The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has dismissed an appeal filed by individuals claiming title over property belonging to the ‘Sri Pothuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamy Mutt’. The Court held that mere similarity in the surname ‘Matam’ does not make the Mutt’s property ancestral property of the plaintiffs. The Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam reiterated that revenue entries do not confer title and the presumption of “possession follows title” cannot be invoked without proof of lawful possession and title.
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed by Matam Ashok Kumar and another (Appellants/Plaintiffs) challenging the judgment and decree dated July 28, 2011, passed by the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. The appellants had filed a suit (O.S.No.6 of 2004) seeking a declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding specific properties in Aamuru and Narasapuram villages.
The plaintiffs claimed that their family surname was ‘Matam’ and that their ancestor was Matam Veera Brahmam Swamy. They argued that the schedule properties were their ancestral family properties, which they had been cultivating. They relied on cist receipts and pattadar passbooks issued by revenue authorities. They alleged that the original passbooks were seized by the Revenue Inspector at the instance of the Mandal Revenue Officer.
The 2nd Respondent, Veera Brahmam Matam (represented by its Manager), contested the suit. They argued that the property belonged to the “Sri Pothuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamy Mutt” (a religious institution). They contended that the plaintiffs were merely taking advantage of the name ‘Matam’ associated with the service to the Mutt and were not the owners.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the property belonged to their ancestors, whereas the defendants produced evidence showing the property belonged to the Mutt.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Submissions: Senior Counsel Sri P. Veera Reddy, appearing for the appellants, argued that the plaintiffs’ surname is ‘Matam’ and relied on cist receipts (Exs.A1 to A28) and pattadar passbooks (Exs.A29 to A32) as proof of title. He contended that the burden was on the defendants to disprove title.
The counsel further argued that the 2nd defendant’s written statement contained an admission regarding the plaintiffs’ cultivation. He submitted that since the defendants pleaded ignorance in their written statement regarding certain claims, it should be treated as an admission. He also argued that since the defendants had not initiated proceedings under Section 83 of the Endowments Act despite alleging encroachment, the plaintiffs’ possession should be protected.
Respondents’ Submissions: The Assistant Government Pleader for the State (1st Respondent) supported the Trial Court’s judgment, submitting that the property belonged to the Mutt. He argued that the plaintiffs created passbooks by taking advantage of their father’s name and that the burden of proof lay on the plaintiffs to establish their own title, not on the weakness of the defence.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court conducted a detailed analysis of the evidence and legal principles regarding the declaration of title.
1. Burden of Proof: Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited (2014) 2 SCC 269, the Court observed:
“It is trite law that, in a suit for declaration of title, the burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff.”
The Bench noted that the plaintiffs failed to produce any registered document or revenue adangal to prove that the property originally belonged to their claimed ancestor, Matam Veera Brahmam Swamy.
2. Surname ‘Matam’ and Title: The Court explicitly rejected the argument that the surname ‘Matam’ implied ownership of the Mutt’s property. The judgment stated:
“Merely because of ‘Matam’ being common, the suit for declaration could not be decreed… Mere resemblance of the surname ‘Matam’ would not make the property recorded in the name of ‘Mutt’ the ancestral property of the plaintiffs.”
3. Revenue Entries Not Proof of Title: The Court relied on Nagar Palika v. Jagat Singh (1995) 3 SCC 426 and Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner (2007) 6 SCC 186 to reiterate that revenue records are not documents of title.
“Mere mutation in revenue records does not confer any title nor is a proof of title.”
4. Possession Follows Title: The appellants attempted to invoke the presumption under Section 110 of the Evidence Act (Section 113 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). The Court clarified that this presumption applies only when facts disclose no title in either party.
“Possession follows title, is the presumption that may be raised under Section 110 of the Evidence Act… To raise such presumption, the possession must at any time be with title and the person must have continued with possession which was prima facie not unlawful… The property being recorded in the name of the 2nd defendant (Endowment Commissioner) Exs.X7 & X8, the presumption that possession follows title, cannot be attracted nor invoked…”
Decision
The High Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court, noting that the 2nd defendant had produced Title Deeds and Pattadar passbooks (Exs.B7 and B8) showing the property belonged to the Endowment Commissioner/Mutt.
The Court concluded:
“The plaintiffs having failed to establish title by adducing document of title the suit for declaration could not succeed.”
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: Matam Ashok Kumar and another v. State of A.P. Rep. by its District Collector, Kurnool and another
Case No: First Appeal No. 609 of 2011
Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
