LexH. LAKSHMAIAH REDDY & ORS. versus L. VENKATESH REDDY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2015] 3 S.C.R. 938 H. LAKSHMAIAH REDDY & ORS. v. L. VENKATESH REDDY (Civil Appeal Nos. 3725-3726 of 2015) APRIL 17, 2015 [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] Transfer of property - Mutation - Mutation entries in C revenue records - Creation of title - First wife of defendant no. 1 and mother of plaintiff purchased certain property and the property stood in her name in revenue record - Upon her death, as per the Hindu Succession Act, defendant no. 1 and plaintiff succeeded to the suit property - Declaration D made by defendant no. 1 before the revenue authorities to change the katha in the name of plaintiff in respect of the suit property - Mutation effected accordingly and the revenue record stood in the name of the plaintiff for a long time - On basis thereof, plaintiff sought relief of declaration E against the defendants including defendants 2 to 5, children of defendant no. 1 from the second marriage - Suit dismissed by the trial court but allowed by the High Court -- On appeal, held: Mutation of property in revenue records does not convey or extinguish any title and those entries F are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue - High Court erred in concluding that the defendant no. 1 by his conduct had acquiesced and divested himself of title of his half share in suit property - G Defendant no. 1 did not relinquish or release his right in respect of the half share in the suit property at any point of time and that is also not the case pleaded by the plaintiff - Assumption on the part of the High Court that as a result of the mutation, defendant no. 1 divested himself of the title H 938 H. LAKSHMAIAH REDDY v. L. VENKATESH REDDY 939 and possession of half share in suit property was wrong - A Thus, the order passed by the High Court set aside. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 First defendant did not relinquish or release his right in respect of the half share in the suit B property at any point of time and that is also not the case pleaded by the plaintiff. The assumption on the part of the High Court that as a result of the mutation, 1st defendant divested himself of the title and C possession of half share in suit property is wrong. The mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title and those entries are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue. The High Court erred in concluding that the 1st defendant by his conduct had D acquiesced and divested himself of title of his half share in suit property. [Para 9] [944-A-C; 45-C] 1.2 The counsel for the respondent/plaintiff strenuously contended that the 1st defendant is now E 90 years old and owns lots of properties and the plaintiff is his only son through first wife and litigation pertains to only one property namely the suit property and though this Court gave ample opportunities, no settlement could be arrived at between the parties and F considering the special circumstances, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution may not interfere with th~ High Court judgment, which will do complete justice t.o the parties. The High Court misdirected itself and committed G serious error warranting our interference with the impugned judgment The judgment and decree of the High Court is set aside and that of the lower appellate court is restored. [Paras 10, 11, 12] [945-D-H; -46-A] H 940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R. A Ba/want Singh and another vs. Dau/at Singh (Dead) by Lrs. And Ors. (1997) 7 SCC 137; Taherakhatoon (D) By Lrs. Vs. Salambin Mohammad 1999 (1) SCR 901 : (1999) 2 SCC 635; Chandra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 674: (2003) 6 sec 545 - B referred to. CASE LAW REFERENCE . (1997) 1 sec 137 C 1999 (1) SCR 901 Referred to Referred to Para 6 Para 7 Para 7 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 674 Referred to D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3725-3726 of 2015 From the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated 08.09.2010 and 25.11.201 O in RSA No. 1500/2009 and in RP No. 398/2010 in RSA No. E 1500/2009 respectively. Basavaprabhu S. Patil, Rajesh Mahale, Krishna Kumar, S. V. Jagannath for the Appellants. F · S. S. Javali, Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, P. R. Ramasesh G for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals are preferred against judgment dated 8.9
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.