Karnataka HC Upholds Woman’s Land Injunction, Treating Man’s Pending Adverse-Possession Suit As Admission Of Her Title

The plaintiff sought a perpetual injunction concerning 3 acres 38 guntas in Sy. No. 74, Buchepalli, claiming through a chain of conveyances and a 2015 gift deed from her mother-in-law, whose name had been entered in the revenue records.

The defendant disputed her claim and asserted possession based on revenue entries, as well as a claim of adverse possession.

The trial Court dismissed the suit, relying on revenue records said to establish the defendant’s possession; the First Appellate Court reversed, finding that the defendant’s khatha had been set aside by the Assistant Commissioner and that the plaintiff had established title and possession.

The defendant appealed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court referred to Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, concerning mutation and revenue entries, and Section 136, concerning the prescribed remedy to challenge revenue entries.

Revenue entries, absent supporting registered instruments, do not by themselves establish title; here, the defendant’s entries had been set aside by the Assistant Commissioner and that order had not been challenged through the appropriate revenue remedy.

The Court also applied the principle that possession follows title in the case of vacant land, and observed that a claim to have perfected title by adverse possession presupposes acknowledgment of another’s title.

The Court found that the defendant’s written statement relied on possession and revenue entries rather than an independent title, and that the entries in his favour had been invalidated by the Assistant Commissioner for want of registered instruments.

The defendant had not challenged that order through the appropriate remedy, while the plaintiff relied on her predecessor’s title and the subsequent gift deed.

The Court further reasoned that the defendant’s separate claim to have acquired title by adverse possession acknowledged the plaintiff’s prior title.

In these circumstances, the First Appellate Court was entitled to rely on the plaintiff’s title and the principle that possession follows title, and no substantial question of law arose.

It clarified that observations or findings in the injunction proceedings would not affect the decision in the separately pending O.S. No. 217/2015.