Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 475
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
M.G.S. Kamal, J.
Sri. Basavanni S/O. Channappa Malakayi - Appellants
Versus
Shri Babu S/O. Channappa Malakayi, Since Deceased Represented By His Lrs And Ors. - Respondents
Regular Second Appeal No.149 of 2007 (INJ)
Decided On : 11-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. Shivraj S. Balloli, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. B.S.Kamate, Advocate
A registered partition deed establishes severance of joint ownership, regardless of revenue record entries, unless rebutted by substantial evidence.
Headnote:(A) Land Revenue Act - Section 133 - Partition deed - The trial Court granted permanent injunction in favor of plaintiffs based on a registered partition deed dated 06.04.1979, allocating properties; however, the First Appellate Court reversed this, suggesting the deed was not acted upon - Court emphasized that mere failure to effect mutation does not negate evidence of executed partition as it creates severance of joint family status. (Paras 1-19)
(B) Title and Possession - The Court reaffirmed that possession can be inferred from a partition deed despite revenue records and noted that the presumption of joint property requires rebuttal. (Paras 15-18)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs, brothers, obtained joint family properties under a partition deed; defendants, sons of one brother, argued the deed was fraudulent and not acted upon, contesting plaintiffs' possession.
Findings of Court:
The trial Court validated the plaintiffs' possession based on the partition deed, but the First Appellate Court reversed this due to lack of revenue mutations.
Issues: Whether the First Appellate Court correctly reversed the trial Court’s decision based on the status of the partition deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The Appellate Court's position on the deed not being acted upon due to revenue entries contradicts the legal effect of a registered partition deed; mere failure in mutation does not invalidate it.
Result: Appeal allowed. The First Appellate Court's order set aside and trial Court's decree confirmed.
Key Points: - A registered partition deed establishes severance of joint ownership, regardless of revenue record entries, unless rebutted by substantial evidence (!) (!) (!) . - Possession can be inferred from a partition deed despite revenue records, and the presumption of joint property requires rebuttal (!) (!) (!) . - Mere failure to effect mutation does not negate the evidence of an executed partition, as it creates severance of joint family status (!) (!) (!) . - The trial court’s finding is validated where the partition deed proves severance and separate residence and cultivation for over 25 years (!) (!) . - Revenue entries carry a rebuttable presumption under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act, which is rebutted by the admitted execution of the registered partition deed (!) (!) . - The First Appellate Court incorrectly reversed the trial court by requiring action in revenue records despite the admitted partition deed (!) (!) (!) . - The appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside, and the trial court’s decree is confirmed (!) (!) (!) .
What is the effect of a registered partition deed on joint ownership and possession?
How to determine lawful possession when revenue records are not mutated?
Whether the appellate court can reverse a trial court’s order if the registered partition deed is admitted but not acted upon in revenue records?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details on the partition and plaintiffs' claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendants' denial of plaintiffs' claims. (Para 4 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. defendants denied the validity of the partition deed. (Para 5) |
| 4. trial court's appreciation of evidence on partition. (Para 6 , 7 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. analysis of appellate court's error regarding partition. (Para 11 , 19) |
| 6. conclusion of appeal and order. (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT :
M.G.S. Kamal, J.
1. The plaintiffs, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2006, passed in R.A. No.63/2004 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Hukkeri (for short “the First Appellate Court”), are before this Court.
2. By the aforesaid judgment and order, the First Appellate Court, while allowing the appeal filed by the defendants, set aside the judgment and decree, dated 11.10.2004 passed in O.S. No.23/2003 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Hukkeri (for short “the trial Court”), which had granted the relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are full brothers. That in terms of a registered deed of partition, dated 06.04.1979 plaintiffs and defendant No.1 divided joint family properties, consisting of both landed as well as residential properties. That the land bearing R.S. Nos.272/1, 272/2 & 272/3, totally measuring 8 acres and 22 guntas, was jointly allotted to the share of plaintiffs, while the land bearing R.S. No.212/2, totally measuring 10 acres 30 guntas, was allotted to the share of defendant No.1. Similarly, the house property bearing CTS No.1353, measuring East-West - 40 feet, North-South - 12.6 feet was jointly allotted to the share of plaintiffs. In addition, the plaintiffs were also allotted the property bearing CTS No.1336, which is an open site measuring East-West – 10 feet and North-South – 20 feet. The subject matter of the suit comprise portions of property in CTS No.1353 and CTS No.1336, which is the open site jointly allotted to the plaintiffs. That plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 were employees of Karnataka Police Department, plaintiff No.1 has retired, and plaintiff No.2 is serving at Davanagere Town. That, plaintiffs are residing in the property bearing CTS No.1353 and are also using the open site bearing CTS No.1336 for storing manure. That they have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares, exercising absolute ownership over the same in terms of the aforesaid deed of partition. That defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of defendant No.1, who at the instigation of defendant No.1, were interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Hence, the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction.
4. The defendants appeared and filed their written statement, denying the averments made in the plaint contended, inter alia, that the description of the suit properties as provided by the plaintiffs was incorrect. They alleged that the partition deed was fraudulent and created by the plaintiffs by taking advantage of the illiteracy of defendant No.1. No varadhi was given to the concerned authorities regarding the alleged partition deed. The names of the parties were not entered in respect of the properties as per the deed of partition. The name of defendant No.1 continues to be reflected in the records relating to the suit properties. The partition deed has not been acted upon till date. Defendant No.1 has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Defendant No.1 has constructed a house in the open site and has been using it for storing agricultural implements and produce, and for rearing cattles. The plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit properties. That defendant No.1 has installed the idol of Goddess Laxmidevi and performs pooja during fairs and festivals. The plaintiffs have no right to of
