove ownership. Revenue records are not conclusive proof of title. Oral partition claim not substantiated by documentary evidence. Plaintiff cannot rely on defendant’s weakness but must prove his own case. No declaration of ownership sought, making suit for injunction untenable. Supreme Court found no error in High Court’s reasoning – Appeal dismissed.

Final Order:

• Appeal dismissed.
• Pending applications disposed of.
• No order as to costs.

Relevant Acts & Sections:

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 136 – Special Leave Petition against High Court’s reversal of concurrent findings.
• Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 100 – Second appeal only on substantial question of law – High Court’s jurisdiction exceeded or justified?
• Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 101 – Burden of proof on plaintiff to establish title – Mere possession insufficient.

Subjects:

Title Dispute – Suit for Injunction – Revenue Records – Oral Partition – Second Appeal – Burden of Proof – Possession Without Ownership – Sale Deed Validity – Khata Entries – Substantial Question of Law

Nature of the Litigation:

Plaintiff sought permanent injunction, cancellation of sale deed dated 03.03.1993, and recovery of possession. Trial Court and First Appellate Court ruled in plaintiff’s favor. High Court reversed findings, holding that plaintiff failed to establish ownership over the suit property.

Who is Asking the Court and for What Remedy?

Appellants (Legal Representatives of Naganna) sought reversal of High Court judgment, contending that sale deed executed in favor of the Respondents was illegal and void.

Reason for Filing the Case:

Dispute over ownership of suit property; plaintiff relied on revenue records and oral partition claim, while defendants asserted valid title based on sale deed.

What Has Already Been Decided Until Now?

• Trial Court (12.04.2007): Decreed suit, canceled sale deed, granted permanent injunction.
• First Appellate Court (10.02.2011): Affirmed Trial Court’s decision.
• High Court (13.03.2014): Allowed second appeal, set aside lower court findings, held that plaintiff failed to prove title.

Issues Framed by the High Court:

a. Whether, in the absence of title deeds, the Trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit and canceling the sale deed?
b. Whether the First Appellate Court erred in confirming the Trial Court’s findings?

Submissions/Arguments:

• Appellants:

  • Possession itself is sufficient for injunction – title not necessary.
  • Sale deed executed in favor of Respondent No.1 was fraudulent.
  • High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by re-examining facts.

• Respondents:

  • Plaintiff never had title over the suit property.
  • Revenue records do not confer ownership.
  • Burden of proof was on plaintiff to establish ownership, which was not discharged.