Bombay HC: Can deleting sister's name from the revenue records mean that she has given up her share in the ancestral property?

 The questions formulated while admitting the Appeal are

answered as under:

(i) It is permissible to orally relinquish share in the

ancestral property by a coparcener in favour of another

coparcener in absence of a written instrument and in absence

of registration.

(ii) Oral relinquishment cannot be presumed on the basis of

a document created for the purpose of deletion of name from

revenue records, especially when such document by itself does

not effect relinquishment nor refers to any oral

relinquishment.

(iii) Mere expression of consent for allotment of share in the

ancestral property in favour of one of the coparceners forming

part of different unit does not automatically amount to

expression of relinquishment of share in the joint family

property falling to the share of claimant’s own unit. {Para 32}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SECOND APPEAL NO.679 OF 2023

Shekhar Shankar Joshi Vs Anita Arun Bhave

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Dated:  20 AUGUST 2026.

Citation: 026:BHC-AS:1

Print Page

Revenue Record Doesn't Confer Title' : Supreme Court Summarises Principles On Revenue Entries & Land Ownership

 The bench summarised the position of law regarding Revenue Entries and their legal effect on the question of title:

"1 Entries in Revenue Records or Jamabandi serve only a “fiscal purpose”. Their primary function is to enable the person whose name is mutated in the records to pay the land revenue in question.

2 A Revenue Record is not a document of title and does not confer any ownership or title upon the person whose name appears in it. Further, mutation does not create or extinguish title and has absolutely no presumptive value regarding title.

3 The mere acceptance of municipal or agricultural taxes, or the granting of a bank loan based on these records, does not stop the State from challenging the ownership of the land.

4 While they do not prove title, Revenue Records can raise a presumption regarding possession. Maintenance and custody of Revenue Records is the exclusive domain of the Patwari, and it is not uncommon that Revenue Records are often tinkered with by him to suit the exigencies.

5 Stray or solitary entries recorded for a single year do not raise a presumption of rights and cannot be relied upon against a long, consistent course of revenue entries in favour of another party.

6 The creation of fabricated records in collusion acts as a camouflage to defeat the legal rights of the actual tiller, and the Government is not bound by them."

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. _________ OF 2026

@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 27590 OF 2025

VADIYALA PRABHAKAR RAO & ORS Vs THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Author: S.V.N. BHATTI, J..

Citation: 2026 INSC 450.

Dated: May 6, 2026.

Print Page

Gujarat HC: The civil court has jurisdiction to set aside mutation entry done in revenue record on the basis of unregistered oral sale

Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act provides that if some tangible immovable property worth less than Rs. 100.00 (Rupees One Hundred only) is sold and delivery of possession is also effected, then, such sale, on delivery of possession, would be complete. The law provides that if any tangible immovable property worth Rs. 100.00 (Rupees One Hundred only) or more is sought to be transferred or alienated, then, such transfer is required on proper stamp and is required to be registered also. Consequence of non-registration is shown under Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act. Section 49 clearly provides that in a case where document, which under the law, was required to be registered, if is not registered, then, the same would not be admitted in evidence, except for collateral purpose. If a document is not admissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon, nor does convey title in the law, then, on the basis of such document, an entry could not be made in the revenue record. In the revenue record, entry can be made only if some legal document conveys title in favour of the purchaser or, person aspiring for entry in his favour has obtained right under some revenue laws. In the present case, on the basis of an unregistered sale, which admittedly was oral one, an entry in favour of the defendant could not be made. {Para 7}

8. Civil Court ordinarily would not interfere in the matters where Courts of limited jurisdiction or exclusive jurisdiction have exercised their authority. A Civil Court would interfere in a matter, if it is held by the Court that provisions of law have been violated to their hilt, the authority/officer had no jurisdiction to do something or principles of natural justice have been violated. The moment the Court comes to the conclusion that act or action of an authority is bad and runs contrary to law, then, the Civil Court shall immediately assume the jurisdiction and correct the wrong committed by the authorities. The Courts below, in the considered opinion of this Court were unjustified in holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. The concept of jurisdiction is not based upon the plain reading of provisions of law, because, it is trite to say that a Civil Court is always jealous of a provision which ousts its jurisdiction. A Civil Court has to be too cautious and careful in understanding and appreciating the provisions which say that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. All the conditions to denude the Civil Court of its powers must be complied with. Moment a Civil Court holds that any other Court of exclusive jurisdiction has violated the provisions of law or has not observed the law or has violated the principles of natural justice, then it is bound to exercise its jurisdiction.

