Case Background
The dispute concerns 46 decimals of land with a house at village Brahampura, P.S. Sadar, District Muzaffarpur, comprised in R.S. Plot Nos. 143, 142, 147 and 144.
According to the plaintiff, the recorded tenants of these plots sold the suit lands in five registered sale deeds between 1977 and 1982 to one Smt. Sharda Devi (defendant no.3). On the strength of these deeds, Sharda Devi got her name mutated, paid rent, and remained in peaceful possession.
The plaintiff said that defendants no.1 and 2, who were contractors, took the house as monthly tenants from Sharda Devi and paid rent to her. Later, on 07.10.2003, Sharda Devi sold the suit land with the house to the plaintiff through a registered sale deed for Rs.3 lakhs and asked defendants no.1 and 2 to pay rent to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff claimed that she needed the house for her own residence and for educating her children, and repeatedly requested defendants no.1 and 2 to vacate. She issued a lawyer’s notice, but they neither vacated nor acknowledged her as landlord, and started denying her title.
Defendants no.1 and 2, on the other hand, denied any tenancy and asserted ownership. They alleged that in 1985 they had given Rs.15,000/- to one Hardeo Singh, who, according to them, was the real owner in possession. They claimed they constructed a pucca house on 8 decimals at their own cost and used the remaining land for their contract business. They further asserted that in 1991, a sale for Rs.4,95,000/- was agreed with Hardeo Singh, and finally a registered sale deed was executed by him in favour of defendant no.1 on 16.12.2005.
Defendant no.3 Sharda Devi supported the plaintiff’s case and confirmed that she had earlier purchased the lands through five registered sale deeds and then sold the property to the plaintiff for full consideration, putting her in possession.
The State of Bihar (defendant no.5) filed a written statement saying that R.S. Plot No.144 (6 decimals) was recorded in the name of the State in the survey, so there was a presumption that this portion belonged to the State. It also submitted that the sale deed dated 16.12.2005 in favour of defendant no.1, being executed during pendency of the suit, was hit by lis pendens.
On these pleadings, the plaintiff filed Title Suit No.424 of 2004 seeking declaration of her right, title and interest over the Schedule I land, a declaration that the 16.12.2005 sale deed in favour of defendant no.1 was void and hit by lis pendens, a declaration of tenancy of defendants no.1 and 2, eviction on grounds of personal necessity, damages, and other reliefs.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Trial Court framed ten issues, including maintainability, cause of action, limitation, plaintiff’s title, existence of landlord–tenant relationship, default, entitlement to damages, and relief.
On the crucial issue of tenancy, the Trial Court found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that defendants no.1 and 2 were tenants either under Sharda Devi or under the plaintiff. There was no rent receipt or any documentary evidence showing payment of rent by defendants no.1 and 2. The Court held that a legal notice issued by the plaintiff could not, by itself, prove a landlord–tenant relationship.
Because the plaintiff could not establish tenancy, the Trial Court decided issues relating to tenancy, default and damages (Issues 6, 7, 8 and 9) against her.
However, on title, the Trial Court closely examined the chain of sale deeds. It found that:
- Recorded tenants of R.S. Plot No.143 (20 decimals) sold the land to Sharda Devi by two registered sale deeds dated 10.03.1980.
- Legal heirs of recorded tenant Dwarika Singh sold 17 decimals in R.S. Plot No.147 to Sharda Devi by two registered sale deeds dated 01.10.1980.
- By a registered sale deed dated 11.04.1977, Hardeo Singh had already conveyed R.S. Plot Nos.142 (3 decimals) and 144 (6 decimals), along with another plot, to three purchasers, who in turn sold these lands to Sharda Devi by registered sale deed dated 24.02.1982.
On this basis, the Trial Court held that Sharda Devi had acquired valid right, title and possession over 46 decimals (except where the State’s title intervened), and, consequently, the plaintiff acquired title under the sale deed dated 07.10.2003.
At the same time, the Trial Court accepted the State’s stand regarding R.S. Plot No.144 (6 decimals) under Khata No.102. It held that this portion belonged to the State of Bihar and the plaintiff had no title over it.
The Trial Court then tested the 16.12.2005 sale deed executed by Hardeo Singh in favour of defendant no.1. Since this sale was made during the pendency of the plaintiff’s title suit, the Court applied the principle of lis pendens and held that the deed was void and had no legal sanctity as against the plaintiff.
Having found that defendants no.1 and 2 had no valid title and no proved tenancy, the Trial Court concluded that they were in “unauthorized possession” over R.S. Plot Nos.143, 147 and 142, and would therefore be treated as trespassers. On that basis, it decreed eviction of defendants no.1 and 2 from the suit premises and building, recognizing the plaintiff’s title in R.S. Khata No.32 Plot No.143 (20 decimals), R.S. Khata No.29 Plot No.147 (17 decimals) and R.S. Khata No.90 Plot No.142 (3 decimals).
