The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal filed u/s 100 of CPC., against the judgment and decree dated 02.07.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2015 passed in the original suit by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC. The Court observed that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have failed to substantiate that they acquired title based on the mutation.
Brief Facts:
The plaintiffs had instituted the present suit seeking relief of declaration of title and for injunction. The subject matter of the suit is agricultural land. The Government vide order dated 01.01.1948 granted the suit land in favour of late Hanumanthaiah who is the ancestor of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contended that after the demise of the original grantee, the plaintiffs have succeeded to the suit schedule property. The suit was filed alleging that defendants Nos.1 and 2 in collusion with the revenue officials, got their names mutated in the revenue records in respect of suit schedule property, and based on the entries in the revenue records, defendants Nos.1 and 2 have alienated the suit schedule property in favor of defendant No.3.
The trial Court was of the view that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving their lawful possession over the suit schedule property. preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate Court. The Appellate Court was also of the view that the plaintiffs have succeeded in substantiating that suit land is their ancestral property and defendant Nos.1 and 2 had no saleable title and therefore, the sale deed in favor of defendant No.3 would not create any right and title in favor of defendant No.3. Consequently, the appeal came to be dismissed. These concurrent findings are under challenge by defendant No.3.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the defense of the defendants is found in two folds. Firstly, defendants Nos.1 and 2 claim that plaintiffs have consented to change of khatha, and based on their consent, the names of defendants No.1 and 2 were mutated in the revenue records.
The Court observed that mere mutation in the revenue records will not in itself confer title in favor of a person whose name is mutated in the revenue records. Therefore, defendants Nos.1 and 2 have failed to substantiate that they acquired title based on the mutation.
The Court said that the second limb of defense is that defendants Nos.1 and 2 have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. Defendants Nos.1 and 2 have failed to substantiate that they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. If defendant Nos.1 and 2 have failed to substantiate their right and title, defendant No.3 on the strength of the sale deed can neither question plaintiffs' title nor can assert his title over the suit schedule property.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, dismissing the appeal, held that both the Courts were justified in holding that the plaintiffs are in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as absolute owners.
Case Title: Manjappa v. U.H. Lakshman & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum
Case no.: REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1457 OF 2016 (DEC)
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Mahesh A. S.
Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. Vidya S.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
