Entries in revenue records do not confer ownership; corroborative evidence is essential for establishing title.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.07.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI C.R.P.[PD].(MD)No.1909 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD)No.10763 of 2025 P.Muniyappan ...Petitioner Vs.

N.Kathirvel ...Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Impugned return of the Interlocutory application under I.A.Sr.No.4374 of 2025 in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2017, dated 13.06.2025, on the file of the Principle District Munsif Court, Karur and to direct the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur to number the present Interlocutory Application under I.A.Sr.No.4374 of 2025 in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2017, dated 13.06.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Laxman

O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking to set aside the Impugned return of the Interlocutory application under I.A.Sr.No.4374 of 2025 in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2017, dated 13.06.2025, on the file of the Principle District Munsif Court, Karur and to direct the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur to number the present Interlocutory Application under I.A.Sr.No.4374 of 2025 in R.C.O.P.No.3 of

2017, dated 13.06.2025.

2.Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a tenant in R.C.O.P.3 of 2017 and the said R.C.O.P. was filed by the respondent / landlord for eviction of the petitioner. At the time of trial, the petitioner filed I.A.Sr.No.4374 of 2025, for examining the Municipal Commissioner, to prove his title. However, the same was not numbered. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

3.Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the property, in which the respondent claim as landlord. In order to prove the title of the petitioner, it is necessary to examine the Commissioner of Municipality, to ascertain certain documents and the same was not numbered, which needs interference by this Court. Accordingly, prays for appropriate orders from this Court.

4.Since no adverse orders are passed against the respondent, notice to the respondent is dispensed with and the present Civil Revision Petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

5.The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the property. However, he is termed as a tenant in the R.C.O.P. In order to prove his title, he wants to examine the revenue officials. Thereby, he filed I.A.Sr.No.4374 of 2025 and the same was not numbered by the trial Court. In the case of Church of South India – Vs –State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (W.P. No.30229/2004 –Dated 31.07.2019), placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court with regard to entries in the revenue records, this Court held that the entries in the revenue records alone will not confer title to a property. The relevant portion of the said decision is as under :-

“47. This Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly held in several judgments that the revenue records do not confer any title and the revenue records and document of title are only possessory rights. The relevant decisions are as follows:

(i) The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in(2016) 12 SCC 235 ( Prem Nath Khanna and others Vs. Narinder Nath Kapoor )

the relevant portion of which reads as follows:

“20. In addition to the abovementioned reason, the contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the appellants failed to get the mutation of entries of the suit land incorporated in record shows that there was no intention on their part to act upon the contents of the two sale deeds, cannot be accepted as mere mutation of entries does not confer title upon the deceased Respondent 1 in the immovable property. In Sawarni v. Inder Kaur