Union Of India (Uoi) Represented By Its ... vs Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society ... on 6 September, 2002
In the judgment reported in (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 269 in the matter of Union of India and others vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd and others, it has been held that the revenue records do not confer title. Even if the entries in the revenue record state that T.S.No.2/2 is a Boosthathi Tar Road, that itself would not confer any title. The plaintiffs have to show independent of those entries, that the land ws dedicated to the appellant by the owners. Therefore, on the basis of Ex.A.9, the appellant cannot claim any right over T.S.No.2/2 and claim that it is a public road. It is seen from the Commissioner's Report that surveyor was not able to locate the survey stone as per the Town Survey Records and he measured the property by using the measurements available with the houses and buildings in the street and the request of the respondent to surveyor to measure the area using Bhavani river which is on the western side of the suit property was not considered. Further, it is admitted that the defendant had already put up construction in his property after getting permission from the Municipality even in the year 1987 and thereafter, in 2003, he applied for permission to put a new construction in the same place and that was granted by the appellant. As per Exs.B.1 and B.2, western boundary of the property belonging to the defendant is only 12 feet road and at the time of granting permission to construct the building by the defendant, no claim was made by the appellant on the western boundary as the land in T.S.No.2/2 is a public road. These aspects were properly appreciated by the Courts below and considering the oral and documentary evidence, both the Courts below have rightly held that the appellant failed to prove its title in respect of the land in T.S.No.2/2 and being the plaintiff/appellant, it has to prove its title and it cannot take advantage of the weaknesses of the defendant and having failed to prove its title, the appellant is not entitled to the relief prayed for.