Regrant of Inam Lands Under Abolition Acts Relates Back to the Date of Resumption, Confirming Title and Possession

The Appellants (plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding Survey No. 141 (6 acres 1 gunta) in Kullur Village, claiming it was Halabaki Inam land granted to their ancestors for inferior village service

The Respondent (defendant) contested, claiming the land was Ryotwari (fully assessed) property belonging to his family since a 1955 partition

Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove possession or the existence of a regrant order at the time of filing

During the pendency of the first appeal, the plaintiffs produced an official regrant order dated 30.12.1999 (Ex.P13), which the lower court acknowledged but ignored, reasoning it was obtained after the suit commenced and did not prove prior possession

1. Whether the lower courts were justified in holding the suit was not maintainable under the Karnataka Village Office Abolition Act, given that the land was regranted to the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit?

2. Whether the lower courts erred in ignoring the regrant order (Ex.P13) and mutation entries while determining the plaintiffs' possession?

The court applied Section 4 of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950, which stipulates that resumed Watan land shall be regranted to the holder of the Watan

Section 11 of the same Act bars Civil Courts from questioning the validity of regrant awards made by competent authorities

Regarding the scope of Second Appeals, the court followed Jaichand v. Sahnulal, allowing interference with concurrent findings of fact if documents were misconstrued or legal principles ignored

the court applied the principle from Galappa v. State of Karnataka, holding that a regrant, even if made later, relates back to the date of the Act’s commencement (25.01.1951) by legal fiction

The High Court found that the lower courts failed to correctly interpret the legal effect of Ex.P13. While the Trial Court dismissed the suit for lack of a regrant order, the First Appellate Court erred by ignoring the order produced under Ex.P13 simply because it was passed pendente lite

The Court reasoned that under the doctrine of "relating back," the 1999 regrant confirmed the plaintiffs' title and notionally their possession from the day the Watan was abolished in 1951

The Court noted that the defendants never challenged the regrant order before the competent Revenue Tribunal as required by Section 11 of the 1950 Act, rendering the order final

the Court invoked its power to take notice of subsequent events (the regrant) to shorten litigation and do complete justice

The Court set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court. The suit is decreed; the Plaintiffs are declared the absolute owners in possession of the suit schedule property, and a permanent injunction is granted restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession