The Judgment analyzed in this blog revolves around the interpretation of the Commissioner’s order and its implications on the ownership of the disputed land. The dispute primarily concerns the land comprised in Sy. No. 3, where the plaintiff asserts their title based on the grant of occupancy rights to their predecessor-in-interest, while the defendant claims ownership through a separate transaction and subsequent grant of occupancy rights. The central question is whether the Commissioner’s order, as interpreted by the lower courts, conclusively establishes the plaintiff’s better title to the land.
The case, P. Kishore Kumar versus Vittal K Patkar [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7210 OF 2011 ]originated in the Trial Court where the plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendant regarding the disputed land. The Trial Court, after examining revenue records and the Commissioner’s order, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, decreeing them as the absolute owner of the disputed property. However, the defendant, aggrieved by the Trial Court’s decree, appealed to the District Court under Section 96 of the CPC.
The first appellate court overturned the Trial Court’s decision, emphasizing the absence of an Inam grant in favor of the plaintiff’s vendor and dismissing the reliance solely on revenue records. The court noted the absence of the order dated March 24, 1959, referred to by the plaintiff. Dissatisfied with this decision, the plaintiff then pursued a second appeal before the Karnataka High Court.
The High Court, in its judgment, framed a substantial question of law regarding the lower appellate court’s failure to consider certain evidences and admissions made by the defendant. It interpreted the Commissioner’s order in favor of the plaintiff’s vendor, relying on the exhibited revenue records. Despite acknowledging discrepancies with the Act, the High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decree, affirming the plaintiff’s better title.
The present petition before the Supreme Court is an appeal against the High Court’s judgment and decree. The appellants challenge the High Court’s interpretation of the Commissioner’s order, arguing that it erroneously favored the plaintiff’s title despite inconsistencies with the provisions of the Act. They contend that the lower courts erred in relying solely on revenue records and failing to adequately consider all relevant evidence and legal provisions. The appellants seek a reversal of the High Court’s decision and a declaration of their ownership rights over the disputed land.
Firstly, the court emphasized the importance of distinguishing between a mere question of law and a substantial question of law in the context of entertaining a second appeal under section 100 of the CPC (Code of Civil Procedure). It highlighted that a substantial question of law arises when it has a material bearing on the rights of the parties involved and is not covered by specific provisions of law or settled legal principles. Additionally, it arises when the lower court decision violates settled legal principles (Section 100, CPC).
Secondly, the court delved into the interpretation of sections 9 and 9A of the Act, which pertained to the rights of Inamdars and tenants in respect to the vesting of land. It emphasized that only tenants or Inamdars could make an application for occupancy rights under these sections. The court examined the Commissioner’s order, which denied occupancy rights to the plaintiff’s vendor, indicating that the plaintiff’s claim lacked merit under section 9A of the Act.
Thirdly, the court addressed the evidentiary value of revenue records in determining title. It cited precedents to establish that revenue records, including mutation entries, do not confer or extinguish title and cannot be relied upon as conclusive evidence of ownership (Sawarni vs. Inder Kaur, Balwant Singh & Ors vs. Daulat Singh, Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others).
Fourthly, the court scrutinized the sale deeds presented by both parties. It found that the defendant’s sale deed, supported by the Commissioner’s order granting occupancy rights, carried more weight than the plaintiff’s sale deed, which lacked such support.
Fifthly, the court discussed the principle of caveat emptor, highlighting the buyer’s duty to diligently investigate the title of the property being purchased. It noted the plaintiff’s failure to fulfill this duty by not examining the Commissioner’s order.
Finally, based on the analysis of these issues and provisions of law, the court held that the Trial Court erred in decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The first appellate court’s decision to dismiss the suit was upheld as it correctly interpreted the Commissioner’s order and considered the evidence presented. The High Court’s decision to reverse the first appellate court’s findings was deemed erroneous, and the plaintiff’s suit was consequently dismissed. The court clarified that its decision did not prejudice the plaintiff’s right to pursue any claim concerning another schedule property in the future.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aditi
Click here to view the judgment
