Title and possession may be decreed despite inadmissible revenue records when independently established.

The plaintiff claimed title to 5½ cents in Survey No. 119/8 under a sale deed dated 6 March 1985 and sought declaration and recovery of possession.

The defendant claimed a separate property in Survey No. 118 under a 1986 sale deed and disputed the identity of the plaintiff’s land.

In an earlier suit, the defendant obtained a decree concerning 1,410 sq. ft. but not the additional land claimed.

The trial court decreed the plaintiff’s suit, and the first appellate court affirmed.

The defendant appealed to the High Court.

Whether the suit was barred by limitation, including under Article 58 of the Limitation Act

Whether the courts below properly exercised their discretion under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, in granting declaratory relief

Whether the courts below could decree the suit on the basis of Exhibits A4 and A6, which the appellant challenged as inadmissible

Under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, a suit for a declaration must be brought within three years from when the right to sue first accrues; Article 65 governs recovery of possession based on title where the defendant’s possession is alleged to be adverse.

Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act governs declaratory relief.

The court also applied the evidentiary distinction between an objection that a document is inherently inadmissible—which may be raised even after it is marked—and an objection to the mode or sufficiency of proof, which should ordinarily be raised when the evidence is tendered.

Relying on *Jagmail Singh v. Karamjit Singh*, *R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple* and *Union of India v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.*, the court reiterated that a plaintiff seeking declaration and possession must establish their own title; failure of the defendant’s title alone cannot entitle the plaintiff to relief.

The court held that Exhibits A4 and A6, being photocopies of copies of Tahsildar communications, could not be relied on as secondary evidence; however, the plaintiff’s title did not depend on them.

The plaintiff’s title deeds and the evidence identifying the land as Survey No. 119/8 were sufficient, while the defendant’s claim concerned Survey No. 118, for which he had already obtained a decree only to the extent of 1,410 sq. ft.

The court therefore found the properties distinct and the plaintiff’s title established independently of the disputed exhibits.

It rejected the limitation challenge, reasoning that the suit sought possession on the basis of title and was governed by Article 65, while also noting Article 58’s three-year period for declaratory relief.

On that basis, it upheld the grant of declaration and possession under Section 34.

It nevertheless held that the plaintiff had established title through other evidence and dismissed the second appeal, leaving the concurrent decrees for declaration and recovery of possession undisturbed.

No costs were awarded.