Quotable quotes

 The trial Court should always provide

greater latitude during trial proceedings
since it is the first Court of facts, and the
parties must be granted optimum facility to
present their cases.

 The tenant is neither confused nor is he

confused. He has his strategy well in place.
He knew he was liable to pay the rent. But
he did not pay. And, he has a point. A
tenancy under the Act is a statutory tenancy,
and once a lease comes under the
operational ambit of the statute, a tenant
will remain always a tenant till the Act
intervenes to end the tenancy in an eviction
proceeding.

 A tenancy under the Act is a statutory

tenancy, and once a lease comes under the
operational ambit of the statute, a tenant
will remain always a tenant till the Act
intervenes to end the tenancy in an eviction
proceeding.

 Divestiture of title by adverse possession

cannot be presumed merely because the
defendant was in possession of the property
for more than twelve years either if he does
 not plead, or having pleaded, fails to prove
nec vi, nec clam and nec precario vis-a-vis
his possession for an uninterrupted twelve
years.

 Turning to the effect of this misdescription

on the title. It is true that in a suit for
declaration of title the initial burden of
proof is only on the plaintiff, yet it is not
given to a rank trespasser of the property to
raise defences that they are hardly entitled
to plead. A suit for a bare injunction
presupposes the existence of a title as
supporting a lawful possession, but
declaration pertains to that very title. In the
former a suit is necessitated when
possession is threatened, and in the latter
situation, a suit becomes necessary when
there is a perceptible challenge to the title.
The core facts may remain the same, but not
the cause of action. to probe through a maze
of facts to enter a finding.

 Being a facet of human rights, not just the

State, every individual should withhold the
temptation of treading on another man’s
property. A tortious act of trespassing to
property thus assumes a different
dimension, and this cannot be disregarded
while understanding the measure of
 damages. Rule of law is both preventive and
ameliorative.

 If an understanding of the measure of

damages for trespass is limited to this
definition and considered as the exclusive
repository of the law of damages for
trespass, it instantly implies that a defendant
in illegal possession of a property is
conferred an unmerited patronage to seize
an undeserving premium for his wrongful
possession. To expatiate it, if a defendant is
prepared to pay the mesne profits as defined
and no more, he may be encouraged to do
that which is prohibited. After all he has to
restore in restitution that which he has
earned. It then would be defendant centric.
It, however, neither addresses the wrong
nor the damages which the plaintiff was
forced to suffer owing to the wrong. To
illustrate it, if an owner of a property leases
his property, he would be earning rent. The
same rent one in wrongful possession will
also be earned. If damages were to be a
mere restitution of the profits wrongfully
earned, it transfers the benefits so earned to
the owner, but the wrong still is waiting to
be compensated and punished. Thus, if an
understanding of damages is limited to a
decree for mesne profits as a levelling
component for neutralizing the burden
 resulting from trespass, it will be a negation
of unliquidated damages as a consequence
for a tortious wrong.

 Felicitous observations.

 This Court finds that the approach of the

Court below is not supported by law.

 The quintessence of the defence

 Preludial Statement:
 19.2 The plaintiff's narrative is made absorbing by an
intertwining of a set of tangible facts that could be proved
through evidence, with certain originating facts whose
existence, which a rational mind trained to accept a fact only
on evidence, may struggle to accept. This court, however,
needs to identify the invisible line separating the historical
facts and the rest, and to understand how far the former could
be accommodated as evidence, and the extent to which it
might be allowed the space while appreciating the evidence.
 20.1 A sedulous examination of the plaintiff's pleadings in its
deeper layers enables the segregation of his case into the
following parts:

 a) Let it be explained from the most fundamental elements of

civil litigation. A cause of action for a suit (as well as the
defence) rests on a certain right which law recognizes. It may
be founded on a solitary fact or multiple facts, may be
straightforward or layered, and confined to a specific time or
spread over an expanse of time. It depends on how a litigant
attempts to conceive his cause of action or the defence. It is
their prerogative. In the present batch of appeals, the facts are
layered and stretched over a few millennium years.

 b) The Court's focus, however, should not be on how a litigant

conceives a right, but on ascertaining if the right as conceived
is recognised in law so as to qualify for sustaining the cause of
action or defence. Tested on this plane, the plaintiff here
claims a title to the suit property based on his immemorial
 possession. In other words, both the right as pleaded by the
plaintiff and the manner of its conceptualisation are
permissible in law.

 g) The bottom line in appreciating the evidence is that the

Court cannot compel a litigant to prove that which is
impossible for him to prove through direct evidence. The rule
of best evidence readable in Stephen's document is associated
with the capacity of a litigant to produce such evidence which
is capable of being produced, for the law does not insist on
seeking proof of a fact which is beyond the ability of a party to
prove. It is hence, drawing the right inference from the right
material, subject to the condition where both the material and
the inference it produces earn acceptability within the scheme
of the Evidence Act, becomes critical. After all, no court shall
feel helpless to deal with a situation which the suitor presents.

 h) To sum it up: It is the litigant's prerogative to decide how a

cause for an action or defence must be conceived, and what
evidence which are within his capacity and ability to produce
for sustaining it. In the context of the case, the plaintiff traces
the origin of his right to be in possession to a period some
5,000 years ago. Most of the facts whose existence might have
been useful to prove their interconnection covering five
millennium years to form a logical sequence had inevitably
been lost in antiquity. And, the thumb rule is that the Court
should not require a litigant to do the impossible - requiring
him to produce such evidence which is beyond his ability to
produce. And, the Court cannot shy away from negotiating the
situation either.

 i) The situation amply indicates a need for a space-walk in

history and time, dark and void all around, with very few facts
to guide. This Court's duty is to examine if the evidence,
though limited and scanty in covering 5,000 years, is tested on
the evidentiary rules and tools which are best suited for the
purpose, produces the most probable inference required for
ascertaining the conceptualization of the cause of action for
the suit. A Star Trek moment.

 j) The challenge is more, when the litigants or the courts

below, in the estimate of this Court, have missed a couple of
rules or tools which the Evidence Act provides. A suitor is only
required to plead his facts in aid of the remedy he seeks, and it
 is the Constitutional obligation of this Court to ensure that he
is not denied a remedy if it is permissible in law, owing to the
litigant's failure to find the right principle in law. To apply the
right principle of law on a set of facts is the job of the Court
after all.

 n [Muttu Ramalinga Setupati v. Perianayagum Pillai, 1874

SCC Online PC 8 : (1873-74) 1 IA 209], the Privy Council dealt
with an objection to the judgment of the High Court on the
ground that excessive weight had been given to the reports of
Collectors. In that context, the Privy Council held : (SCC
OnLine PC)

 "Their Lordships think it must be conceded that when these

reports express opinions on the private rights of parties, such
opinions are not to be regarded as having judicial authority or
force. But being the reports of public officers made in the
course of duty, and under statutable authority, they are
entitled to great consideration so far as they supply
information of official proceedings and historical facts, and
also insofar as they are relevant to explain the conduct and
acts of the parties in relation to them, and the proceedings of
the Government founded upon them."
 (emphasis supplied)

 The Privy Council cautioned against the use of the report of

the Collector when it opined on matters relating to private
rights. But as records of official proceedings or historical facts,
and to explain the conduct of parties in relation to them, they
would provide useful material.

 ought to be read pragmatically and not

formalistically or euphemistically.

 unwavering loyalty