Defendants no.1 and 2 filed Title Appeal No.67 of 2015. The first appellate Court framed the main point as whether the declaration of the plaintiff’s title over the suit land by the Trial Court was proper and legal.
The appellate Court agreed that the plaintiff had failed to prove a landlord–tenant relationship. But, after examining the same chain of sale deeds and other evidence (marked Exts.1/A to 1/E, etc.), it affirmed that the plaintiff had successfully established title over the above-mentioned plots and that R.S. Plot No.144 (6 decimals) belonged to the State. The appellate Court upheld the finding that defendants were illegal possessors and trespassers liable to eviction, and dismissed the appeal.
The plaintiff had also filed a cross-objection, seeking reversal of those issues decided against her, but this was dismissed by the first appellate Court. That dismissal was not challenged in the Second Appeal.
In Second Appeal No.140 of 2021, the defendants raised four substantial questions of law. These focused on whether a Court dealing with a building eviction matter could declare title and treat them as trespassers, whether a “third case” of trespass could be made without pleadings, whether title could be based only on survey and revenue entries, and whether such a suit mixing eviction and declaration of title was maintainable under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (BBC Act).
On the first and fourth questions, the appellants argued that because both Courts had found no landlord–tenant relationship, the suit was not maintainable as an eviction suit under the BBC Act, and the Courts lacked jurisdiction to examine title or grant alternative relief under Order VII Rule 7 CPC.
The plaintiff’s side responded that the suit was a regular title suit, not a pure eviction petition under the BBC Act. The plaint sought declaration of title and other connected reliefs, and ad valorem court fee had been paid accordingly. Thus, the Civil Court had full jurisdiction to decide title and grant eviction on the basis of ownership, especially when defendants themselves had challenged title.
The Patna High Court carefully reviewed Supreme Court precedents, including Tribhuwanshankar v. Amrutlal, LIC v. India Automobiles & Co., Dr. Ranbir Singh v. Asharfi Lal, and Rajendra Tiwary v. Basudeo Prasad, and its own earlier decision in Sukhdeoji v. Purushottam Sharma. From these, the Court drew the principle that, while a limited-jurisdiction rent Court ordinarily does not adjudicate complicated title disputes, a regular Civil Court in a properly valued title suit can grant eviction based on title under Order VII Rule 7 CPC, even if tenancy is not proved.
The High Court noted that Order VII Rule 7 allows Courts to grant appropriate and incidental reliefs, including smaller or alternative reliefs, even if not expressly claimed, so long as the larger framework of the plaint covers them. Since the plaintiff had specifically sought declaration of title and eviction, and had valued the suit as a title suit, the Civil Court clearly had jurisdiction.
Holding that justice and equity required protection of the lawful owner, the High Court concluded that the Courts below were right in granting eviction on the basis of title despite failure to prove tenancy. Substantial questions (i) and (iv) were decided against the appellants.
On the second question, the appellants complained that the Courts had set up a “third case” by calling them trespassers although there was no such pleading. The High Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Bhagwati Prasad v. Chandramaul, explaining that where substantial matters concerning title are actually in issue and evidence is led, the Court can grant relief based on the legal status that logically follows from the proved facts, without causing prejudice.
The High Court observed that defendants had themselves denied tenancy and asserted absolute ownership under the 16.12.2005 sale deed and an alleged earlier agreement. Once the Courts rejected this sale deed as void and held that title vested in the plaintiff, the defendants could not be owner, landlord, tenant or licensee. Their possession could only be treated as unauthorized. Describing them as “trespassers” in this situation was not creating a new case but giving a legal label to their own pleaded position combined with the Court’s findings. Thus, substantial question (ii) also went against the appellants.
On the third question, the appellants contended that the Courts wrongly treated revisional survey khatiyan and revenue records as documents of title. The High Court acknowledged settled Supreme Court law that revenue records and mutation entries do not confer or extinguish title, citing Union of India v. Vasavi Coop. Housing Society, Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh, and Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
However, the Court found that this principle did not help the appellants, because the plaintiff’s title was not based solely on survey entries or revenue records. Instead, it was rooted in a clear chain of registered sale deeds in favour of Sharda Devi and then the plaintiff. Survey and mutation entries were treated only as supporting evidence of possession, not as the primary source of title.
