Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1007 (KAR)

Ramkrishna Tukaram Jadhav v. Deputy Commissioner

2018-10-01

B.VEERAPPA, H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

body2018
JUDGMENT : This intra-Court appeal is filed against the order dated 06.03.2018 made in W.P. No.63321/2010 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition with costs of Rs.25,000/-. 2. The present appellant, who is the petitioner before the learned Single Judge filed the writ petition against the order dated 16.12.2009 made in RB/RTA No.237/2006-2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum allowing the revision petition by setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkodi, order dated 01.09.2006. 3. It is the case of the appellant that the property in question is his ancestral property. The fourth respondent got his name entered with respect to the schedule property under mutation entry on the basis of a sale deed dated 16.03.1993. The fourth respondent filed a suit for declaration and injunction in O.S. No.229/1997. The same came to be dismissed as withdrawn. The suit filed for permanent injunction against the fourth respondent in O.S. No.185/2003 came to be decreed. Against the said judgment and decree, the fourth respondent filed an appeal in R.A. No.92/2005 before the Senior Civil Judge, Chikodi and obtained the interim order of stay, staying the operation of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, mere injunction in favour of the present appellant. Suppressing the said facts, the appellant approached the Assistant Commissioner on the basis of the decree made in O.S. No.185/2003. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 01.09.2006 set aside the entry by allowing the appeal. 4. It was the subject matter of the revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner filed by the fourth respondent. The Deputy Commissioner considering the entire material on record, came to conclusion that the fourth respondent is claimed his right in the registered sale deed dated 16.03.1993. Accordingly, allowed the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 5. It was the subject matter of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, which came to be dismissed. Hence, the present appeal is filed. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. The respondent No.4 served unrepresented. 7. Smt. Archana A. Magadum, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. The respondent No.4 served unrepresented. 7. Smt. Archana A. Magadum, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. She further contended that the present appellant filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner on the basis of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.185/2003. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was not right in confirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. She would further contended that the suit filed by the fourth respondent in O.S. No.229/2017 for declaration of title and injunction came to be dismissed as withdrawn. In view of the disposal, he has no right. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner was justified by setting aside the order of entry made in favour of the fourth respondent in respect of the property is in question. The same has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, she sought to allow the writ appeal. 8. Per contra, Sri. C.S. Patil, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State sought to justify the impugned order and contended that the revenue authorities have no right to decide the title in respect of the immovable property concerned. The Deputy Commissioner was justified relying upon the facts that the Revenue Officers are not empowered or authorized to go into the validity of the registered sale deed. They cannot also examine the signature of either seller or purchaser or both which is done in the office of the Sub-Registrar and has allowed the revision petition. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the appeal by confirming the order of learned Single Judge. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. It is un-disputed fact that the fourth respondent is claiming to enter his name on the basis of registered sale deed dated 16.03.1993. The present appellant is also claiming his right based on the decree passed in O.S. No.185/2003, the suit filed for permanent injunction. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.09.2005 in O.S. No.185/2003, passed by the Principal, Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikodi, the fourth respondent granted interim stay of operation of the judgment and decree. The present appellant is also claiming his right based on the decree passed in O.S. No.185/2003, the suit filed for permanent injunction. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.09.2005 in O.S. No.185/2003, passed by the Principal, Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikodi, the fourth respondent granted interim stay of operation of the judgment and decree. Permanent injunction granted by the trial Court was stayed by the lower Appellate Court made in R.A.No.92/2005. 10. The Deputy Commissioner considering the entire material on record by the order dated 16.12.2009 recorded a finding that “revenue authorities have no power to cancel the sale deed. The fourth respondent produced the zerox copy of the sale deed dated 16.03.1993 and the revenue authorities are not empowered or authorized to go into the validity of the registered sale deed. They cannot also examine the signature of either seller or purchaser or both which is done in the office of the Sub-Registrar.” Accordingly, allowed the revision petition by setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkodi. The learned Single Judge, considering the entire material on record, has dismissed the writ petition holding that it is unfortunate to note that the challenge made in regular appeal by the fourth respondent has not been stated in the writ petition. In para 4 of the writ petition, it is narrated that being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.185/2003, the fourth respondent has not challenged the same at all and it is incorrect statement of fact. False pleadings have been made by the petitioner. The petitioner has made an attempt to mislead the Court on facts, even though, the material on record would indicate that an appeal was filed much prior to filing of the writ petition. Therefore, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 11. The fact remains, whether the revenue authorities can decide the title between the parties in respect of immovable property. Therefore, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 11. The fact remains, whether the revenue authorities can decide the title between the parties in respect of immovable property. In view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Corporation of the City of Bangalore, V/s. M. Papaiah and another reported in AIR 1989 SC 1809 (B) Civil P.C. (1908), S.100 – Question of law-Revenue record is not document of title – Interpretation of revenue record is not question of law – Finding of fact rendered by lower court on basis of interpretation of revenue record – Interference with finding by High Court is illegal” held that revenue authorities are not the authorities to decide the title between the parties. The only competent Civil Court can decide the title between the parties. As per the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case stated supra at para 5 held as under : “5. In revering the decision of the first appellate court the high Court committed several serious errors of law. The High Court appears to have been confused on the question whether the issue of title to the disputed property was involved in the suit or not. The judgment shows that the High Court has made several inconsistent observations. By way of illustration, the following passage at page of the paper book (of this Court) may be seen :- “This court must accept this argument in view of the circumstance that there was no issue involving the title. The title has bee satisfactorily established by the appellants and the respondent has failed to establish its title. Therefore, the first appellate court is wholly wrong in raising issues which did not arise in the case and reaching the conclusion that the suit was bad since the appellants did not seek the relief of declaration of title and possession.” We do agree that the suit cannot be dismissed on the ground that the relief of declaration of title and possession has not been specifically mentioned in the plaint. But the observations on the question whether the issue of title is involved in the suit or not are clearly discrepant. But the observations on the question whether the issue of title is involved in the suit or not are clearly discrepant. In some other part of the judgment the High Court has mentioned a portion of the relevant evidence on the question of title and possession and made adverse comments against the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court without giving any valid reason therefore. So far the revenue records are concerned, the appellate court considered the same and held that they did not support the plaint. The High court has reversed the finding saying that the interpretation of the first appellate court was erroneous. It is firmly established that the revenue records are not documents of title, and the question of interpretation of a document not being a document of title is not a question of law. These errors have seriously vitiated the impugned judgment of the High Court which must be set aside. 12. Taking into consideration of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear from the present facts and circumstances of the case, that the fourth respondent claiming his title on the basis of the said documents. The petitioner claiming his title based on the permanent injunction granted by the trial Court. 13. It is ultimately, aggrieved parties have approach the Civil Court claiming their respective titles. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is confirmed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper. The appellant has not made out any case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge exercising powers under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.