BALASUBRAMANIAN AND ORS. versus RAMAIAH THONDAMAN

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 756 · Decided: 14-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BALASUBRAMANIAN AND ORS. 
..., 
v. 
RAMAIAH THONDAMAN 
DECEMBER 14, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
·>( 
Land laws: 
c 
Claim for title over property on ground of purchase from patta 
holders-Held: Not tenable as patta holders themselves conceded 
before settlement officer that patta was wrongly granted to them-
Revenue records show that suit property was throughout enjoyed by 
defendant and her husband by paying kisht-Even otherwise, grant 
D of patta cannot be equated with document of title. 
The plaintiff-respondent filed suit for declaration of his title and 
.. 
'f 
for injunction restraining defendant from interfering with his 
possession and in alternate for possession of the suit property. The 
plaintiff claimed that he had purchased the suit property from one 
E 'R' and his daughter 'N', who were pattaholders. The case of 
defendant was that the settlement patta was wrongly issued for the 
suit lands to 'R' and 'N' and the sale in favour of plaintiff was by 
fraud as the village karnam was brother of plaintiff who assisted his 
brother in bringing the sale deed and when the defendant's husband 
F came to know about the wrong issuance of patta for suit property, 
' 
he filed application before the settlement authorities for transfer of 
patta in his favour. 'R' appeared before the Assistant Settlement 
Officer and conceded that he and his daughter 'N' had no title or 
possession of the suit property and the patta for the suit property 
G was wrongly granted to them and consented for the transfer of 
registry for the suit property. 
~ 
Trial Court decreed the suit. First appellate Court set aside the 
decree. On appeal, High Court restored the order of trial Court. 
Hence the present appeal. 
756 
H 
"-• y 
BALASUBRAMANIAN v. RAMAIAHTHONDAMAN 
757 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1. The plaintiff has pressed into service Ex. A-1 sale 
deed to the effect that he purchased the suit property from 'R' and 
'N'. As the defendant denied the title of the plaintiff to the suit 
property, it was the bounden duty of the plaintiff to prove his case 
by placing acceptable evidence. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not B 
examined his vendors to show how they got title to the property sold 
under Ex. A-1. On the other hand, the defendant by placing notice 
Ex. B-19 issued by vendors of the plaintiffs contended that the suit 
property was in possession of the defendant and not with the vendors 
of the plaintiff. The lower Appellate Court on perusal of Ex. B-9 C 
came to the conclusion that the suit property was enjoyed by the 
defendant and her husband throughout by paying kisht for the same. 
The evidence further show that the said 'R' and his daughter never 
executed any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and the same was 
obtained on account of old age of 'R'. It was also highlighted that D 
'N' was also not well versed with the transactions of this nature. In 
the proceedings for a grant ofRyotwari patta, the Settlement Officer 
had issued a notification calling for objections from the villagers. In 
the said proceedings, Settlement Officer conducted suo motu enquiry 
in respect of 370 cases by verifying the revenue records and E 
prepared Form 5 statement which refers the name of the defendant's 
husband. This factual information strengthen the case of the 
defendant that her husband got title to the suit property. A petition 
was filed before the Assistant Settlement Officer for rectification 
of the mistake in grant ofpatta in favour of the plaintifrs vendors. F 
Only in this context, 'R' appeared in person and informed the officer 
that he has no objection to' change the patta in respect of the suit 
property in favour of the defendant's husband. Even otherwise, the 
grant of patta cannot be equated to that of a document of title. At 
the most the patta proceedings and the ultimate order by the G 
competent authority granting patta may be used as a piece of 
evidence to show that the subject-matter property is with the grantee. 
Considering all these material aspects particularly the action of the 
plaintiffs vendors in informing the Assistant Settlement Officer 
about the wrong decision in granting patta in their favour and H 
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. 
-; 
A considering the oral and documentary evidence with regard to the 
same, the lower Appellate Court rightly concluded that the Assistant 
Settlement Officer has passed an erroneous order which could no

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