Case Note & Summary
The dispute originated from a 1942 purchase of suit properties by Krishnamurthy S. Setlur (KS) through his general power of attorney, H.R. Narayana Iyengar (HR). In 1946, KS revoked the power of attorney, leading to multiple suits. In 1949, KS sued HR claiming the property was purchased benami, but this suit was dismissed in 1961 and the appeal dismissed in default in 1966, becoming final. Meanwhile, in 1949, HR filed a suit for injunction against KS and tenant Achyuthananatha Raju (AR), which was dismissed in 1951, holding AR as tenant under KS; this was upheld on appeal and became final. In 1962, KS settled with AR, who surrendered tenancy rights over most of the land, and KS took possession, with his name entered in revenue records from 1963. In 1963, KS sued AR for interference, and in 1981 the High Court declared KS owner in possession and granted injunction against AR, but HR's legal heirs were not parties. In 1981, KS filed O.S. No. 3656 of 1981 against HR's legal heirs for permanent injunction, claiming ownership or alternatively adverse possession. The trial court decreed in KS's favor in 1996, holding he had perfected title by adverse possession. The High Court reversed in 1999, but the Supreme Court remanded. After remand, the High Court again dismissed KS's suit in 2007, leading to this appeal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in ignoring that KS was in possession from 1963 to 1981, as evidenced by revenue records, and that his possession was hostile to the true owner. The Court found that the presumption of truth attached to revenue records was not rebutted, and that the High Court's reasoning that KS was not the true owner did not negate his claim of adverse possession. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's decree, holding that KS had perfected title by adverse possession.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Perfection of Title - Limitation Act, 1963, Article 65 - The appellant claimed title by adverse possession after being in possession from 1963 to 1981, asserting hostile ownership against the true owner. The Court held that the High Court failed to consider that the appellant's possession was open, continuous, and hostile, and that the presumption of truth attached to revenue records showing his possession was not rebutted. The Court allowed the appeal and restored the trial court's decree (Paras 10-18). B) Property Law - Benami Transaction - Burden of Proof - Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 - The appellant's claim of being the true owner as a benamidar was rejected in earlier proceedings, which attained finality. The Court noted that the appellant was not the true owner but could still claim adverse possession (Paras 6, 10). C) Evidence Law - Revenue Records - Presumption of Truth - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 35 - The appellant's name was recorded in revenue records from 1963 to 1981 as owner in possession. The Court held that such records carry a presumption of truth, which was not rebutted by the respondents, and thus supported the claim of adverse possession (Paras 14-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant had perfected title by adverse possession over the suit property despite not being the true owner, and whether the High Court erred in reversing the trial court's decree.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 28.09.2007, and restored the decree of the trial court dated 11.10.1996, holding that the appellant had perfected title by adverse possession. The Court directed that the appellant be put back in possession if dispossessed, and that the respondents pay costs of Rs. 50,000 to the appellant.
Law Points
- Adverse possession
- Benami transaction
- Possessory title
- Presumption of truth in revenue records
- Burden of proof
