Unchallenged registered sale deeds establish title and cannot be defeated by revenue mutations alone.

The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession over 2 bighas of land covered by Dag No. 274, acquired by his predecessors through registered Sale Deed No. 1515 dated 20 April 1964 and Sale Deed No. 3576 dated 26 September 1966, and thereafter devolved upon him by inheritance.

Although the plaintiff’s name was mutated over adjoining lands, the suit land was mutated in the name of Biraja Sabdakar, predecessor of the contesting defendants. The plaintiff alleged that he first learnt of the adverse mutation on 12 September 2011 and instituted a suit in 2012 seeking declaration of title, cancellation of the mutation, mutation in his favour, and permanent injunction.

The Trial Court held that the plaintiff had proved title and possession through the registered sale deeds and decreed the suit. The First Appellate Court reversed that decision, holding, inter alia, that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by limitation and that the sale deeds could not establish title in the absence of the original allotment certificate.

The plaintiff preferred the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

1. Whether the First Appellate Court erred in law in reversing the Trial Court’s judgment despite the plaintiff having proved his title through the registered Sale Deeds of 1964 and 1966 executed by the original owner?

2. Whether the First Appellate Court misconstrued Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, by overlooking the applicability of Article 65?

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, which permits interference in a second appeal only on a substantial question of law.

Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a three-year limitation period for a suit seeking a declaration, commencing when the right to sue first accrues; Article 65 applies to suits for possession based on title. Since the plaintiff claimed continuous possession and sought declaratory and injunctive relief rather than recovery of possession, Article 58, and not Article 65, governed the suit.

A registered sale deed duly proved in evidence is relevant evidence of title, while mere mutation or entries in revenue records do not create or extinguish title. The Court also relied on Narasamma v. State of Karnataka, 2009 (2) ICC 669 (SC), for the principle that revenue entries by themselves do not confer title.

An averment not specifically traversed in the written statement may be treated as admitted under the doctrine of non-traversal.

The Court found that the plaintiff had duly proved both registered sale deeds through the testimony of the parties’ witnesses and the production and verification of the relevant original volume books by the deed writer.

The defendants neither challenged the validity of the sale deeds nor sought their cancellation by counterclaim. In contrast, the defendants relied principally on a periodic Khiraj Patta and revenue mutation, without proving the source of Biraja Sabdakar’s title or the alleged Government allotment.

The First Appellate Court therefore erred in requiring the plaintiff to produce the original allotment certificate when the plaintiff’s title rested on registered conveyances that had been proved and remained unchallenged.

On limitation, the Court held that the plaintiff’s specific assertion that he discovered the adverse mutation on 12 September 2011 had not been specifically denied in the written statement and was consequently deemed admitted under the doctrine of non-traversal.

As the suit was filed within three years of that date and the plaintiff claimed to remain in possession, the suit was governed by Article 58. Article 65 was inapplicable because no relief for recovery of possession had been sought.

The second question was answered in the negative, insofar as the Court held that Article 58 applied and that the suit was not barred by limitation; Article 65 was not applicable.

The appeal was allowed, the First Appellate Court’s judgment and decree dated 23 September 2016 were set aside, and the Trial Court’s judgment and decree dated 31 May 2016 decreeing the plaintiff’s suit were restored. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.