Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Mutation Of A Property In The Revenue Records Does Not Create Or Extinguish Title Nor Its Presumptive Value On Title: Telangana High Court

Jagriti Sanghi
25 Feb 2022 4:29 PM GMT
Mutation Of A Property In The Revenue Records Does Not Create Or Extinguish Title Nor Its Presumptive Value On Title: Telangana High Court
x
The Court also held that when there are concurrent findings from both courts in a well-reasoned order, the second appeal is not maintainable without any substantial question of law.

In a recent Telangana High Court ruling, the court held that when there are concurrent findings of both the Courts in a well-reasoned order, the Second Appeal is not maintainable without any substantial question of law. Brief Facts The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking for declaration and recovery of possession of suit schedule property. The plaintiff contended that she was...

In a recent Telangana High Court ruling, the court held that when there are concurrent findings of both the Courts in a well-reasoned order, the Second Appeal is not maintainable without any substantial question of law.

Brief Facts

The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking for declaration and recovery of possession of suit schedule property. The plaintiff contended that she was the owner and possessor of the suit land and that she succeeded the same from her deceased mother as she was the sole legal heir. The defendant was the brother of her father i.e. junior paternal uncle and he was looking after the properties of her mother and cultivating the suit land and he was giving share in the crop to her mother every year. The plaintiff had approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, to mutate the suit land in her favour after the death of her mother as successor. She noticed that the name of the defendant was reflecting in the pattadar and cultivation column. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a petition before the Mandal Revenue Officer to cancel the mutation in the name of defendant and to affect the same in her name. The Mandal Revenue Officer refused to cancel the name of the defendant and being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

The defendant submitted that the father of the plaintiff was his elder brother and the suit land was joint family property. As the plaintiff's father was the elder and kartha of joint family, the lands were kept in his name and after his death, the properties were mutated to his wife's name. The defendant submitted that a panchayat was also held in which the husband of the plaintiff agreed and signed for the proposed mutation in the name of defendant. The defendant contended that the suit land is rightly mutated in his name.

The trial Court decreed the suit with costs in favour of the plaintiff and directed the defendant to deliver possession of the suit land to plaintiff. Aggrieved, the defendant preferred an appeal where the appeal was dismissed. The defendant then preferred the Second Appeal.

Before the appellate court, the appellant-defendant argued that the trial court erred in decreeing the suit basing on the weaknesses of the defendant but not on the strength of the plaintiff.

Court's ruling

The appellate court considered the evidence on record and held that the plaintiff established her title by way of abundant documentary material. The court relied on a case Basalingappa Channappa v. Dundappa Puttappa Panchappanavar, 1998 and held that it is a well settled position of law that mutation of a property in the revenue records does not create or extinguish title nor its presumptive value on title. It is clear from the documents that the plaintiff's father is the pattedar of suit land and it was shown as 'swantham' i.e. self-acquired property and after his death it was mutated in the name of the mother of the plaintiff. The court observed that the plaintiff was only looking after the properties on batai basis but was never in possession of the suit land. The appellate Court held that the revenue authorities did not follow due procedure while effecting mutation in the name of the defendant.

Justice P. Sree Sudha ruled that:

"The said issue was dealt with by the trial Court in detail and after considering the entire evidence on record rightly declared the plaintiff as owner of the suit land, which was also confirmed by the appellate Court. It is to be noted that when there are concurrent findings of both the Courts in a well-reasoned order, the Second Appeal is not maintainable without any substantial question of law involved in it."

The court therefore dismissed the Second Appeal with costs.

Case Title: Basa Bagawantha Rao v. Vemumula Sulochana

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 17

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment



Next Story