Court’s Decision
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, affirming the First Appellate Court’s judgment which had set aside the Trial Court’s decree declaring the plaintiff as the owner of the property. The Court held that in the absence of a title document or a certified copy of the grant certificate, the plaintiff could not seek a declaration of ownership merely on the basis of revenue records, reiterating the principle that “revenue entries cannot form the basis for declaration of title.”
Facts
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that she was the absolute owner of a site measuring 30×40 ft situated at Vrushabhavathipura village, along with reliefs of permanent and mandatory injunction. It was claimed that the Government of Karnataka granted the suit property to the plaintiff approximately 30 years ago, which was followed by the mutation of khata in her name. She erected a shed on the property, which later collapsed. During the same period, the original grant certificate was allegedly lost. Taking advantage of her absence from the village, the defendants allegedly trespassed onto the property and began construction work.
The defendants denied these claims and contended that the property had actually been granted to Defendant No. 2, who was in peaceful possession and had paid taxes regularly. The khata stood in his name. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, but this was reversed on appeal by the First Appellate Court.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff could claim title to the suit property in the absence of original or certified title documents?
- Whether revenue entries alone were sufficient to confer title over immovable property?
- Whether the First Appellate Court had erred in setting aside the Trial Court’s decree?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The plaintiff’s counsel argued that the property was granted by the government in her favour, and the original grant certificate was misplaced when the shed collapsed. It was contended that the First Appellate Court erred in not giving due weight to the revenue records and in not properly re-appreciating the entire evidence on record. Counsel submitted that the plaintiff’s long-standing possession, supported by mutation entries, should have sufficed to declare her ownership.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents maintained that the Government had granted the suit property to Defendant No. 2, who had been in continuous possession. They relied on the existence of a khata in Defendant No. 2’s name, regular tax payments, and asserted that the plaintiff had failed to produce any credible documentary proof of title. They argued that mere entries in revenue records do not establish ownership and cannot override legal title in immovable property matters.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated the settled legal principle that title over immovable property must be proved through valid documentary evidence such as registered sale deeds or government grants, not merely revenue entries. It emphasised that, even if the plaintiff claimed the original grant certificate was lost, she failed to produce a certified copy from the competent authority. A declaration of title, being a substantive right, requires strict proof, particularly when contested.
Precedent Analysis
The Court placed reliance on the decision in Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar & Ors. v. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund & Ors., ILR 2008 KAR 1170, wherein it was held that revenue records merely raise a presumption of possession and do not establish title. The same ratio was applied in the present case to reject the plaintiff’s claim of ownership based solely on revenue records.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the plaintiff had neither produced a title deed nor a certified copy of the grant certificate. While admitting that the document was lost, the plaintiff failed to take any steps to obtain an official copy. Given the nature of the relief sought—declaration of title—such omission was fatal to her case. Revenue records alone were deemed insufficient to confer title. Thus, the findings of the First Appellate Court were upheld as correct.
Conclusion
The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed. The High Court confirmed the judgment of the First Appellate Court which had dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for declaration and injunction. No substantial question of law was found to have arisen for consideration.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the principle that revenue entries cannot substitute proof of title in property disputes. It also highlights that courts require strict proof for declaratory relief, particularly in the absence of original title documents. The ruling serves as a caution to litigants who rely solely on possession or mutation records without establishing legal ownership through certified documentation.
Also Read: Delhi High Court Rejects State’s Appeal Against Acquittal in Rape Case
