High Court’s allowance of second appeal upholds that revenue extracts alone do not prove title; Supreme Court dismisses appeal

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale heard an appeal against the Karnataka High Court’s judgment in RSA No. 856 of 2011, which had allowed a regular second appeal and set aside concurrent decrees of the trial and first appellate courts that had cancelled a sale deed dated 03.03.1993 and directed delivery of possession of a disputed site. The appeal challenged whether the trial court was justified in decreeing the suit and cancelling the sale deed in the absence of title deeds for properties shown as Khata Nos. 71 and 111.

The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court’s conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove ownership or lawful possession of the suit property. The judgment held that revenue assessment extracts and allied documents on the record did not establish title and that there was no certainty about the identity or extent of the scheduled property. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The evidence on record does not prove that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. The Courts below have failed to consider this. The Trial Court should have considered all issues separately, but has failed to do it. It is relevant to note, there is serious dispute with regard to title of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has not sought for declaration. The Courts below were not justified in holding that the plaintiff is owner of the suit schedule property and he is entitled to recovery possession. Admittedly, the 1st defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff cannot depend upon the weakness of the 1st defendant's case. The plaintiff must stand or fall on the strength of his own case. In the present case, the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the owner of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have erred while holding that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and he is entitled to recover possession and the sale deed executed in favour of the 1st defendant i.e., the appellant herein is invalid and void.” The Court noted that on critical assessment the High Court “addressed the issue correctly” and found no error in its reasoning; accordingly the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Background

The dispute concerned a vacant site and a house in Cheluvarasinakoppalu village, Pandavapura taluk, shown variously in revenue records as Khata Nos. 71 and 111. The appellants traced possession to the late Siddegowda by an alleged oral partition with his brother Kalegowda; revenue khata continued in Kalegowda’s name. The plaintiff originally filed OS No. 259/1994 for permanent injunction, which was later withdrawn on compromise. A Panchayat “Pallu Patti” dated 15.09.1995 was produced by the plaintiff to perfect title, and thereafter OS No. 606/1999 was filed seeking permanent injunction, cancellation of the sale deed of 03.03.1993 and recovery of possession; the original plaintiff died and his legal representatives were substituted.

The trial court by judgment dated 12.04.2007 cancelled the sale deed and granted possession and injunction; the first appellate court affirmed on 10.02.2011. The defendant (purchaser) then secured leave to file a second appeal; the High Court framed the substantial question whether, in absence of title deeds for Khata Nos. 71 and 111, the trial court was justified in cancelling the sale deed and directing delivery of possession. The High Court allowed the second appeal on 13.03.2014, observing that documents relied upon by the plaintiff were only assessment/demand register extracts and did not establish ownership, that the pallu patti did not refer to Khata Nos. 71 or 111, and that there was no conclusive proof of ownership. The Supreme Court heard contentions that (i) a plaintiff seeking injunction need not prove title but only lawful possession and dispossession by a person without title, and (ii) revenue records alone could not confer title; the respondents relied on settled law including Union of India v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. The Court noted related earlier litigation in which the plaintiff had failed to prove title to the northern half (Khata No. 111) in OS No.108/2003. Finding ambiguity as to the exact property and insufficiency of evidence, the Supreme Court concluded the High Court correctly set aside concurrent decrees and dismissed the present appeal. No interim directions were recorded; the appeal was dismissed and pending applications disposed of.

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3688/2024 (2025 INSC 369) Case Title: Naganna (Dead) by LRs. / Smt. Devamma & Ors. v. Siddaramegowda (Since Deceased) by LRs. & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Names not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Names not indicated in the judgment