The High Court also noted that defendants had not filed any suit to cancel or set aside the earlier registered sale deeds in favour of Sharda Devi and the plaintiff, though they alleged that Hardeo Singh was the real owner. Referring to Md. Noorul Hoda v. Bibi Raifunnisa, the Court highlighted that a person who wants to ignore a binding written instrument that blocks his title must seek cancellation; otherwise, he cannot simply rely on a later deed to override it.
Further, the Court approved the view that the 16.12.2005 sale deed executed by Hardeo Singh during pendency of the suit was hit by lis pendens, as explained in K.N. Aswathnarayan Setty v. State of Karnataka. A purchaser pendente lite cannot defeat the rights of a plaintiff who succeeds in a pending suit.
On this analysis, the High Court held that the plaintiff’s title rested on registered sale deeds that were not in dispute, and not on survey or revenue records. Substantial question (iii) was therefore also decided against the appellants.
In the end, the Patna High Court confirmed the first appellate Court’s judgment and decree, dismissed the Second Appeal, directed each party to bear its own costs, vacated the interim stay order dated 29.03.2022 on Execution Case No.01 of 2015, and ordered transmission of the Lower Court Records.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for people who buy or occupy property while someone else’s title suit is pending. The Patna High Court has clearly said that a person who comes into possession under a sale deed executed during a pending case cannot claim better rights than the party who ultimately wins that case.
The decision also shows that when a Civil Court is dealing with a regular title suit, it can order eviction on the basis of ownership, even if a landlord–tenant relationship is not proved. A person who has no title deed and cannot prove tenancy can be treated as a trespasser and removed.
For landowners in Bihar, especially in urban and semi-urban areas like Muzaffarpur, this case underlines the value of maintaining a clear chain of registered sale deeds. It also warns occupants that merely living in a house or claiming to have paid money long ago is not enough to defeat a registered title, particularly if they do not challenge earlier sale deeds through proper legal proceedings.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Can a Civil Court, in a suit also seeking eviction, declare title and grant eviction when no landlord–tenant relationship is proved, and is the BBC Act a bar?
Answer: Yes. Since the suit was a regular title suit with ad valorem court fee and a clear prayer for declaration of title, the Civil Court had jurisdiction. Applying Order VII Rule 7 CPC, it could grant eviction on the basis of the plaintiff’s title, and the BBC Act did not limit this power.
Issue: Did the Courts below wrongly create a “third case” by treating the defendants as trespassers without pleading?
Answer: No. The defendants themselves denied tenancy and claimed ownership. Once their title claim under the 16.12.2005 sale deed was rejected and the plaintiff’s title established, their possession necessarily became unauthorized. Labelling them as trespassers was a legal consequence, not a new factual case.
Issue: Was the plaintiff’s title declared only on the basis of revisional survey (R.S.) entries and revenue records?
Answer: No. The High Court held that title was founded on a chain of registered sale deeds in favour of Sharda Devi and then the plaintiff. Survey and revenue records were treated only as supportive of possession, in line with Supreme Court rulings that such records are not documents of title.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Tribhuwanshankar v. Amrutlal, (2014) 2 SCC 788
- LIC v. India Automobiles & Co., (1990) 4 SCC 286
- Dr. Ranbir Singh v. Asharfi Lal, (1995) 6 SCC 580
- Rajendra Tiwary v. Basudeo Prasad, (2002) 1 SCC 90
- Sukhdeoji v. Purushottam Sharma & Ors., (2014) 1 PLJR 332
- Bhagwati Prasad v. Chandramaul, AIR 1966 SC 735
- K.N. Aswathnarayan Setty (Dead) through LRs & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR 2014 SC 279
- Md. Noorul Hoda v. Bibi Raifunnisa & Ors., (1996) 7 SCC 767
- Union of India v. Vasavi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2014 SC 937; (2014) 2 SCC 269
- Corporation of the City of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah & Anr., (1989) 3 SCC 612
- Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand & Ors., (1993) 4 SCC 349
- State of Himachal Pradesh v. Keshav Ram & Ors., (1996) 11 SCC 257
- Sawarni v. Inder Kaur & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 223
- Balwant Singh & Ors. v. Daulat Singh (Dead) by LRs & Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 137
- Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802
Case Details
Case Number: Second Appeal No.140 of 2021
Case Title: Shri Madhurendra Kumar Singh & Anr. v. Smt. Asha Devi & Ors.
Citation: 2022 (3) PLJR 260
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra
Date of Judgment: 15.04.2024
Advocates:
- For the appellants (defendants no.1 and 2): Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, Advocate; Mr. Suman Kumar Verma, Advocate; Mr. Anish Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Amresh Kumar Mishra, Advocate
- For the respondents: Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Senior Advocate; Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC arising from a title suit for declaration of right, title and interest over immovable property with a consequential prayer for eviction and related reliefs.
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
