NARAYAN SINGH Vs. RAMRATAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's appeal who has lost in both the Courts below. I have gone through the impugned judgment and I have found no scope for my interference with the two findings of fact crucial to disposal of the appeal.

(2.) ONE , plaintiff's vendor Gangaram's acquisition of title allegedly from one Prabhulal has not been established. Two, for more than 25 to 30 years, the defendants are possessing the suit land. Admittedly, the suit being for declaration of titile and recovery of possession, plaintiff could succeed only on proving his title to get a decree against the defendants for recovery of possession of suit land from them. Shri R.D. Jain has submitted that there is one Khasra entry in the name of Gangaram and that is not challenged. Gangaram being duly recorded as bhumiswami of the land, he had prima facie title to the land which he could sell validly to plaintiff Narayan Singh. Second contention of Shri Jain is that there is admission in the written statement of Gangaram being owner of the suit land and, there from, there was no burden on the plaintiff to establish that Gangaram's subsisting title could be validly passed to plaintiff Narayan Singh.

(3.) GANGARAM 's evidence is that for Rs. 125/ -, he had purchased the suit land from Prabhulal and his sale deed, he had given to his vendee Narayan Singh, but no sale -deed is produced with respect to the purchase made by Gangaram from his vendor Prabhulal. As to reliance on the admission, that is also of no avail because of the settled position in law that admission also does not create any title; neither is title created by waiver or acquiescence. When issue was struck on the question of title that had to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced if there was no legal evidence on the question of his title that could be taken into consideration in deciding the question of title. As earlier alluded, that evidence was of sale -deed allegedly executed by Ganeshram's vendor Prabhulal, but that has not come on record and no secondary evidence is adduced.