A.M. RAMANNA versus LAND TRIBUNAL, MANDY TALUK AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 308 · Decided: 12-07-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
' 
A 
A.M. RAMANNA 
>--
v. 
LAND TRIBUNAL, MANDY A T ALUK AND ORS. 
JULY 12, 2007 
B 
(DR. ARIJITPASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA,JJ.] 
.>/-
Land Laws: 
"-
c 
Mortgage of suit land-Redemption and possession taken back-
Mortgagee granted occupancy rights on the ground that after redemption of 
mortgage, land was given on lease to him-Challenged by purchaser of the 
/and-Appellate authority doubting the veracity of lease deed, rejected the 
claim of mortgagee-High Court set aside the order of appellate authority-
On appeal, held: High Court erred in interfering with factual findings recorded 
D by appellate authority-In Pahari documents name of mortgagee was not 
entered as tenant-Rather name of purchaser entered in the Patta book and 
>---
Pahari documents-Moreover, mortgagee was Patel of village and had full 
.... 
knowledge of sale transaction and also had signed in Patta book for having 
received land tax from the purchaser-Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961-
s. 12 IA. 
E 
On 18.11.1960, 'B' mortgaged suit land in favour of his brother 'T' for 
a period of IO years. Though the mortgage period was upto the year 1970, 
'B' redeemed mortgage on 27.8.1963 itself. However, the case of original 
tenant 'T' was that on 30.8.1963, 'B' had executed a lease deed in his favour 
F 
in respect of certain lands including the suit land. 'T' filed an application 
. 
claiming occupancy rights in respect of suit land, which was allowed by the ,, 
-f 
Tribunal. 
Appellant claiming to be the purchaser of land from 'K' in the year 1972 
approached the appellate authority. Appellate authority doubting the veracity 
G of the lease deed rejected the claim of 'T'. The Revision Petition was then 
filed before the High Court. The High Court was of the view that there was no 
discussion about the genuineness of the lease deed. Finally, it was concluded 
that K was not examined either before the Tribunal or before the Appellate 
"' 
,__ -
Authority by appellant, to substantiate his case that it was 'K' who was the 
owner of the land from 1963 to 1972 from whom appellant purchased the land 
H 
308 
_{ 
A.M. RAMANNA v. LAND TRIBUNAL. MANDY A T ALUK 
309 
in the year 1972. Accordingly the ord'er of the appellate authority was set A 
_, 
aside. Hence the present appeal. 
'i-
.) 
___.. 
.. 
)'- ... 
-l 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is admitted position that the possession by 'B' was taken at 
the time ofredemption, and the possession was given to 'K' and 'K' had handed B 
over possession to the appellant. (Para 10) [312-G) 
2. In his cross examination 'T' had admitted that after redeeming the 
mortgage for about 2 to 3 years he had not done guthige of the land and gave 
the same to this younger brother 'B'. [Para 13) (313-G) 
3. The Appellate Authority referred to the statement in the cross-
examination of'T' and came to hold that he was not in possession of the land 
on 30.8.1963; The Pahari documents of the land were examined and it was 
noted that the possession and enjoyment of land by 'T' was not there from 
30.9.1963 and the same was not established. In the Pahari documents of the 
land his name was not entered as tenant. On 30.9.1963, '8' sold the disputed 
land to his father-in-law. After such sale in the Kandayam Patta Book and 
Pahari documents of the disputed land, name of'K' the purchaser was entered . 
He had even paid the land tax to the State Government 'T' who was the village 
Patel has himself signed for having received the land tax in the Kandayarn. 
Contrary to what the High Court has observed, the Appellate Authority in 
detail has examined the question as to the genuineness of the lease deed. In 
the statement recorded by the Land Tribunal, it has been clearly admitted that 
the disputed land was being cultivated by the 'K' and his son in law 'B' jointly. 
Therefore, the Appellate Authority inferred that the sale deed was in force. 
After examining the materials on record, the Appellate Authority recorded a 
categorical finding that the lease deed was not a genuine document and it was 
not a believable document. The Appellate Authority noted that 'T' was Patel 
of the village and he had full knowledge of the transaction. High Court erred 
in holding that there was no discussion on the factual aspect as to the 
genuineness of the document. No evidence was adduced to substantiate the 
claim of possession. [Para 141 (314-A-E) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 669 of200 I. 
From the Final Judgment & 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.