Hangal Occupant Must Hand Over House As Karnataka HC Restores Decree, Citing Municipal Records Listing Plaintiffs As Owners

The plaintiffs sued for possession of a property in Hangal and recovery of rent, claiming ownership under a Will dated 21 July 1984 and alleging that the defendant occupied the property as a tenant.

The defendant denied the Will and tenancy, asserting permissive possession and adverse possession. The trial court decreed the suit; the first appellate court reversed, finding that the plaintiffs had not proved the Will.

The plaintiffs’ second appeal was admitted on whether the first appellate court had ignored material evidence, particularly concerning Ameerabi’s alleged status as a natural heir of the original owner.

During the appeal, the original plaintiffs died and their legal representatives were substituted.

The appeal was considered under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which confines a second appeal to a substantial question of law.

The Court referred to the principle that registration of a Will does not, by itself, dispense with proof of its execution in accordance with law, citing Bharpur Singh v. Shamsher Singh.

It also considered authorities cited for the proposition that a tenant cannot ordinarily challenge the landlord’s Will or title, including Ghanshyam Dass v. Shakuntla Bakshi and Pandi Bandu v. Sapadu Krishna.

The Court treated revenue entries as supporting evidence of the plaintiffs’ title, while noting that the defendant’s plea of adverse possession had been rejected by the first appellate court and was not challenged in the second appeal.

The Court noted that the defendant had not established adverse possession and had not challenged the first appellate court’s adverse finding on that plea; it therefore treated his continued occupation as unauthorised.

It also considered the municipal assessment extract, which recorded the plaintiffs as owners and the defendant as occupier, together with the plaintiffs’ case that the defendant’s occupation originated with the original owner.

Although the Will was not proved to the first appellate court’s satisfaction, the High Court concluded that the plaintiffs had established title on the material before it, including the revenue record, and held that the first appellate court had erred in dismissing the suit.

It set aside the first appellate court’s judgment and restored the trial court’s decree directing the defendant to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs.