Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
H.P. Sandesh, J.
Thammaiah – Appellant
versus
Late Puttaiah S/o Seebaiah Since Deceased By His Lrs and Ors. – Respondents
R.S.A.No.580 of 2017 (Dec)
Decided on 11.4.2023
(1) Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 27 – Karnataka Land Grant Rules – Rule 25 – Title suit – Violation of non-alienation clause – Adverse possession -Grantee who held title over land sold the same in violation of non-alienation clause and thereby, transferee acquired voidable title – Transferee remained on the land for uninterrupted and continuous period of more than 12 years – Irrespective of sale effected pursuant to registered sale deed, since grantee who acquired title initially, took no steps to dispossess petitioner for period of twelve years, he by virtue of provisions contained under Section 27 of Limitation Act, lost his right to property and thereby, his title in land extinguished – Section 27 of Limitation Act, and Rule 25 of Grant Rules are aptly applicable since both vendor as well as competent authority have not invoked Rule 25 and sale was also not questioned by vendor and as result, their right is extinguished under Section 27 of Limitation Act – Plaintiff had purchased property in year 1972 and very same vendor had sold property in favour of defendants in year 1991 and once vendor had conveyed right in favour of plaintiff, even though there was non-alienation clause, same amounts to transfer of only voidable title and same is perfected in favour of transferee on completion of non-alienation period and same has not been questioned either by competent authority, who granted property in favour of plaintiff and so also defendants as well as vendor did not challenge very title of plaintiff which he had acquired vide sale deed 1972 and in terms of sale deed title confirms in favour of plaintiff – Contention of defendant that they are the bonafide purchasers cannot be accepted – Defendants cannot blow hot and cold and claim that they had purchased property and as result, they became owners and on other hand, cannot claim that they have perfected title by adverse possession – Impugned judgments of Courts below set aside. [Paras 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30]
(2) Title suit – Entry in revenue records – Even if by virtue of a mutation entry, name of person is entered in revenue records in respect of immovable property, it does not confer any right, title and interest on said person – Even if name of person appearing in revenue record is removed, it does not extinguish right, title and interest, if any, vesting in him in respect of property – Mutation or revenue entries are made only for fiscal purposes for deciding liability to pay land tax or land revenue – Sale deed was executed in 1972 and in same year, property was transferred in name of plaintiff in terms of mutation as well as RTCs but, same has been removed subsequently and that removal does not extinguish right, title or interest of plaintiff over suit schedule property since, he had acquired property by purchasing same in terms of sale deed – Courts failed to consider the document of sale deed dated 1972 and given more importance to revenue entries found in name of vendor, even after selling property and subsequently, on purchase of property by defendants, revenue entries were transferred in name of defendants – Said finding of both Courts is perverse, palpable and erroneous and contrary to settled proposition of law that in comprehensive suit, title of party has to be adjudicated based on title documents and not on basis of revenue records. [Paras 24, 25]
Result: Appeal allowed with costs.
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree of dismissal of suit in O.S.No.22/2012 dated 11.12.2014 and the judgment and decree of dismissal of appeal in R.A.No.2/2015 dated 16.12.2016 and pray this Court to set aside both the judgments and allow the appeal and consequently, pass the judgment and decree in favour of the appellant.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the appellant- plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction and later amended for possession is that the suit schedule property originally belongs to one Muttu, S/o. Honnegowda and the same has been purchased by the plaintiff by virtue of registered sale deed dated 18.12.1972 and he was put in possession of the property. The plaintiff is the absolute owner thereof and he has improved the suit schedule property by spending huge money and has raised coconut garden and paying taxes to the concerned authority. The defendants having no manner of right, title or possession over the suit schedule property made an attempt to interfere with his possession and made an attempt to dispossess him from the suit schedule property by denying the title over the suit schedule property. Hence, suit is filed for the relief of declaration and injunction. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that, during the pendency of the appeal in R.A.No.147/2006, the defendants herein taking advantage of the fact that no injunction was granted, illegally dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and hence, sought for the relief of possession.
3. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendants appeared and filed the written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the suit property was originally bearing Sy.No.8 and it belonged to one Muthaiah and his son Mahadevan and after durasth in the year 1964, it is renumbered as Sy.No.52 and the said Muthaiah and his son Mahadevan being the original owner in possession of the suit property, for their family necessity, sold the property in favour of defendant No.1 under registered sale deed dated 12.04.1991 for a valuable consideration of Rs.20,000/- and thereafter, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owners and improved the property by availing loan from the bank and constructed a pump-house and farm house and spent an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- for improvement of the suit schedule property and have grown 260 coconut trees and 450 areca nut trees and the revenue records are also standing in the name of the defendants and they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession.
4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed the issues and additional issues with regard to dispossession and also whether the suit is barred by law of limitation. The plaintiff, in order to prove his case, examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined two independent witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P9. On the other hand, the defendant No.3 examined himself as D.W.1 and also examined one independent witness as D.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D49.
5. The Trial Court, considering the arguments of the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, answered all the issues, including the additional issues as ‘negative’ and dismissed the suit. Hence, an appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.2/2015, wherein the grounds urged by the appellant before the First Appellate Court is that the Trial Court erred in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and particularly, failed to take note of Ex.P7-Encumbrance Certificate and the loan made in favour of the plaintiff from the Co-operative society and the Lower Court has completely ignored the direction issued by the High Court in W.P.No.13849/2002 which are relating to the direction to the lower Court in O.S.No.406/1998 not to be in
Mutation or revenue entries are made only for fiscal purposes for deciding liability to pay land tax or land revenue.
Mere entries in revenue records do not confer title; to maintain a suit for declaration, a party must also seek possession.
Ownership of immovable property must be established through valid title documents; revenue records alone do not confer ownership rights.
A plaintiff must establish their own ownership in a suit for title and possession, as entries in revenue records do not confer title.
Possession follows title; entries in revenue records do not confer ownership. A suit for injunction is maintainable without seeking declaration of title when possession is established.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of documentary evidence in establishing property ownership and the burden of proof in property disputes.
In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must prove ownership; failure to seek possession forfeits claims against an adverse possessor.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
