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

1988 Supreme(Ker) 52

Judges : PAREED PILLAY
NARAYANA IYER - Appellant
Versus
VELLA - Respondent
Case No : S.A. No. 435 of 1982
Decided On : 01/28/1988
Advocates Appeared :
N. Viswanatha Iyer; For Appellant V. Sivaswamy; Jose Joseph; A.K. Jose; Abraham Mathew; For Respondents

Plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title; patta does not confer title to the property.

Headnote:

Trespass - Recovery of Possession - Malabar Land Registration Act, 1895 - S.13, S.19 - Patta does not confer title to the property - Registration under the Act is for securing public revenue - Plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of possession based on his title to the property, alleging trespass by defendants. Plaintiff claimed possession evidenced by patta, revenue receipts, land acquisition notices, and commission report. Defendants contested plaintiff's title.

Finding of the Court:

Courts held plaintiff failed to prove title to the property, and therefore cannot recover possession from defendants.

Issues: Plaintiff's failure to prove title, reliance on patta and settlement reports, and the impact of Malabar Land Registration Act on conferring title.

Ratio Decidendi: Plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title; patta does not confer title to the property; registration under the Act is for securing public revenue.

Final Decision: Second Appeal dismissed, no order as to costs.

Judgment :-

1. Appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. 79 of 1972 of the Munsiff Court, Alathur, who has lest his case in the trial Court as well as in the lower appellate court. Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession on the strength of his title on the allegation that the defendants committed trespass into the plaint schedule property in March 1969. It is the case of the plaintiff that the property was demised on kanam to Narayana Iyer, that the kanari mortgaged it in favour of Subramania Iyer and another, that the plaintiff took assignment of the kanari's right as per Ext. Al and redeemed the property in O.S. 54 of 1943 and that he is entitled to recover the property from the unauthorised possession of the defendants. It is the admitted case that the plaintiff bad filed O.S. 115 of 1969 before the Munsiff Court, Alathur and that it was dismissed by this Court. The main contention of the plaintiff is that even if it is found that the suit property is not covered by Ext. A-1 still there is ample evidence with regard to his possession of the property as evidenced by the grant of patta, revenue receipts, land acquisition notices and the commission report. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that as against the aforesaid evidence there is hardly any evidence in support of the defendants' contentions. Counsel for the defendants submitted that the courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff has not proved his title to the property and hence no interference is warranted in the Second Appeal.

2. Property is item 12 in Ext. A-1 has 2 taks. The measurement of the first tak is shown as 43 x 43 six feet koles and that of the second tak as 88 x 35 six feet koles. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule property is included in R.S. 72/4A. Item 12 of Ext. A-1 property is in R.S. 70/2. The boundaries of the property in item 12 in Ext. A-1 and that of the plaint schedule property are net the same.

3. The trial Court held that the Commissioner has not identified the property with reference to Ext. A-1 or any other document produced by the plaintiff. It is settled law that in the event of conflict between boundaries and extent the former will prevail. As there is not only conflict between boundaries and extent but also in respect of other details, it is possible to identify the plaint schedule property to be the same as item No. 12 of Ext. A-1.

4. The extent shown in Revenue Receipts Exts. A-9 and A-10 is 6.32 acres in R.S. 72/4A. In Exts A-11 to A-21 the extent shown is only 2 64 acres. Exts. A-22 to A-24 do not show any survey number at all Ext.A-2 notice of award under the Land Acquisition Act, mentions survey number 70/2 B2 and 72/46. It does not relate to the suit property. Ext. A-26 is stated to be a notice issued by the Land Acquisition Officer. It does not contain the seal of the office which issued the said notice. It is indeed difficult to place reliance on Ext. A-26 to hold that portion of the suit property was acquired by the Government. Ext. A-25 is also of no significance as it does not relate to the suit property. The trial Court on a consideration of the evidence held that the plaintiff has not proved title to the property to entitle him to recover the suit property from the possession of the defendants. The Sub Judge has considered the evidence properly and agreed with the findings of the trial Court.

5. Plaintiff relied on Ext. A-4 Pattayam to substantiate bis case with respect to the property in survey cumber 72/4A. Ext A-4 shows the Pattayam number as 214. Ext. A-8 is also relied on by the plaintiff in support of his case. Ext. A-8 shows the name of the land owner as Valsalamma and occupant as Narayana Iyer. Placing considerable reliance on Exts. A-4 and A-B plaintiff's counsel contended that they would really establish the title of the plaintiff to the suit property. He contended that the aforesaid documents are sufficient to prove the plaintiff's case to the hilt and merely because Ext. A-1 does not






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