CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEE, …APPELLANT(s) SRI RAM MANDIR JAGTIAL KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT, A.P VERSUS S. RAJYALAXMI (DEAD) & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

suit for Declaration of title and permanent injunction – Trial court dismissed the suit stating that the instant suit is not barred under the principle of res­judicata, as the earlier suit in O.S. No. 134 of 1977 was dismissed only for the default of the plaintiff   no.1.   However,   as   the   respondents­plaintiffs  failed   to prove the source of their title they will not be entitled to claim the relief of permanent injunction. –

High court reversed the trial court judgment and decreed the suit  in their favour

by placing reliance on the documentary and oral evidence placed on   record.   The   High   Court   observed   that,   the   alleged   suit property was not included in the book of endowments, moreover,

the   plaintiffs   have   been   paying   taxes   in   regard   to   the   suit property in their name. Therefore, the defendants in the guise of a certificate cannot claim the suit premises. – Apex court held that we   observe   that,   the respondents­plaintiffs in order to prove their title has relied upon

several permissions of the municipality and tax receipts to prove his   title.   But   while,   the   aforesaid   documents   might   imply possession but they cannot be relied to confer title upon the

holder.-the appellant­defendant no.4 has put forth the earlier   order   dated   26.12.1976   passed   by   the   Deputy Commissioner in O.A. No. 2 in 1973, involving the same suit property. It was categorically held therein, that the suit property is related to the temple, and the plaintiff no.1 is staying therein to perform   his   duty. – becomes final as the suit filed by the plaintiff was dimssed by default – the same was barred by limitation – It is an established position of law that, the burden to prove ownership   over   the   suit   property   is   on   the   plaintiff. – The   provisions   of   Section   101   of   the Evidence Act provide that the burden of proof of   the   facts   rests   on   the   party   who substantially  asserts  it  and  not  on  the  party who  denies   it. In fact, burden of proof means

that a party has to prove an allegation before he is entitled to a judgment in his favour. Section

103   provides   that   burden   of   proof   as   to   any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court   to   believe   in   its   existence,   unless   it   is provided by any special law that the proof of that fact   shall   lie   on   any   particular   person.   The provision   of   Section   103   amplifies   the   general rule of Section 101 that the burden of proof lies on the person who asserts the affirmative of the facts in issue. -In the present case, the respondents­plaintiffs failed to discharge their   burden   of   proof   by   being   unable   to   furnish   necessary documentary and oral evidence to prove their claim. But, the High   Court   without   appreciating   the   aforesaid   evidences   and claims made by the appellant (defendant no.4), decreed the suit in favour of the respondents­plaintiffs by solely relying on the entry made in the book of endowments department stating the boundaries of the temple. The aforesaid judgment of the High Court   is   untenable   in   law   as   it   is   based   on   erroneous

appreciation of evidence – set aside the High court order and restored the trial court order.