Name of the case: P Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K Patkar.

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 7210 of 2011

Name of Judges: Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta

Order Date: 20.11.2023

Facts of the Case:

• The dispute is regarding a piece of land and the plaintiff contends that a portion of the same land was sold to K.Shamaiah, plaintiff’s predecessor in interest, to the vendor of the plaintiff. This in turn was conveyed by the vendor to the plaintiff.
• After the enactment of the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954 which provided for the abolition of the Inams in the state of Mysore. By virtue of the Act, all rights, title and interests in the land, hitherto vested in the Inamdars ceased and came to be vested absolutely with the State of Mysore, though the Inamdars had an opportunity to apply under Section 9 of the Act to register as the occupant of the land. The Plaintiff’s Vendor also applied under the Sec 9A of the Act and sought occupancy rights and the same claim succeeded before the Special Deputy Commissioner of Inams.
• The controversy is regarding the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner of Inams. The Plaintiff’s contention is that the order was passed favoring the vendor and this made the plaintiff the rightful owner. However ,the defendant and the present appellant refuted this claim and argued that the order granted the rights in favor of his predecessor K. Srinivasa Murthy. Amendments made in 1979 which gave the powers of the Special Deputy Commissioner to the Land Tribunal and with respect to the Order dated 20th September, 1982 the occupancy rights were given to the Defendant’s Predecessor in Interest.
• The Learned Civil Judge held that the ownership of the land is with the Plaintiff. The Defendant went for an appeal before the District Judge. The First Appellate Court overturned the rulings of the Civil Judge and granted the order in favor of the Defendant. The Second Appeal the High Court decided in favor of the Plaintiff.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed and held as follows:

• The Supreme Court opinionated and cited various case laws and held that the High Court has erred in disturbing the findings of the first Appellate Court and the interpretation carried out by the High Court is erroneous. The Supreme Court also opinionated that the Plaintiff has failed to meet the burden of proof set upon him so the suit is dismissed and the impugned Judgment and Decree are set aside.
• The Court examined Sec 9 and 9A of the Act which provides that every tenant of the Inamdar, other than the tenants entitled to be registered as occupants under Sections 40, 5 and 6, shall be, entitled to continue as a tenant of the lands and the Court said that the tenant or only the Inamdar could have only applied for occupancy rights. It emphatically stated that mere reliance on revenue records or mutation entries lacked the legal efficacy to establish ownership and primarily served fiscal purposes.
• The Commissioner rejected the claims of the Plaintiff’s Vendor on the basis that the claimants were not tenants at the time of vesting.
• The Court interpreted the order of the commissioner and said that since the claim of the plaintiff’s vendor for occupancy rights was rejected, the defendant’s Predecessor-in-interest was acknowledged.
• The Court also held that the vendor cannot transfer the title to the vendee better then he himself possesses, the same originating from the principle of “Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet”.
• The Court also expressed dissatisfaction with the High Court’s Judgement wherein the Court interpreted the Commissioner’s order within the framework of the Revenue Records and set aside the order of the High Court.