Revenue Records Are Not Documents Of Title, Reiterates Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, in a land dispute case, reiterated that revenue records are not documents of title.
The revenue records neither create nor extinguish the title of ownership, the Court noted.
Plaintiff claimed ownership based on a Family Settlement Deed from 1953, while Defendant asserted better title from an Inamdar under the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954 (Act).
The Court overturned a High Court decision that had granted occupancy rights to the Plaintiff. The Court noted that the Plaintiff was unable to substantiate the case to a high degree of probability. The evidence presented by Plaintiff, particularly the revenue documents, was deemed insufficient, especially when weighed against Defendant's evidence establishing occupancy rights.
“That apart, the High Court was remiss in reversing the findings of facts rightly arrived at by the first appellate court. The decision to adopt the Trial Court’s approach of interpreting the Commissioner’s order within the framework of the revenue records that were exhibited was yet another aspect in which the High Court fell in error. An attempt ought to have been made by the High Court to harmoniously read the Commissioner’s order with the provisions of the Act and to interpret the same so as to render it in consonance with the law, the failure of which leads to the inescapable conclusion that the same is indefensible”, the Bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Dipankar Datta observed.
Advocate A. Diwakara appeared for the Appellant (Defendant in the Orginal Suit) and Senior Advocate S.N. Bhat appeared for the Respondent (Plaintiff in the Original Suit).
The case involved a dispute over land in Bangalore. Plaintiff claimed ownership based on a Family Settlement Deed from 1953, while Defendant asserted better title from an Inamdar under the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954. The Commissioner's order, the fulcrum of the dispute, granted occupancy rights to the plaintiff's vendor, leading to a Trial Court decree in their favor. However, the Appellate Court overturned this decision, citing the absence of an Inam grant. The High Court upheld the Plaintiff's better title, emphasizing the finality of the earlier decision, despite acknowledging the inconsistency with the Act's provisions.
The Court, referring to Nazir Mohamed v J. Kamala [(2020) 19 SCC 57], clarified the criteria for entertaining second appeals under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). The Bench emphasized that a substantial question of law must be involved, affecting the parties' rights and not covered by specific legal provisions or settled precedents. The Court highlighted that interference is limited, and the definition of a substantial question of law remains consistent.
Furthermore, the Court examined the Commissioner's order, emphasizing that the claim of the plaintiff's vendor for occupancy rights as a tenant was rejected. At the same time, that of the defendant's predecessor-in-interest was acknowledged. The Court dismissed the argument that revenue records conferred occupancy rights, and reiterated that mutation in revenue records does not create or extinguish title and has no presumptive value.
The Court highlighted that the Commissioner's order denying occupancy rights to the plaintiff's vendor renders revenue entries unreliable. The Bench further pointed out that the sale deed executed in favor of the plaintiff did not trace the title to a government grant but through a sale deed. The deed stated that the property was neither Inam nor tenanted land, concealing the fact that the plaintiff's vendor had applied for occupancy rights and failed to secure them. The Court emphasized that a vendor cannot transfer a better title than he himself possessed.
The Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove his case to a high degree of probability and that revenue documents were insufficient against the defendant's proof of occupancy rights. Therefore, the decree passed by the Trial Court was set aside, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree.
Cause Title: P. Kishore Kumar v Vittal K. Patkar (2023 INSC 1009)
