IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA 140 of 1997. Date of decision: January 4, 2008. Sh. Munshi and others ….Petitioners. Versus Balwant Singh ……Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Neelam Bansal, vice Sh. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). This is the defendants appeal against the concurrent findings of the two Courts below in a suit instituted by the respondent- plaintiff praying for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the suit land. 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - The defendants resisted the suit on a number of grounds inter alia that the plaintiff has no title to the suit land as the vendor from whom he is alleged to have purchased the land could not have inherited the land from Rulia who was a Mohammedan and did not have any right to sell the property. In addition, (and this is the primary defense) the defendant set up his title having purchased the suit land in auction from the Custodian Department on 30.12.1960 for which Sale Certificate was issued on June 1, 1972 and formal report of possession by the patwari was entered in the rojnamcha. The learned trial Court on consideration of the crucial issue as to whether the plaintiff was the owner in possession of the land, held that the defense set up by the respondent – defendant claiming ownership on the basis of transfer from the Evacuee Department could not be accepted as he has not proved his title and that the revenue record showed the plaintiff to be the owner in possession of the suit land. There was no evidence on record to substantiate the allegations of the defendants that they had in fact purchased the land and had become its owners. The Sale Certificate which was the document of title was not proved on the record. - 3 - An appeal to the learned District Judge was unsuccessful who affirmed the findings of the Court below. The appeal was admitted on two substantial questions of law, namely “1. Whether the property which is owned by Muslim can be bequeathed by way of a Will? In the absence of full title in favour of the vendor, whether the vendee is entitled to maintain such suit on the basis of the Sale Deed executed by the person having no title? “3. Can the revenue record be taken a foundation of title so as to confer title on the plaintiff-respondent who failed to establish full title by virtue of the Sale Deed in his favour?” Before entering into a discussion on these two questions, the factual foundation may be considered. The defendant alleges ownership on the basis of a purchase having been made from the Custodian of the Evacuee Department. There is no evidence or proof on record that the defendant is in fact the owner. Surely, if he was in possession of the Sale Certificate which was issued it could have been proved on the record. Mere oral statement of the defendant - 4 - that he has bought the property and is its registered owner is insufficient to hold that the defendants had acquired title to the land. The revenue record shows that the plaintiff is in possession as owner of this land. Even accepting the argument that revenue records do not constitute documents of title, there is no evidence on record to show that the defendant was at any time in possession or that he had any possessory right to the land. In these circumstances, both the questions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants become redundant. In these circumstances, the questions for determination are academic in nature as the defendants have failed to establish their title or possession on the land. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. January 4, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.