SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(RCT) 1019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS


(Special Appellate Jurisdiction)


C.M.A. No. 434 of 2023



S. Muralidharan

v.

The State of Tamil Nadu




Counsel for Appellant: Mr. R. Senthil Kumar

Counsel for Respondent: Government Advocate


Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh


Dated: 15.06.2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R. Senthil Kumar
For the Respondents:Government Advocate

Revenue entries are maintained for fiscal purposes only and do not confer legal title to a property, especially when contradicted by a registered sale deed.

Headnote:The matter involves a dispute over the declaration of title and recovery of possession of a suit property. The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the first appellate court reversed this decision on the grounds that the documents were insufficient to prove absolute title and that revenue records had favored the state for 30 years. The primary issue is whether revenue records can override a registered sale deed in determining title. The court reasoned that it is a settled principle of law that revenue entries are for fiscal purposes and do not confer title, thereby finding that the first appellate court erred in ignoring the registered sale deed of 1954. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial court are restored.

JUDGMENT

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Thanjavur in A.S. No. 45 of 2018, which dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein.

2. The facts leading to the present dispute are that the appellant filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit property. The trial court, after considering the evidence, decreed the suit in favor of the appellant.

The respondent state challenged the said decree before the first appellate court.

3. The first appellate court, however, reversed the findings of the trial court on the following grounds:

i) The documents produced by the appellant were found to be insufficient to prove absolute title.

ii) The revenue records stood in the name of the State Government for the last 30 years.

[[IMG_1]]

4. The appellant contends that the first appellate court failed to appreciate the registered sale deed of 1954, which clearly conveys the property to his predecessors-in-title.

5. Having heard both sides and perused the materials on record, this Court finds that the first appellate court erred in ignoring the registered document. It is a settled principle of law that revenue entries are for fiscal purposes and do not confer title.

The court refers to the following table of dates for clarity:

Date Event
1954 Execution of Sale Deed
1980 Entry in Revenue Records in favor of State
2015 Filing of Original Suit

6. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial court are restored.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top