Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. The evidence of DW-1 was recorded on Commission. At this juncture itself it may be relevant to have a look at the findings recorded at Para-44 by the Trial Court which are as hereunder:

"Of course the respondents/defendants have not filed their tide deeds and their like documents. A plea is taken that these documents were lost by Defendant No. 1 while she was travelling in an Autorickshaw and that publications were made in the newspapers as seen from Exs.B-1 and B-2 dated 28-12-1994, that those documents were lost. But the respondents/defendants could not clinchingly prove that those documents were lost. In the absence of those documents it is not possible to give a finding that they hold title to the disputed property. But what has been proved is the respondents/defendants were always in possession of the suit property, at least from the year 1974 as recorded and is evident from the Municipal demand notice and subsequent payment of taxes by them and their exercising right over it by selling most of the property. The right in Plot No. 83 in favour of respondents/defendants cannot be held as their tide deeds were not produced, and on the other hand, in one of the sale deeds Exhibits B-14 the Plot No. is given by them is 25(a) but not 83, which is an anomaly which should have been explained by respondents/defendants, but they did not. Thus, what can be held with regard to the claim of the defendant is, though they could not prove that they have acquired tide over the suit property but they have been in possession of the suit property at least from the year 1974 is well established."