Mere Varadi Can’t Be Considered As Document Evidencing Relinquishment Or Release Of Right, Title & Interest By One Person In Favour Of Another: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court reiterated that a mere Varadi cannot be considered as a document evidencing relinquishment or release of right, title, and interest by one person in favour of another.

The Dharwad Bench reiterated thus in Regular First Appeals against the Judgment of the Additional Senior Civil Judge.

A Single Bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda observed, “Not only in this case, but in many other cases, it has been observed by us that a mere report or varadi was treated as relinquishment of right for entering the name of a person in whose favour relinquishment was made. This kind of practice is more prevalent in northern Karnataka. In many a judgment, this Court has made the legal aspect very clear that a mere varadi cannot be considered as a document evidencing relinquishment or release of right, title and interest by one person in favour of another.”

Advocate Dinesh Kulkarni appeared for the Appellants while Advocates Prakash K. Jawalkar and Arun Neelopant appeared for the Respondents.

Facts of the Case -

The Suit properties consisted of agricultural lands and the Plaintiff and Defendant being a minor purchased the same under a registered Sale Deed. The Plaintiff himself represented his minor daughter at the time of purchase and the Defendant attained majority in 1993. An entry was made in the revenue records indicating that the Plaintiff was discharged from the guardianship of his daughter, however, his name continued in the revenue records to the extent of his share. In 1995, the Defendant who had then become a major entered into an agreement of sale with one person agreeing to sell the Suit properties.

Thereafter, the Plaintiff came to know that the Defendant had executed a general power of attorney in favour of her mother for the purpose of managing the properties. He also came to know that the Defendant had executed a relinquishment deed to another but since that relinquishment was not under a registered document, no title passed on to him and hence, the Defendant continued to be the absolute owner of her half share. The Plaintiff brought the Suit seeking declaration that he and his daughter were the absolute owners of the properties for declaration that general power of attorney and the sale deed were null and void and for the possession of the properties from Defendants. The Trial Court dismissed the Suit and resultantly, the case was before the High Court.

The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “Any release in respect of a immovable property worth more than Rs.100/- must be made through registered instrument only. Or if oral partition is pleaded for effecting change in revenue records, there must be proof for oral partition and it having been acted upon. In the absence of registered instruments, relinquishment or release deed cannot be accepted by the revenue officers for effecting mutation in the revenue records.”

The Court said that the right and title of the Defendant remained intact but she parted with possession of the suit properties joining hands with her mother who represented the one who was minor at that time.

“For this reason she should have taken independent legal action to recover possession if there was no delivery of possession in accordance with Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. Curiously plaintiff brought the suit not only on his behalf but on behalf of defendant no.6 also. He had no right to sue on behalf of defendant no.6 although she is his daughter”, it added.

The Court observed that the Plaintiff had no right at all to file Suit in his individual capacity and for these reasons the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the Suit.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeals.

Cause Title- Madivalappa & Ors. v. Mohammad Jafar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC-D:16491-DB)

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocate Dinesh M. Kulkarni

Respondents: Advocates Prakash K. Jawalkar, Arun Neelopant, R.H. Angadi, and M.A. Deshpande.

Click here to read/download the Judgment