Balakrishna (Dead) Thr. LRs. v. G.N. Kanniah Naidu (Dead) Thr. LRs. and Another
Background
A decree-holder won a 1999 title and possession decree based only on a photocopy of a 1972 land grant. When he tried to execute it in 2000, a third party who was never part of the original suit resisted, claiming he held the original 1972 grant document and had built structures on the site decades earlier. Both lower courts rejected his claim.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court reversed, finding the lower courts had the evidence backwards: the resisting party's son had produced the original title document, while the decree-holder had never produced anything but an unadmitted photocopy. Possession of the original document, not tax receipts, was the real indicator of title. The Court also held that a person never made party to a suit over "their" land is entitled to resist execution directly rather than being forced into a fresh suit, since the law specifically bars that separate-suit route.
Lesson Learnt
Producing the original title document carries far more evidentiary weight than a photocopy or tax receipts; someone who only learns of an adverse decree at execution can resist it directly rather than filing a fresh suit.