Bangalore (Ap.17) : In a comprehensive suit, the title of a party has to be adjudicated based on the title documents and not revenue records, the high court ruled in a recent judgment. Allowing a regular second appeal filed by one Thammaiah, Justice HP Sandesh said the appellant is the title holder of the farmland in question and the children of one Puttaiah have to hand over possession of the property to him within three months.
Thammaiah had purchased the land, located at Chikkanayakanahalli, Tumakuru district, on December 18, 1972 from one Muthu. The land in question was basically granted land. In April 1991, Muthu sold the land to Puttaiah. Thereafter, the revenue entries were mutated in his favour.
Thammaiah moved the local trial court, claiming to be the absolute owner.
However, on December 11, 2014, the civil judge in Chikkanayakanahalli ruled in favour of Puttaiah. In the appeal proceedings, the senior civil judge confirmed this order, forcing Thammaiah to move the high court.
After going through the records, including the findings given by both courts in Chikkanayakanahalli, Justice Sandesh pointed out that the trial court as well as the first appellate court had given more importance to the revenue entries and come to the conclusion that cancellation of the name of the plaintiff (Thammaiah) in the revenue records was not challenged.
‘Perverse & erroneous
“Even if the name of a person appearing in the revenue record is removed, it does not extinguish the right, title and interest, if any, vested in him in respect of the property. In the case on hand, the sale deed was executed in 1972 and in the same year, the property was transferred in the name of the plaintiff in terms of sale deed, mutation as well as RTCs. But the same has been removed subsequently and that removal does not extinguish the right, title or interest of the plaintiff since he had acquired the property by purchasing it in terms of a sale deed,” the judge noted.
“Such being the case…. the said finding of both courts is perverse, palpable and erroneous… Justice Sandesh further observed.
