Man’s Inam-Land Claim Fails Without Proof Uncle Received Grant Or Transferred It: Karnataka HC

The plaintiff sued for declaration of title and permanent injunction, claiming that the suit land had been granted to his uncle, who transferred it to him.

He relied on RTC extracts, mutation records and a pedigree, but produced neither the grant certificate nor documents evidencing the alleged transfer.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiff had not proved title or possession; the First Appellate Court affirmed that decision.

In the second appeal, the Court admitted the matter to consider whether the defendant had proved a pre-existing interest in the suit property carrying a right to partition.

Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a second appeal concerns a substantial question of law.

Revenue records do not constitute documents of title; they serve revenue purposes and may raise a presumption of possession, but do not, by themselves, establish ownership.

In Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar v. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund, (2007) 3 SCC 565, the Court held that revenue records are not title documents and may only raise a presumption of possession.

In Union of India v. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC 269, the Supreme Court affirmed that a plaintiff seeking declaration of title must succeed on the strength of their own case, not on the weakness of the defendant’s case.

The plaintiff’s revenue entries did not establish title.

He produced no grant certificate proving that his uncle owned the land and no evidence identifying or proving the mode by which the uncle allegedly transferred it to him.

The plaintiff therefore failed to establish title independently, and the concurrent findings against him disclosed no basis for granting the claimed relief.

As the defendant had made no counterclaim, the Court held that the asserted pre-existing interest and right to partition did not arise for consideration in the appeal.

It dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, confirmed the judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, and made no order as to costs.