Revenue records don't grant ownership, and a plaintiff can't win just by pointing out flaws in the defendant's title : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, reiterating that revenue records do not establish title, ruled in the case of P. Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar that mere mutation of revenue records does not strip the true title-owners of their rights in the land. The Court clarified that a mutation entry does not confer any right, title, or interest, serving only fiscal purposes.
Emphasizing that pointing out flaws in the opposing party's title is insufficient, the Court stated that the burden of proof lies with the party filing the suit to reasonably establish a probability of better title. In this case, the plaintiff failed to meet this burden, presenting only revenue documents of a fiscal nature as evidence.
The Court criticized the Trial Court's verdict in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the first appellate court's decision, which overturned the Trial Court's findings, should not have been interfered with by the High Court. The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court's involvement in a second appeal should not amount to a "third trial on facts."
The dispute involved a piece of land, and the plaintiff claimed ownership based on the sale of a portion by the vendor's predecessor. The controversy arose from the interpretation of the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954. The Commissioner's order, rejecting the plaintiff's vendor's claim for occupancy rights, played a crucial role. The High Court, in a second appeal, interpreted the Commissioner's order in favor of the plaintiff's vendor, leading to the present appeal.
The Supreme Court analyzed sections 9 and 9A of the Act, concluding that only a tenant or an Inamdar could apply for occupancy rights. The Commissioner's rejection of the plaintiff's vendor's claim indicated acknowledgment of the defendant's predecessor-in-interest's rights. The Court emphasized the legal principle that a vendor cannot transfer a title better than what they possess.
Disapproving of the reliance on revenue entries as documents of title, the Court emphasized that revenue records are not sufficient proof under the law. It expressed dissatisfaction with the High Court's failure to interpret the Commissioner's order in harmony with the law and set aside the High Court's judgment.