House Owner Avoids Demolition After Rival Land Buyer Fails To Prove Encroachment, Chhattisgarh HC Sets Aside Possession Decree

The plaintiff claimed to have purchased 1,755 sq. ft. of land bearing Khasra No. 67/10 under a registered sale deed dated 22 April 2004. He alleged that the defendant had encroached on that land by constructing a house. The defendant maintained that his house stood on a different parcel, Khasra No. 67/15, which he had purchased under a registered sale deed dated 23 August 2006.

The trial court decreed the suit, declaring the plaintiff’s title and ordering vacant possession after demolition of the house, as well as permanent injunction. The defendant appealed under Section 96 CPC.

Under Sections 101–103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the party seeking relief bears the burden of proving its own case; a weakness in the opposing party’s case does not, by itself, establish entitlement to relief (Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Union of India, (2014) 2 SCC 269).

A first appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC permits rehearing on fact and law and requires the appellate court to independently assess the evidence and record reasoned findings (Shasidhar v. Ashwini Uma Mathad, (2015) 11 SCC 269).

A claimant seeking possession based on alleged encroachment must establish that the defendant occupies the specific land claimed; the identity and extent of the alleged encroachment must be proved by reliable evidence.

The judgment also considered Order VII Rule 7 CPC in relation to pleading the extent of the alleged encroachment.

The Court accepted that the plaintiff had produced a sale deed for Khasra No. 67/10, but held that this did not establish that the defendant’s house stood on that parcel.

The vendor evidence did not reliably identify the land, and the plaintiff’s vendor acknowledged that the land had been purchased without survey or adequate verification.

The demarcation material was also insufficient: the defendant had not been shown to have received notice, no actual measurement of the occupied area was made, and the report proceeded on the land identified by the plaintiff.

The Court further found discrepancies between the boundaries in the plaintiff’s vendors’ deeds and noted the absence of specific pleading or measurement of the alleged encroachment.

Applying the rule that the plaintiff had to prove his own case, the Court concluded that the evidence did not establish the defendant’s occupation of the plaintiff’s land.

The appeal was allowed, the trial court’s judgment and decree were set aside, and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs.