Karnataka HC Upholds Dismissal Of Buyer’s 5-Acre-7-Gunta Land Claim Over Unproven Title Chain And Mismatched Boundaries

The appellant-plaintiff sued for declaration of title and permanent injunction over land in Sy. No. 12/1, claiming a total extent of 5 acres 7 guntas under registered sale deeds and relying, among other things, on revenue records.

The defendant disputed the plaintiff’s title, the identity and boundaries of the land, and the extent held by the plaintiff’s vendor; he also asserted a competing chain of title.

The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiff had not established his vendor’s title to the entire claimed extent or adequately identified the property. The First Appellate Court affirmed.

In the second appeal, the plaintiff also sought to produce additional documents under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC.

Under Section 100 CPC, a High Court may interfere with concurrent findings only where a substantial question of law is shown, including where findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or result from misreading material evidence or applying an erroneous legal principle.

Under Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the party asserting title bears the initial burden of proving it; a defendant’s weakness does not establish the plaintiff’s title.

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, requires a transferor to convey ownership, and a conveyance ordinarily transfers only the right, title and interest the transferor holds.

Revenue entries do not create or extinguish title (Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223; Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186).

Order VII, Rule 7 CPC permits relief consistent with the pleadings and evidence, while Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC permits additional evidence only where its statutory conditions are met.

The Court also relied on Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594, concerning the appropriate relief where title or possession is disputed, and on authorities including C. Doddanarayana Reddy v. C. Jayarama Reddy, (2020) 4 SCC 659, concerning the limits of second-appeal review.

The Court held that the plaintiff had not established a reliable chain of title to the entire extent claimed: the evidence indicated that his vendor’s title was limited to 4 acres 25 guntas, while the sale deeds and plaint claimed 5 acres 7 guntas, and the property’s boundaries and identity were not shown to correspond.

The Court treated Ex. D19 and the other title materials as insufficient to establish the plaintiff’s claim to the disputed extent; revenue entries could not cure that deficiency.

It also held that alleged inconsistencies in the defendant’s claims or transactions did not discharge the plaintiff’s independent burden of proving title.

Moulding relief was not justified because the plaintiff’s title and the identity of the property had not been established on the pleadings and evidence.

The Court found no demonstrated error warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.

It also dismissed I.A. No. 4/2026 for additional evidence; pending interlocutory applications stood dismissed.