Brief Facts

The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction and possession claiming absolute ownership of the property and asserting that the respondent was only a licensee.

The respondent contested the suit by claiming tenancy and relied upon the revenue records which consistently showed him as ‘Gair Marusi’ (tenant) of the appellant since 1965.

The Trial Court accepted the revenue entry and dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court reversed the decree mainly on the ground that the respondent had not entered the witness box. The High Court set aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment and restored the Trial Court’s decree.

Issue

Whether the High Court was justified in restoring the Trial Court’s judgment dismissing the suit for possession when the defendant had not stepped into the witness box?

Reasoning of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the revenue records clearly established that the respondent was a tenant from 1965 onwards. There was no dispute regarding the existence of the said entry.

When a party relies upon an undisputed document, there is no legal necessity for that party to enter the witness box. The obligation to examine oneself arises only when a new fact asserted by the party is required to be proved.

The plaintiff must prove his own case independently. A defendant is fully entitled to take even inconsistent pleas. Since the appellant was seeking a different interpretation of an undisputed revenue entry and the revenue officers had neither been impleaded nor examined, no interference with the High Court’s judgment was warranted.

Held

The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

However, as the title of the appellant is not in dispute (the respondent’s plea itself being one of tenancy), liberty is granted to the appellant to initiate fresh proceedings. The present proceedings shall not come in the way of any such fresh suit.