Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a judgment and decree dated 11.04.2007 passed by the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No.3071/1999, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs (appellants) against defendant Nos.3 and 4 (respondents). The plaintiffs had sought ejectment of the defendants from the suit property and damages. The property in question is No.5, Convent Road, Richmond Town, Bangalore. The plaintiffs claimed title through a lease deed dated 01.04.1969 executed by the original owner in favor of their father, and alleged that defendant Nos.1 and 2 were tenants under them, and defendant Nos.3 and 4 (Karnataka State Financial Corporation and Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation) were in illegal possession. The trial court dismissed the suit against defendant Nos.3 and 4, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove title and possession. In appeal, the High Court examined the evidence. The plaintiffs examined the GPA holder of plaintiff No.2, who had no personal knowledge of the transactions. The alleged lease deed was not registered and not attested, thus not proved. The plaintiffs also failed to produce any revenue records or tax receipts to show possession. The court held that the burden of proof in an ejectment suit lies on the plaintiff to prove title and possession, which the plaintiffs failed to discharge. Additionally, the suit was barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the plaintiffs did not prove possession within 12 years prior to the suit. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Ejectment Suit - Burden of Proof - In a suit for ejectment, the plaintiff must prove title and possession over the suit property. The plaintiffs failed to produce any documentary evidence of title or possession, and the alleged lease deed was not proved due to lack of registration and attestation. Held that the plaintiffs have not established their right to seek ejectment (Paras 10-15). B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Suit for Possession Based on Title - The suit for possession based on title must be filed within 12 years from the date of dispossession. The plaintiffs alleged dispossession in 1999 but the suit was filed in 1999 itself, however, they failed to prove possession within 12 years prior to suit. Held that the suit is barred by limitation (Paras 16-18). C) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 68 - Proof of Document Required by Law to be Attested - The alleged lease deed was not proved as required under Section 68 of the Evidence Act as it was not attested by any witness. Held that the lease deed cannot be relied upon (Para 12). D) Power of Attorney - Deposition by GPA Holder - A power of attorney holder cannot depose about facts that are not within his personal knowledge. The GPA holder of the plaintiffs deposed but had no personal knowledge of the transactions. Held that his evidence is not admissible (Para 13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiffs have proved their title and possession over the suit property and are entitled to a decree of ejectment and damages against the defendants?
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 11.04.2007 in O.S.No.3071/1999 are confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof in suit for ejectment lies on plaintiff to prove title and possession
- Suit for possession based on title must be filed within 12 years from date of dispossession
- Adverse possession requires clear and unequivocal evidence
- Lease deed not proved due to lack of registration and attestation
- Power of attorney holder cannot depose about facts not within personal knowledge
