LexR. HANUMAIAH & ANR. versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2010] 4 S.C.R. 904 R. HANUMAIAH & ANR. v. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 1588-1589 of 2008) FEBRUARY 24, 2010* [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] Suit: Suit for declaration of title and injunction - Plaintiffs claiming to be owners of the suit land - Reliance placed on various documents - Trial court decreeing the suit - High Court setting aside the decree - On appeal, held: The suit D land was a Government land - The land was not subjected to any land revenue - Documents relied on, do not establish title of the plaintiffs on the lands - Mysore Revenue Manual - Paras 236 and 376 - Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961 E F - s. 67. Suit for declaration of title - Against Government and against private individual - Difference between - discussed. Suit for declaration of title against Government - Grant of decree - Criteria for - Discussed. Suit for declaration of title against Government - Onus to prove title - Held: It is for the claimants to establish their title to suit properties - Weakness of Government's defence or absence of contest, are not sufficient to decree declaratory G suits against the Government. H Adverse possession - Right adverse to the Government - Claim of - Held: To claim adverse possession, claimant's • judgment Recd. on 24.4.2010 904 R. HANUMAIAH v. SEC. TO GOVT. OF KARNATAKA 905 REV. DEPTI .. possession should be actual, open and visible, hostile to the A owner and continued during entire period necessary to create bar under the law of limitation. Appellant-plaintiffs filed the present suit for declara'ffon of title and consequential relief of permanent 8 injunction in respect of the suit land (Survey Nos. 30 and 31 ), against the respondent-defendants. Appellants claimed to be owners of a tank in Survey No. 30 and a barren land in Survey No. 31. They claimed that the ·suit . land was part of the land owned by their ancestors, and c they were in continuous possession of the suit land as owners. The app~llants filed a suit for permanent injunction when City Improvement Trusts Board attempted to interfere with their possession of the tank (Survey No. 30). Subsequently the present suit was filed 0 wherein the appellants-plaintiff claimed title over the suit land Survey Nos. 30 and 31, placing reliance on Exs. P1, P2, P10, P11, P12 and P18. During pendency of the . present suit, first suit was dismissed. Appeal against the order was also dismissed by High Court observing that E the judgment would not affect the pending (present) suit. Plea of the respondent-defendants w_as that Survey No.30 was a Government tank shown as Kharab land in the revenue records and Survey No. 31 was also a governrrient barren land shown in revenue records as F Government Kharab land. Trial court decreed the suit holding that appellants had made out their possession and title with regard to the suit property. High.Court, in appeal, set aside the decree. Hence the present appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court G HELD: 1.1. The appellants were not registered as the owners or khatedars or occupiers of the suit lands in any H ~· . 906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 4 $.C.R. A revenue records. They did not have any document of title referring to the suit properties. The appellants did not have possession. Even assuming that the tank in Survey No. 30 was repaired/ maintained by the ancestors of plaintiff at some point of time, there is no document to B show that the tank was used, maintained or repaired by the appellants or their predecessors during more than half a century before the filing of the suit. The suit has to fail. (Para 21) (926-B-D] c 1.2. The High Court, being the first appellate court is the final court of fact. It has, after examining the evidence exhaustively recorded a finding that the appellants have not established their title or possession. There is no error in the findings and conclusions of the High Court. The 0 appellants who came to court claiming title, not having established title, their suit is liable to be dismissed. [Para 19] [925-D-E] 2.1. Suits for decfaration of title against the Government, though similar to suits for declaration of title E against private individuals differ significantly in some aspects. The first difference is in regard to the presumption available in favour of the Government. All lands which are not the property
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.