- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Babubali Hanamantappa Ijari v. Shalinibai Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, who is the plaintiff, filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, seeking to direct the revenue authorities to delete the defendants' names and enter the plaintiff's name in the revenue records relating to the suit land. The plaintiff claimed that the suit properties were allotted to his father during a family partition in 1960. The defendants are related to the plaintiff, with the husband of the first defendant and father of the second and third defendants being the plaintiff's brother. The plaintiff contended that the defendants manipulated the revenue records to show possession and cultivation of the land, prompting the suit.
The defendants admitted that the property was originally allotted to the plaintiff but contended that the plaintiff relinquished his share in favor of Bujabali (the husband of the first defendant) in 1967, with mutation entries reflecting this in the revenue records. They asserted continuous possession and enjoyment of the land since 1967 and alternatively claimed adverse possession, praying for dismissal of the suit.
The trial court upheld the defendants' claim of adverse possession and dismissed the suit. The first appellate court confirmed this finding and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, leading to the present second appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, after both courts found no relinquishment by the plaintiff, the defendant can still set up the plea of adverse possession to perfect title over the suit property.
- Whether the appellate court was justified in holding that the defendants proved adverse possession, and whether that finding is perverse or contrary to the evidence on record.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The appellant contended that the plea of title and the alternative plea of possession are mutually inconsistent and cannot be pleaded together in law.
Respondents' Arguments
- The defendants admitted the original allotment to the plaintiff but argued that the plaintiff relinquished his share in favor of Bujabali in 1967, supported by mutation entries in revenue records.
- They asserted continuous and uninterrupted possession and cultivation of the land since 1967.
- Alternatively, they claimed adverse possession to perfect their title over the suit property.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Karnataka Wakf Board vs. State of Karnataka, 1995 (4) KLJ 326 | Permissibility of pleading alternative claims of title and adverse possession; both are not mutually inconsistent. | The court relied on this precedent to reject the appellant's contention that title and possession pleas cannot coexist, affirming that alternative pleas are allowed. |
| State of West Bengal vs. Dalhousie Institute of Societies, AIR 1970 SC 1778 | Continuous possession under invalid documents for statutory period results in adverse possession and vests title in the possessor. | The court applied this principle to hold that defendants' possession under an unregistered relinquishment deed, if uninterrupted for over 12 years, constitutes adverse possession. |
| Laxmibai vs. Thoreppa, AIR 1982 Kar. 248 | Possession under invalid documents becoming adverse possession after statutory period of continuous enjoyment. | Supported the defendants' claim that possession under a relinquishment deed, though unregistered, if continuous, perfects title by adverse possession. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the evidence regarding the relinquishment and possession of the suit property. It noted that the defendants admitted the property was allotted to the plaintiff in 1960 but claimed relinquishment in 1967 in favor of Bujabali, supported by mutation entries in revenue records from 1967-68 onwards. The court considered the revenue records showing continuous cultivation and possession by the defendants and their predecessors, including a Tahsildar's order deleting an incorrect cultivator's name after enquiry under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
The appellate court found that defendants proved continuous and uninterrupted possession from 1967 onwards, establishing adverse possession. The court rejected the appellant's argument that title and possession pleas are mutually inconsistent, relying on the Karnataka Wakf Board precedent that alternative pleas are permissible.
Further, the court applied the principles established in State of West Bengal vs. Dalhousie Institute and Laxmibai vs. Thoreppa, which hold that possession under invalid or unregistered documents, if continuous and uninterrupted for the statutory period, results in adverse possession and vests title in the possessor. The court found these principles squarely applicable to the facts, supporting the defendants' adverse possession claim.
Accordingly, the court answered the substantial questions of law in the negative, affirming that the defendants' plea of adverse possession was rightly upheld by the lower courts.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is dismissed.
The court's decision confirms the defendants' title over the suit property based on adverse possession. The ruling affirms that alternative pleas of title and adverse possession can coexist and that possession under an unregistered relinquishment deed, if continuous and uninterrupted for the statutory period, perfects title in the possessor. No new precedent was established; the decision applies existing legal principles to the facts before the court, resolving the dispute between the parties accordingly.
The appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed in RA 52/93 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge, Dharwad arising out of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.523/86 on the file of I Addl. Munsiff, Dharwad.
2. The appellant is the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction and also to direct the revenue authorities to delete the name of defendants and t enter the name of plaintiff in the revenue records relating to suit land. The plaintiff claims that the suit properties were allotted to his father in the partition in the family in the year 1960. The husband of the first defendant and father of defendants 2 and 3 is the brother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff contends that the defendants got the entries manipulated in the revenue records to show that the land is in their possession and cultivation hence the suit is filed.
3. The defendants in their written statement admit that the property was allotted to the share of the plaintiff but contend that the plaintiff had relinquished his share in respect of the suit property in favour of Bujabali in the year 1967 and mutation entries were also effected in the land revenue records. Accordingly Bujabali and the defendants are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land from the year 1967. the defendants plead title on the basis of relinquishment and also alternatively plead adverse possession and pray for dismissal of the suit.
