Burden of Proof for Ownership Remains with Plaintiff Absent Defendant’s Counter-Claim turn on Additional Issues

The petitioners (original plaintiffs) filed Special Civil Suit No. 162 of 2017 seeking a declaration of ownership over specific properties in Village Khuntalia and an injunction against the State from disturbing their possession

After the trial court framed the primary issues in August 2018, the petitioners filed an application (Exhibit 114, erroneously referred to as Exhibit 103 in parts of the judgment) in July 2019

They sought to add additional issues casting the burden of proof on the State/defendants to prove that the suit property was vested in the Government through due process and that possession was legally obtained from the owner

The trial court rejected the application, leading to this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether the trial court committed an error in law by refusing to frame additional issues casting the burden of proof on the defendants regarding the vesting of land in the State Government.

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere with the trial court's discretionary order on framing issues.

the fundamental principle of the law of evidence that the burden of proof lies upon the party who seeks a declaration of a right (plaintiff), as well as the procedural principle that in the absence of a counter-claim by the defendant, no burden can be cast upon them to prove their title

the court exercised its limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is reserved for correcting patent errors of law or perversity rather than substituting the trial court’s discretion

The High Court observed that the plaintiffs initiated the suit for a declaration of ownership. Consequently, under the Evidence Act, the primary burden remains on the plaintiffs to prove their title, a fact already reflected in the issues framed by the trial court

The court noted that the respondents had not filed a counter-claim; therefore, they were not seeking a declaration of their own title that would necessitate a separate issue shifting the burden of proof to them

The Court also highlighted the delay, noting that the plaintiffs sought additional issues nearly a year after the original issues were settled.

Finding no perversity or gross error in the trial court's decision, the High Court determined that interference under Article 227 was unwarranted

The High Court dismissed the petition... the court found no merit in the petition and discharged the rule, vacating all interim reliefs and disposing of connected applications