Title to Property Must Be Proven by Evidence, Not Just Claimed by Deed: Supreme Court Strikes Down Injunction

"Rectification Deed Executed After Two Decades Without Justification Cannot Cure a Broken Chain of Title" – On 17 December 2025, the Supreme Court of India reversed a High Court decree granting permanent injunction, reinstating the trial court’s dismissal of a suit where title and identity of the property remained unproven. The Court held that a rectification deed executed after 20 years, without adequate reason, coupled with an unauthenticated survey report, could not form the basis of an injunction.

Delivering the judgment, the Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran noted that plaintiffs failed to prove title, identity, or lawful possession over the disputed Site No. 66, and emphasized that “production is not proof” when documents are not supported by credible evidence or examined authors.

“Title to Property Must Be Proven by Evidence, Not Just Claimed by Deed” – Supreme Court Finds BDA Rectification Invalid After Quashing of Acquisition

The crux of the dispute revolved around Site No. 66, which the plaintiffs claimed to have acquired through a BDA auction in 1993, with a sale deed registered in 2003. However, the original acquisition was of land in Survey Nos. 349/1 and 350/12, which was later quashed by the High Court. The plaintiffs subsequently relied on a rectification deed in 2012, claiming that the correct site was in Survey Nos. 350/9, 350/10, and 350/11.

The Supreme Court was categorical that such rectification had no legal standing, stating:

“The change of survey numbers after two decades, especially without any valid reasons being shown… does not inspire confidence nor can it be treated as a valid rectification.”

Further, the Court observed that no residential construction was ever undertaken, despite a condition in the 1993 agreement requiring construction within two years.

“There was no such building existing even when the suit was filed in the year 2012 seeking permanent injunction. The title of the plaintiffs was rightly found to have been not established by the trial court.”

“Survey Conducted Behind Back of Defendants Cannot Be Relied Upon” – Supreme Court Rejects High Court's Reliance on Unauthenticated Survey Document

A key reason cited by the High Court in granting injunction was a survey allegedly conducted by BDA that reportedly supported the plaintiffs’ claim. However, the Supreme Court found that this survey:

• Was conducted ex parte at the behest of the plaintiffs’ advocate,

• Did not carry any seal or authenticated signature, and

• Was never proven in evidence, with the author of the document not examined in court.

The Court underscored a vital principle of evidence law:

“Production is not proof… The document, though produced by the plaintiff who deposed before court, cannot be relied upon without examining the Surveyor.”

Additionally, the Court faulted the plaintiffs for not seeking the appointment of a Commissioner to establish identity of the site through official means.

“Second Suit on Same Property Without Leave of Court Is Procedurally Improper” – Earlier Injunction Suit Barred Subsequent Action

The Supreme Court flagged a procedural violation as well. It noted that the plaintiffs had previously filed a suit (O.S. No. 26629 of 2011) concerning the same Site No. 66, albeit under different survey numbers. The present suit was filed after a rectification deed, but without leave of the court, and with altered property description.

“It is pertinent that O.S. No. 26629 of 2011 was filed earlier in time and there was no leave sought to file a subsequent suit… with the survey numbers… altered,” the Court remarked.

This violated Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which bars filing of subsequent suits in respect of the same cause of action, unless permitted by the court.

“Land Acquisition Set Aside – No Title Can Flow From a Non-Existent Acquisition” – BDA Had No Right to Allot Site

The Court also found the very foundation of the plaintiffs’ claim flawed, as the land allotted originally to their father was acquired from the appellants’ predecessor, and that acquisition was nullified by the High Court. No further title could legally emanate from such extinguished acquisition.

As per the judgment:

“The original allotment was made of the property acquired from the mother of the appellants… which acquisition proceedings were challenged successfully… the respondents cannot claim any right over the property.”

“Identification of Property Is Fundamental to Granting Injunction” – Supreme Court Restores Trial Court’s Finding on Lack of Proper Identification

Emphasizing the plaintiffs’ burden to identify the exact property sought to be protected, the Court noted that Site No. 66 was never located or identified with metes and bounds, nor were the true boundaries or measurements disclosed.

The Court observed:

“There was clear ambiguity in the identification of the schedule property… It was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to have identified the property by seeking deputation of a Commissioner.”

Since the plaintiffs failed to discharge this burden, the claim for injunction fell flat.

Equitable Relief Cannot Rest on Unproven Title or Fabricated Rectification

Setting aside the High Court’s judgment in First Appeal, the Supreme Court restored the trial court’s dismissal of the suit. The Court reaffirmed that injunctions cannot be granted without legal title or proven possession, and certainly not where property identification is ambiguous, documents are unauthenticated, and procedural rules are ignored.

This ruling reiterates a critical message:
“Rectification deeds executed after decades without sound reasoning cannot override the original defect in title or possession.”

It sets a clear precedent that survey documents, rectifications, and acquisition-based allotments must be subjected to strict evidentiary scrutiny, especially in civil suits involving permanent injunction.

Date of Decision: 17 December 2025