Case Brief: Tilak Raj vs Baikunthi Devi (D) By Lrs

NAME OF THE CASE	Tilak Raj vs Baikunthi Devi (D) By Lrs
CITATION	2009 (10) SCC 130
DATE OF JUDGMENT	February 16, 2009
APPELLANT	Tilak Raj
RESPONDENT	Baikunthi Devi (D) by Lrs.
BENCH/JUDGE	Mukundakam Sharma J. ; S.B. Sinha J.
STATUTES INVOLVED	Transfer of Property Act, 1882Evidence Act, 1872Civil Procedure Code, 1908Limitation Act, 1963
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS OR ARTICLES	Section 100 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872Section 101 to 104 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963Order 20, Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Facts of the Case:

The appellant, Tilak Chand, obtained a land property(7 Kanals and 12 Murlas) that originally belonged to his maternal grandfather, Puran Chand. The widow of one of the sons of Puran Chand, Baikunthi Devi, is the respondent in this case. 

It was claimed that Puran Chand had orally gifted a property to the appellant. This made him the rightful owner of the said property. However, that property was possessed by the respondent, years before the transfer, since 1952. Therefore, she claimed ownership over the property stating that she was in long and continuous use of the land for over years. In 1969, to get a decision of the dispute that was continuing, Tilak Raj filed a civil suit before the court over the ownership of the property. Along with that, he also claimed mense property as a measure of compensation to be made by the respondent. 

The case was filed before the trial court, which dismissed the suit. It held that the property validity of the title could not be evidentially proved by the appellant or the prove that the respondent had wrongful possession over the property. 

This made the appellant to file for the first appeal. The first appellate court ruled in favour of the appellant, reversing the decision of the trial court. This made the respondent to file a second appeal to counter the judgment of the first appellate court. The case therefore moved to the High Court. The High Court ruled in favour of the respondent, once again reiterating the decision of the trial court. It held that the respondent should continue to hold possession of the property as the rightful title over the property by the appellant could not be proved. The oral gift could not substantiate the claim of rightful ownership over the property. Alongside, the court held that under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, long and continuous possession of a property for over a given period of time would lead to ownership of the possessor, according to the law of adverse possession. 

The case reached its final stage when the appellant filed an appeal against this decision before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court stating that the appellant wouldn’t be eligible to claim title over the property in dispute. He failed to prove his valid legal title as well as failed to prove the wrongful possession of the respondent over the property. The respondent had exercised long possession over the said property, and therefore, she could claim ownership over it. 

On the above decision, the Court concluded that the suit was not maintainable and would be dismissed by law. 

Provisions involved in this case:

Few major provisions had significant weight in this case that was used to decide this case on merits. The said provisions are:

1. Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
2. Law of adverse possession
3. Section 101-104 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
4. Article 65 of the Limitation Act  1963
5. Order 20, Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
6. Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882( as it was relevant then) 

Issues involved:

Favour issues were raised and were conclusively discussed by the Court. The issues are stated below:

1. Whether the appellant hada valid title over the property through the use of oral gift by Puran Chand(as was claimed) 
2. Whether Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act would apply based on the long and continuous use of possession over the property
3. Whether the suit was barred by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963
4. Whether the claim of mesne profit under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure is valid

Arguments from the appellant’s side:

The learned counsel, representing the case on behalf of the appellant put forth the arguments that were stated to claim ownership of the property. He stated that he was the rightful owner of the property due to the oral gift given to him by the original owner of the property, Puran Chand. He stated that the gift had fulfilled the conditions to be held valid: Declaration, Acceptance, Transfer of property. Therefore, on that basis he argued that the respondent’s possession was unlawful and due the wrongful possession, mense profit could be incurred, in accordance with law. Further, the possession was unlawful as it lacked any kind of legal backing. 

It was held that possession was not enough to grant her ownership. The fact that oral gift was made to him, held him as a better claimant of the title to the property, rather than the one who simply possessed it. He even held the respondent as a trespasser to the property after 1957 and continuously made wrongful use of the property. 

Arguments from the respondent’s side:

The learned counsel defending the case on behalf of the respondent rejected the claim put forward by the appellant. The respondent side provided counter arguments to prove that the appellant didn’t have rightful title over the property. 

Under Section 110 of Evidence Act, it states that the one who possess a piece of land or a property, after a point of time, he becomes the owner of the said property. In this case, the respondent had continuous possession over the land in question. It was held that the possessor had the best title to the property, after the owner of it. 

She denied the presence of oral gift made by Puran Chand to Tilak Raj, stating that there was no evidence of such. According to Transfer of Property act, no oral deed would be held valid, unless it had been registered and unless governed by Muslim Law. Therefore the gift deed fails in its validity. 

The major claim argued to entertain the validity of the suit was that, it was barred by the law of Limitation. The doctrine of laches would apply as law would only apply for the ones who would be vigilant about their rights. Therefore, she being in possession for over 12 years barred the claimant from filing any suit of ownership. So, this creates a presumption of owner’s over the property. 

The respondent held that the suit was meritless was lacked any kind of evidence to support the arguments. On that basis, he held before the court that the suit should be dismissed as it was barred by law and no evidence could be shown. 

Judgment:

The apex court, who finally decided the case, stated the appeal would be dismissed. There was no valid claim to prove ownership. No evidence of oral gift that was claimed to be given in 1957, could be proved. Further, oral deeds that would be unregistered could not be considered as a legal title. 

Also, the suit would be barred by the law of limitation as he came to the court after 12 years of continuous possession by the respondent and therefore the Court would rightfully shift the ownership to the possessor (respondent). The claim that he received the possession in 1957 contradicted with the possession of the respondent, who had been living here since 1952. 

Even if he had possessed any title, it would be countered by the law of adverse possession which stated that any possession over a property for a long and continuous period of over 12 years would lead to shift of ownership to the possessor. According to the doctrine of laches, law is only for the vigilant and not for the ones who sleeps over their rights. 

Along with this, the court held that the claimant was not entitled to mense profit and it could only be claimed against those who hold wrongful possession over the property. In this case, such could not be proved by the appellant. Therefore the suit was dismissed with no relief provided to the appellant. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, the court finally decided in favour of the respondent stating that the respondent would become the rightful owner of the property. The suit lacked evidence and was barred by the law of limitation. Also, it was an unregistered oral gift that could not be accepted as a legal document, unless governed under muslim law. Thereby the lawful possession of the respondent was protected and upholded by the court. 

This case had set a major precedence for further cases in later times as, the decision stressed on the importance of registration of suit. A person couldn’t e evicted from a property without the claimant validly proving the rightful ownership over it using evidentiary documents.