4. The trial court upholds the claim of adverse possession of the defendants and dismissed the suit. The first appellate court confirms the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff. Hence, this second appeal.
5. The admission Judge has framed the following substantial question of law for consideration.
“Whether the defendant having set up the defence of relinquishment of the rights by the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property and both the courts having found that there is no relinquishment by the plaintiff?” Is it open for the defendant to set up the plea of adverse possession so as to perfect his title over the suit schedule property?
6. After hearing the parties the additional question of law is framed as follows:
whether the appellate court was justified in holding that the defendants have proved the case of adverse possession and the finding thereon is perverse and contrary to evidence on record?”.
7. The defendants admit that the property was allotted to the plaintiff in the partition in the year 1960. However, in 1961 it is said plaintiff relinquished his share in favour of his brother Bujabali. Ex.D.19 ROR extract of the year 1967-68 disclose the name of Bujabali as Kabjedar in column No.9. The revenue records are produced by the defendants to show payment of taxes. The RIR extract at Exs. D.19, 20, 21 pertains to the period 1967-68 to 1986-87. In Ex.D.19 and Ex.D.20 the name of Chayappa Kurkuri is shown for the period 1967-68 to 1982-83 as the cultivator. From the period of 1983-84 onwards in Ex.D.20 till the filling of the suit in column No.12 the defendants are sown to be cultivators. Ex.D.43 is the order of the Tahsildar for deleting the name of Chayappa Kukuri from the cultivator’s column in the RIRI. The Contents of the order disclose that the defendants made an application to the Tahsildar alleging that wrongly in column No.12 the name of Chayappa Kurkuri has been entered and sought for deletion. A full fledged enquiry was conducted by the Tahsildar as required under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Notice was issued to Chayappa Kurkuri, as he was dead his son appeared in the enquiry and gave a statement before the Tahsildar that his father Chayappa Kurkuri at no point of time cultivated the suit lands as shown in Ex.D.19 and Ex.D 20. In view of such evidence, the Tahsildar directed the deletion of name of Chayappa Kurkuri. Thereafter from the date of Ex.D.43 the name of defendants are shown as the cultivators in Column No.12. In column No.9 the names of defendants are shown. From 1967 till 1983 Bujabali ‘s name was shown as the kabjedar in column No.9 who is none other than the husband of the first defendants and father of defendants 2 and 3. In view of the clinching material produced, the appellate court comes to the conclusion that the defendants have proved the case of continuous and uninterrupted possession from 1967 onwards and hence holds that adverse possession is proved.
8. It is the contention of the appellant that the plea of title and alternative plea of possession cannot go together in law and they are mutually inconsistent. I am unable to agree with the contention of the counsel for the appellant. The Division Bench of this Court is KARNATAKA WAKF BOARD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA 1995 (4) KLJ P.326 in para 22 has held as follows:
“22. The plaintiff has taken up an alternative plea that it has perfected its title to the suit property by adverse possession also. In the appeal memo, in para 10 at page No.7, it is contended that the said plea is inconsistent with the plea of title under issue No.1. It is not possible to accept this contention. It is not possible to accept this contention. It is well-settled that the plaintiff can take an alternative plea. The plea regarding title and the plea of adverse possession pleaded by the plaintiff in this case, cannot be said to be inconsistent with one another. The evidence of P.W.1 and the documentary evidence placed on record by the plaintiff and also the clear and unequivocal admissions made by D.W.1 in his evidence, as discussed above go to show that the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit property right from the year 1928 and in 1941 the plaintiff granted the suit property in favour of the district Local Board under Ex.P.3 and subsequently the education department constructed a building in the suit property in the year 1961 and the plaintiff has been in possession of it till the date of suit. The suit has been filed on 18-12-1980. Since the defendants have been putting forward a claim to the suit property since ancient times, the possession of the plaintiff is necessarily hostile to the claim of title made by the defendants and is to their knowledge. The period of plaintiff’s possession being well over the statutory period under Article 64 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the learned trial Judge has rightly held that the plaintiff has established its title to the suit property by adverse possession also. There is no substance in the contention of the appellant that the appreciation of evidence on record by the Trial Court is not proper. Hence, Point No.(i) is answered in the affirmative”.
9. That apart, as per the pleadings and evidence the defendants get into possession by virtue of relinquishment under unregistered partition deed and get mutation entries in their favour and they are in continuous and uninterrupted possession. In view of the ruling of the Supreme Court in STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. DALHOUSIE INSTITUTE OF SOCIETYAIR 1970 SC 1778 and the ruling of this Court n LAXMIBAI VS. THOREPPA AIR 1982 Kar. 248 when a person gets into possession under invalid document such possession if continuously enjoyed without interruption for over a period of 12 years, it becomes and adverse possession investing a title in the possessor.
10. The ratio laid down in the above cases squarely applies to the facts of the case and supports the defendants’ contention of adverse possession. The view taken by the appellate court that the defendants have proved adverse possession is sound and proper.
For the reasons and discussion made above, the first and second points of law are answered in Negative. The appeal is dismissed.
Alert