GOVERNMENT OF GOA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY versus MARIA JULIETA D’SOUZA (D) & ORS.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1190, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Facts
* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1190 : 2024 INSC 88
Government of Goa through the Chief Secretary 
v. 
Maria Julieta D’Souza (D) & Ors. 
(Civil Appeal No. 722 of 2016)
31 January 2024
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Aravind Kumar, JJ.] 
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court, while allowing first appeal against 
judgment of trial court that dismissed the suit filed by respondent 
for declaration of title and injunction, had wrongly shifted the 
burden of proof on to the State (defendant) rather than requiring 
the plaintiff to prove its title. 
Headnotes
Suit –  Suit for declaration of title and injunction – Standard of 
proof – While inquiring into whether a fact is proved, sufficiency 
of evidence to be seen in the context of standard of proof, 
which in civil cases is by preponderance of probability.
Held: While it was submitted that the High Court wrongly shifted 
the plaintiff’s burden to prove its own case for declaration on to the 
State and that the plaintiff must prove its own case, it is found that 
what was being submitted was not about the burden of proof but 
the standard of proof – This is a matter relating to the sufficiency 
of evidence – While inquiring into whether a fact is proved, the 
sufficiency of evidence is to be seen in the context of standard 
of proof, which in civil cases is by preponderance of probability – 
By this test, the High Court has correctly arrived at its conclusion 
regarding the existence of title in favour of the plaintiff on the
basis 
of the evidence adduced. [Paras 6, 8]
Evidence – Common law jurisprudence – Distinction between 
burden of proof and standard of proof – This distinction is 
well-known to civil as well as criminal practitioners in common 
law jurisprudence. [Para 8]
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
1191
Government of Goa through the Chief Secretary v. 
Maria Julieta D’Souza (D) & Ors.
Case Law Cited
Sebastiao Luis Fernandes (Dead) through LRs. v. K.V.P. 
Shastri (Dead) through Lrs., [2013] 11 SCR 1076 : (2013) 
15 SCC 161 and Union of India v. Vasavi Cooperative 
Housing Society Limited, (2014) 2 SCC 269 : [2014] 1 
SCR 180 – referred to.
List of Keywords
Suit; Declaration of title and injunction; Burden of proof; Common 
law; Jurisprudence; Burden of proof; Standard of proof; Sufficiency 
of evidence; Preponderance of probability; Title; Injunction; 
Evidence.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.722 of 2016
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.10.2010  of the High Court 
of Bombay at Panaji, Goa in FA No.282 of 2007
Appearances for Parties
Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Shishir Deshpande, Ms. Harshita Sharma, Ms. 
Swati Jain, Ms. Pooja Tripathi, Tejaswin Suri, Advs. for the Appellant.
Huzefa Ahmedi, Sr. Adv., U R Timble, Ajay Kumar Jha, Abhishek 
Chaudhary, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
1.	
This is an appeal against the final judgment of the High Court of 
Bombay at Goa allowing the first appeal against the judgment of 
the Trial Court dated 25.07.2007 that dismissed the suit filed by the 
respondent herein.
2.	
The suit came to be filed by the respondent(s) herein for declaration 
of title and injunction. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on two 
grounds:
first, the plaintiff could not establish her title by way of a 
clear document of title in her favour. Second the suit is itself barred 
by limitation.
1192
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
3.	
In appeal, the High Court considered the matter in detail and in so far 
as the first ground is concerned, the High Court referred to various 
documents including deeds evidencing the presence of title in favour 
of the plaintiffs’ predecessor followed by their continuous possession 
and came to the conclusion that her title over the property is well-
established. So far as limitation is concerned, the High Court held 
that the suit is within the period of limitation, apart from also noting 
that the question of limitation was not pressed by the Government 
before the Trial Court.
4.	
We heard Ms. Ruchira Gupta, who was well-prepared on law and 
fact. She prepared a detailed list of dates and has also taken us 
through the relevant portions of the pleadings in the suit and other 
documents. She has pointed out the findings of fact as arrived by 
the Trial Court. Referring to the reasoning of the High Court, she 
submitted that the High Court had wrongly shifted the burden of 
proof on to the State (defendant) rather than requiring the plaintiff 
to prove its title. She further submitted that the High Court wrongly 
asked for proof of possession of the property rather than for proof of 
title of the property, which is the only inquiry in a suit for declaration. 
In support of her submission, she has referred to the precedents 
of this Court in Sebastiao Luis Fernandes (Dead) through LRs. v. 
K.V.P. Shastri (Dead) through
LRs.1 and Union of India v. Vasavi 
Cooperative Housing Society Limited2.
5.	
Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that the 
High Court has correctly reappreciated the facts and evidence while 
exercising first appellate jurisdiction and has also followed the law 
as applicable in proving a suit for declaration. The High Court has 
also examined the plea of limitation and held that the suit is within 
the period of limitation.
6.	
While Ms. Ruchira Gupta submitted that the High Court wrongly 
shifted the plaintiff’s burden to prove its own case for declaration 
on to the State and that the plaintiff must prove its own case, we 
found that what she was submitting was not about the burden of 
proof but the standard of proof. We will explain this in the context 
of fact as well as law.  
1	
[2013] 11 SCR 1076 : (2013)15 SCC 161
2	
[2014] 1 SCR 180 : (2014)2 SCC 269
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
1193
Government of Goa through the Chief Secretary v. 
Maria Julieta D’Souza (D) & Ors.
7.	
On fact, the High Court referred to multiple pieces of evidence, 
orders, and documents and string them together to come to a clear 
conclusion that the title subsists in the plaintiff. Suffice for us to say 
that these pieces of evidence were adduced and proved by the plaintiff 
alone. The High Court did not solely rely on the lack of evidence by 
the State to establish its own title in coming to its conclusion. Thus, 
the burden of proof was well-discharged by the plaintiff and the High 
Court correctly examined and concluded its findings based on the 
plaintiff’s evidence. 
8.	
On law, the position is as follows. There is a clear distinction between 
burden of proof and standard of proof.  This distinction is well-known 
to civil as well as criminal practitioners in common law jurisprudence. 
What Ms. Ruchira sought to point out is that the documents relied 
on by the plaintiff did not point out the existence of title at all. She 
is right to the extent that no single document in itself concludes 
title in favour of the plaintiff, but this is not an issue of burden of 
proof. This is a matter relating to the sufficiency of evidence. While 
inquiring into whether a fact is proved3, the sufficiency of evidence 
is to be seen in the context of standard of proof, which in civil cases 
is by preponderance of probability. By this test, the High Court has 
correctly
arrived at its conclusion regarding the existence of title in 
favour of the plaintiff on the basis of the evidence adduced.
9.	
For these reasons, Civil Appeal arising out of judgment of the High 
Court in First Appeal No. 282 of 2007 dated 21.10.2010 is dismissed.
10.	 Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
11.	 No order as to costs.
Headnotes prepared by: Bibhuti Bhushan Bose 	
Result of the case: 
Appeal dismissed.
3	
Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act defines the terms as:
“Proved”.––A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either 
believes it to exist,   or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circum-
stances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists