Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 61

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, INDIRA BANERJEE, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE & ANR. – Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
FARAULLA KHAN & ANR. – Respondent(s)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.5743/2020 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-06-2019 in WA No.4393/2013 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru)
Decided On : 25-01-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Yatindra Singh, Anand S., T. R. B. Sivakumar, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Shailesh Madiyal, Sudhanshu Prakash, Advocates

Mutation does not confer title and should be subject to pursuit of other remedies available under the law.

Headnote:
Mutation - Property Title Dispute - The court clarified that mutation does not confer title and should be subject to pursuit of other remedies available under the law. The court also emphasized that injunctive relief should be sought in the competent civil court where the proceedings are pending.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, arguing that a title suit is pending and the High Court should not have issued a direction for mutation.
Finding of the Court:

The court clarified that mutation will be subject to pursuit of other remedies available under the law and that injunctive relief should be sought in the competent civil court where the proceedings are pending.
Issues: Dispute over mutation direction and injunctive relief pending title suit adjudication.
Ratio Decidendi: Mutation does not confer title and should be subject to pursuit of other remedies available under the law. Injunctive relief should be sought in the competent civil court where the proceedings are pending.
Final Decision: The Special Leave Petition was disposed of, and pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

ORDER

1. Mr Yatindra Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while assailing the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dated 26 June 2019 dismissing Writ Appeal No 4393/2013, submits that a title suit (OS No 4413/2000) is presently pending between the petitioners and Lakshminarayana Charitable Trust, where the title to the suit property is under adjudication. The submission which has been urged is that pending the decision of the title suit, the High Court ought not to have issued a direction for mutation.

2. The High Court has clarified that the direction for mutation will be subject to the pursuit of any other remedy available under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act 1956 and it is open to the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to establish its title by following due process of law. With the clarification which has been issued by the Division Bench of the High Court in the present petition, it is not necessary to entertain the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is well settled that mutation entries do not by themselves confer title which has to be established independently in a declaratory suit.

3. We are also not inclined to accept the alternate submission of the learned senior counsel that this Court should injunct the respondents from creating third party interests. Any such application for interim relief would have to be addressed before the competent civil court where the proceedings are pending or which the petitioners may be advised to pursue.

4. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly disposed of.

5. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis