P. KISHORE KUMAR versus VITTAL K. PATKAR

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 796 · Decided: 20-11-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BELA M. TRIVEDI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 796 : 2023 INSC 1009
796
CASE DETAILS
P. KISHORE KUMAR
v.
VITTAL K. PATKAR
(Civil Appeal No. 7210 of 2011)
NOVEMBER 20, 2023
[BELA M. TRIVEDI AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: The plaintiff ’s vendor applied u/s. 9A of the 
Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954 and sought 
occupancy rights in respect of 15 acres of Sy. No. 3. According to the 
plaintiff , the claim of the plaintiff ’s vendor succeeded before the Special 
Deputy Commissioner of Inams. However, the appellant-defendant 
alleged that the Commissioner’s order granted occupancy rights u/s. 9 in 
favour of his predecessor-in-interest. Trial Court after examining revenue 
records adduced by the plaintiff  and the Commissioner’s order, held that 
the ownership of the suit property vested in the plaintiff ’s vendor. Whether 
the High Court was justifi ed in upholding the decision of the Trial Court.
Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954 – 
Portions of Sy. No.3 was sold to two diff erent parties, a dispute between 
the two parties arose and, in fact, triggered the suit instituted by the 
plaintiff , inter alia, praying for declaration of title and permanent 
injunction with respect to Schedules ‘A’ and ‘B’ property, against the 
defendant – The Trial Court held that the ownership of the suit property 
vested in the plaintiff ’s vendor – However, the fi rst Appellate Court 
overturned the fi ndings of the Trial Court – The High Court upheld 
the order of the Trial Court – Propriety:
Held: A bare perusal of the s.9 and s.9A reveals that while s.9 
allows an Inamdar to make an application for occupancy rights, a tenant 
is aff orded an opportunity for the same u/s. 9A of the Act subject to the 
797
condition that he was a tenant in respect of the subject land immediately 
prior to the date of vesting – Therefore, it is only a tenant or an Inamdar, 
who could have made such an application – In the instant case, before the 
Commissioner, the plaintiff ’s vendor was one of the applicants while the 
defendant’s predecessor-in-interest was one of the respondent Inamdars 
– The Commissioner lucidly stated that the claimants were not tenants at 
the time of vesting and, therefore, the claims of, inter alia, the plaintiff ’s 
vendor, were ordered to be rejected – It was further said that their respective 
survey numbers were to be registered in favour of the Inamdars u/s. 9 – This 
can have only one possible meaning, that the claim of the plaintiff ’s vendor 
for occupancy right as a tenant was rejected, and that of the defendant’s 
predecessor-in-interest was acknowledged – The Commissioner’s order 
distinctly denying the rights of occupancy to the plaintiff ’s vendor is 
evidence that renders the revenue entries unworthy of acceptance – Also, 
an examination of the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff , also tilts 
the balance against him – The deed simply states that the plaintiff ’s vendor 
traces her title not to a grant in her favour by the government, but through 
a sale deed executed in her favour – Further, there is a categorical recital in 
the deed that the property is neither Inam land nor tenanted land, and that 
there is no legal impediment to the sale of such property – Some element of 
mischief being present is clear inasmuch as a relevant fact was concealed, 
i.e., the plaintiff ’s vendor had indeed applied for occupancy rights under 
the Act but had failed to secure them – Such an application would never 
have been necessary, had the property not been Inam or tenanted land, thus 
laying bare the defi ciency in the plaintiff ’s title – The High Court, while 
observing that there existed a lawfully registered sale deed in favour of 
the plaintiff , failed to identify this inherent defect in the title claimed by 
the plaintiff  – The fi rst Appellate Court rightly overturned the fi ndings of 
the Trial Court and dismissed the suit – The Commissioner’s order was 
correctly interpreted to determine as to in whom occupancy rights vested 
in respect of the ‘B’ schedule property – As a result, the plaintiff ’s suit 
shall stand dismissed. [Paras 8, 9, 16, 17, 31]
Maxim – Nemo dat quod non habet – Whether plaintiff ’s vendor 
having been denied the right of title in the land by the Commissioner’s 
order, could have conveyed the same to her vendee:
P. KISHORE KUMAR v. VITTAL K. PATKAR
798 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
Held: It is settled law that a vendor cannot transfer a title to the v

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