LI Network
Published on: November 23, 2023 at 11:58 IST
The Supreme Court reinforced the principle that revenue records do not constitute documents of title in a land dispute.
The court clarified that the mere mutation of revenue records does not strip the true title owners of their rights in the land. It emphasized that a mutation entry does not confer any right, title, or interest on the person, serving only fiscal purposes.
In a case related to a land dispute, the court highlighted that pointing out deficiencies in the opponent’s title is insufficient. The party initiating the title suit must bear the burden of proving a probable better title, and merely identifying gaps in the defendant’s title is inadequate.
The court, composed of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta, observed that the plaintiff failed to establish a high probability of better title, relying solely on revenue documents of a fiscal nature.
The court held that the trial court wrongly favored the plaintiff, and although the first appellate court corrected this, the High Court’s interference in the second appeal was unwarranted.
The dispute centered around a piece of land affected by the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954.
The court analyzed the Commissioner’s order related to occupancy rights, emphasizing that a vendor cannot transfer a title better than what they possess. The court rejected the reliance on revenue entries as proof of cultivation, emphasizing that revenue records lack the status of documents of title.
The Supreme Court, in contrast of the High Court’s interpretation, set aside its judgment, emphasizing the need for a harmonious reading of the Commissioner’s order within the legal framework.
Case Title: P. KISHORE KUMAR v. VITTAL K. PATKAR.,
