No person can grant a better title than he himself holds,

State of A.P. v. Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Co., (2013) 9 SCC 319
Property Law
Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Ss. 54, 55(1)(a) to 55(1)(c) & 55(2) and 7 & 8 - Buyer's claim to paramount ownership and title in respect of property
purchased - Seller having different title from title that was professed to be sold i.e. seller concerned owned only leasehold
title, but professed to sell paramount title - Seller concerned (one A) held the leasehold under the Government as lessor -
Effect - Held, such sale deed was invalid and inoperative - Suit for declaration of paramount title to said property by buyer
against Government, held, could not be decreed, (2013) 9 SCC 319-A
Evidence Act, 1872

S. 17 - Admission by transferee as to non-holding of title by transferor - Letter written by buyer, S who had purportedly
been sold the paramount title by registered sale deed by A, stating that S had been cheated by its seller, A, as A had
professed to sell paramount title which A did not hold - Held, this was a clear admission by S that A did not have
paramount title - Hence, as no person can grant a better title than he himself holds, S could not come to hold paramount
title by virtue of the said sale deed, (2013) 9 SCC 319-B
Property Law
Ownership and Title
Proof - Presumption of title in favour of possessor - Such presumption under S. 110, Evidence Act, 1872 - Rebuttability
of - Held, presumption of title as a result of possession arises only where the facts disclose that no title vests in any party
- Further held, where possession of plaintiff is not prima facie wrongful, and his title is not proved, it certainly does not
mean that because a man has title over some land, he is necessarily in possession of it - It in fact means that, if at any
time a man with title was in possession of said property, the law allows the presumption that such possession was in
continuation of the title vested in him - Thus, all that S. 110 provides for is that where apparent title is with the plaintiffs,
then in order to displace said claim of apparent title and to establish good title in himself, it is incumbent upon defendant
to establish by satisfactory evidence the circumstances that favour defendant's version - Presumption of possession
and/or continuity thereof, both forward and backward, can be raised under S. 110, Evidence Act, 1872 - In present case,
plaintiff S was in possession of property in dispute as transferee (as sub-lessee) of a lessee (A) of the Government - S
claiming paramount title by filing suit for declaration of paramount title against Government - One R shown as pattadar in
revenue record of that land - No explanation by plaintiff S as to who R was and how plaintiff was concerned with it -
Documents showing that the Government was absolute owner of disputed land - On such facts, judgments of courts
below decreeing plaintiff's suit for paramount title, held, not justified and, therefore, set aside, (2013) 9 SCC 319-C
Property Law
Ownership and Title
Proof - Revenue record - Nature and value of - Held, it is not a document of title - It merely shows possession of a
person, (2013) 9 SCC 319-D
Evidence Act, 1872
S. 90 - Presumption under, as to documents 30 yrs old - Reckoning of period of 30 yrs mentioned in S. 90 - Mode of -
Held, said period must be reckoned backward from the date of offering of the document, and not any subsequent date
i.e. the date of decision of suit or appeal - In present case, suit filed in 1974 on basis of registered sale deed dt. 11-11-
1959 - High Court considering said sale deed in the light of S. 90 and reckoning period of 30 yrs as to said deed from
1959 till the date of its impugned decision passed in appeal i.e. 22-3-2004, treating the appeal as a continuation of the
suit - Held, such a view by High Court was impermissible and perverse - Hence, not acceptable, 

Estoppel or acquiescence - Ownership of property - Acceptance of municipal/agricultural tax by State in respect of
property or grant of loan by bank upon hypothecation/mortgage of the property - Effect of - Held, mere acceptance of
municipal tax or agricultural tax by a person, cannot estop the State from challenging ownership of the land, as there
cannot be estoppel against the statute - Nor can such a presumption arise in case of grant of loan by a bank upon it
hypothecating the property, 

Print Page