The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the principle that rights over property cannot be established on the basis of inadmissible or unreliable evidence. In a pivotal judgment delivered by a bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol, the court dismissed a decades-old land ownership claim in Shambhu Chauhan v. Ram Kirpal Alias Chirkut & Others (Civil Appeal No. 3311 of 2017).
Case Background
The case involved a long-standing dispute over Khata Nos. 38 and 193 in the village of Muda Dih, Deoria district, Uttar Pradesh. The appellant, Shambhu Chauhan, contested the High Court’s decision, which upheld earlier findings that rejected the claims of Smt. Gulabi, a self-claimed heir to the disputed land.
Gulabi alleged that she was the daughter of Aftee, the previous recorded landholder, and thus entitled to co-tenancy rights. The land, which was notified for consolidation in 1973 under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, had been recorded in the names of other parties following a mutation order in 1959. This order was unchallenged for 14 years.
Legal Issues
The primary issue revolved around the validity of Gulabi’s claim of inheritance and whether the evidence presented by her was sufficient to overturn the existing ownership records. The following key questions were examined:
- Was Gulabi the biological daughter of Aftee, and did she inherit the land as per succession laws?
- Did the lower courts err in rejecting her claim based on the evidence provided?
- Was the High Court justified in overturning the findings of the appellate and revisional authorities?
The matter passed through multiple judicial forums, including the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer, and Deputy Director of Consolidation, before reaching the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The bench emphasized that the burden of proof in inheritance disputes lies squarely on the claimant. The court ruled that the evidence presented by Gulabi was insufficient and inadmissible, noting the following:
- Ocular Evidence: The testimonies of witnesses failed to inspire confidence, with one key witness providing contradictory statements about Gulabi’s lineage.
- Documentary Evidence: The birth register, relied upon heavily by Gulabi, was riddled with discrepancies and lacked corroboration. The court highlighted that no witness responsible for maintaining or certifying the document was examined, rendering the evidence untrustworthy.
- Delay in Challenge: The mutation order, which served as the basis for recording the land in the names of the respondents, went unchallenged for over 14 years. The court deemed this delay as indicative of a lack of credible claim.
Key Observations of the Court
Justice Sanjay Karol, writing for the bench, stated:
- “It is a well-settled position of law that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence unless the findings of the lower authorities are perverse or based on inadmissible evidence.”
- On the birth register evidence, the court remarked, “Entries made therein are factually incorrect and do not inspire confidence. Rights over property cannot be established on such infirm evidence.”
- Addressing the burden of proof, the judgment noted, “The onus lies upon the claimant to establish their rights through credible and admissible evidence, which Gulabi has failed to discharge.”
Final Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that the findings of the appellate and revisional authorities, which favored Gulabi, were flawed and based on inadmissible evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the respondents’ ownership rights over the land were affirmed.
