Title to Immovable Property Overrides Clerical Revenue Errors and Void Subsequent Transfers by Heirs

The plaintiff/appellant sought a declaration of title and confirmation of possession over 1.40 acres of land. The property originated from C.S. Plot No. 2816, which was partitioned in 1931.

Tinkari Chakraborty purchased a 1/6th share (1.40 acres) in 1959.

Due to a clerical error in the Revisional Settlement (RS), the plot was misrecorded as R.S. 3047 instead of R.S. 3057—an error declared void by a Civil Court in 1982 in T.S. 32 of 1980.

Tinkari sold this 1.40-acre share to the plaintiff in 1983 via a deed witnessed by Defendant No. 1. The plaintiff later mutated the land as L.R. Plot No. 3057.

In 2012, the defendants claimed title via a sale deed from Tinkari’s daughter (Defendant No. 6), alleging that the plaintiff’s 1983 deed was vague as it referenced the incorrect R.S. plot number.

The Trial Court decreed the suit for the plaintiff, but the First Appellate Court reversed it, citing "vagueness" in property description and lack of a prayer for recovery of possession.

1. Whether the description of the suit property was so vague that a decree for declaration of title could not be passed

2. Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in refusing a decree for recovery of possession where title was proved but possession was sought only via "confirmation"

Order VII Rule 3 of the CPC, which requires a property description sufficient for identification, noting that boundaries are not mandatory if plot numbers or survey records provide certainty.

Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act regarding declaratory decrees and the necessity of "further relief," holding that a prayer for permanent injunction qualifies as such relief.

The doctrine of Nemo dat quod non habet under Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, establishing that a vendor cannot transfer title they no longer possess.

The principle that "possession follows title" for vacant/danga land.

Akkamma v. Vemavathi (2021) to hold that courts can mould relief to grant recovery of possession if title is established.

The High Court found the First Appellate Court’s finding of "vagueness" perverse because the identity of the land was established by its C.S. Plot lineage and the 1982 judicial decree which resolved the R.S. plot numbering error.

The court noted that Defendant No. 1 was an attesting witness to the 1983 deed, creating an estoppel against claiming ignorance of the sale.

The court reasoned that since Tinkari divested his entire interest in 1983, his daughter (Defendant No. 6) inherited nothing; thus, her 2012 sale to the defendants was a legal nullity.

Regarding the prayer, the court held that "confirmation of possession" coupled with a "permanent injunction" (a consequential relief) satisfied Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.

Under Order VII Rule 7, the court determined it had the power to mould the relief to grant "recovery of possession" once the plaintiff’s superior title was proven against trespassers holding a void deed.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment, and restored the Trial Court’s decree. The Court declared the plaintiff the absolute owner of 1.40 acres in L.R. Plot No. 3057, declared the defendants' 2012 deed void ab initio, and granted a decree for confirmation and recovery of vacant physical possession.