2023 Supreme(SC) 1165

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BELA M. TRIVEDI, DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.
P. Kishore Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Vittal K. Patkar – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7210 of 2011
Decided on : 20-11-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Vendor cannot transfer a title to vendee better than he himself possesses – In a dispute with respect to determination of title, merely pointing out lacunae in defendant’s title would not suffice.
(2) Second appeal – Interference ought not to be made unless appeal involves a substantial question of law as distinguished from a mere question of law.

Headnote:

(A) Civil Procedure Code , 1908 – Section 100 – Second appeal – Substantial question of law – Law on what would constitute a ‘substantial question of law’ within meaning of Section 100, CPC has not changed over years and jurisdiction continues to be limited – Interference ought not to be made unless appeal involves a substantial question of law as distinguished from a mere question of law. (Para 6)

(B) Property Law – Grant of Occupancy Rights – Revenue records are not documents of title – Commissioner’s order distinctly denying rights of occupancy to plaintiff’s vendor is evidence that renders these revenue entries unworthy of acceptance – Sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff, also tilts balance against him – Vendor cannot transfer a title to vendee better than he himself possesses – Plaintiff’s vendor having been denied right of title in land by Commissioner’s order, could not have conveyed same to her vendee – Plaintiff failed to produce a single document of title in respect of suit property – In a dispute with respect to determination of title, merely pointing out lacunae in defendant’s title would not suffice – Having instituted suit for declaration, burden of proof rested on shoulders of plaintiff to reasonably establish probability of better title, which plaintiff in present case, has manifestly failed to do – Trial Court erred in decreeing suit by placing on a higher probative pedestal revenue entries – First appellate court rightly overturned findings of Trial Court and dismissed suit – Impugned judgment and decree set aside. [Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954 – Sections 9 and 9A] (Paras 11, 16, 17, 18, 22, 27, 30 and 31)

Facts of the case:

Instant civil appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 29th November, 2010 rendered by Karnataka High Court, whereby an appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was allowed, resulting in restoration of decree passed by Trial Court and setting aside of first appellate decree dismissing suit of plaintiff-respondent.

Findings of Court:

Any observation made in this judgment may not prejudice plaintiff’s right, if any, in respect of ‘A’ schedule property; if in future his right is put to jeopardy and the appropriate forum is approached to protect such right, such forum shall proceed to decide the lis on its own merits.

Result : Civil Appeal allowed.