9. In the opinion of this Court, entry made in favour of the respondents could not be made by any person whatsoever authority he had. The entry was patently without jurisdiction, it deserves to and is accordingly set aside.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

Second Appeal No. 28 of 1990

Decided On: 16.03.2007

Radhiben and Ors. Vs. Surtan Vesta Damor and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.S. Garg, J.

Citation: 2007 AIR (Gujarat) 147, MANU/GJ/7080/2007.

Print Page

Madras HC: Revenue records will not confer any title unless supported by valid documents

 It is needless to reiterate again that, revenue records are not documents for title, it will not confer any title, unless supported by valid documents. Likewise documents created fraudulently though registered is non est in eye of law. {Para 46}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

A.S. No. 876 of 2019, C.M.P. Nos. 26727 of 2019 and 13994 of 2020

Decided On: 17.02.2021

Somasundaram Vs. Parameswariammal

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. G. Jayachandran, J.

Citation:  MANU/TN/0670/2021,2021(1) LW 912,2021(4) CTC 44.

Print Page

Whether the State can claim a right in a immovable property in the basis of gift deed if its name is not mutated in revenue record since long?

 The title of the land in suit had passed on to the State

after the donation and transfer of possession and after

construction, the hospital continued for more than

four decades before filing of the suit. The plaintiff, son

of the donor, also waited for 20 years despite admitted

knowledge of the hospital running over the land in

suit and did not take any action. {Para 26}

27. Article 65 under the Schedule to the Limitation Act

provides limitation of 12 years for filing a suit for

possession based on title. In the present case, merely

because the name of the plaintiff continued in the

revenue records (Jama Bandis), it would not confer

any title upon him. Revenue records (Jama Bandis)

are only entries for the purpose of realising tax by the

Municipal Corporations or land revenue by Gram

Sabhas. The plaintiff having failed to claim relief of

declaration, the suit itself would not be maintainable.

Further, for a suit for declaration, period of limitation

would be three years under Article 58 of the Schedule

to the Limitation Act, which in the present case was

long lost.

28. There is nothing on record available from the cross-examination of defendants 1 and 2 that the documents which they proved were either incorrect, doubtful or suspicious. The documents exhibited by the defendants could not be ignored as they were

public documents, copies of which were filed and duly

proved. Even if the deed was not placed on record but

due explanation was given, the facts of the case and

the evidence on record clearly established the case of

the defendant-appellant that the land in suit had been

donated by Sri Inder Singh, father of the plaintiff way

back in 1958. The lethargy/carelessness on the part

of the State in not getting the revenue records

corrected on the basis of the gift deed would not take

away the rights conferred on the State under the gift

deed.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO…………OF 2024

Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.................of 2024

(@ Diary No.17885 of 2020)

THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. Vs BHAGWANTPAL SINGH ALIAS BHAGWANT SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.

Author: VIKRAM NATH, J.

Citation: 2024 INSC 518.

Dated: JULY 10, 2024.

Print Page

Decoding revenue Jargon for better appreciation of land Dispute(Real Estate)

A) Procedure for sanctioning of layout.

1) 10% open space is to be left for sanctioning of layout

2) tentative layout,

3) Approval

4) demarcated layout on spot

5) sanctioned layout.

6) revised layout if there is dispute.

This procedure is available under building byelaws

B) When city survey is done, Property card is issued.

Chalta sheet is maintained which shows which city survey is converted into which CTS No. in urban area. 

C) Gut no. is in respect of agricultural land .

Khasra patrak and pahni patrak are in respect of agricultural land 

Survey no is converted in to gut no in case of agricultural land.

Print Page

Whether a person can not claim the title in the property even if the revenue record shows his name in respect of said immovable property?

 The contention raised by the Appellants is that since Mangal

Kumhar was the recorded tenant in the suit property as per

the Survey Settlement of 1964, the suit property was his self acquired  property.

The said contention is legally misconceived since entries

in the revenue records do not confer title to a property, nor

do they have any presumptive value on the title. They only

enable the person in whose favour mutation is recorded, to

pay the land revenue in respect of the land in question.

As a consequence, merely because Mangal Kumhar’s

name was recorded in the Survey Settlement of 1964 as a

recorded tenant in the suit property, it would not make him

the sole and exclusive owner of the suit property.

NONREPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5919 OF 2011

Prahlad Pradhan Vs  Sonu Kumhar

Dated: October 16, 2019

Author: INDU MALHOTRA, J.

Print Page

Whether partition of joint family property can be proved by entries in revenue record?

 The Tribunals below did not advert to the entries in the Record of Rights or to the factum of partition, while the High Court has taken this factor into consideration, which in our considered view had rightly been taken into account. The entries in the Record of Rights regarding the factum of partition is a relevant piece of documentary evidence in support of the oral evidence given, by the respondent and his brother to prove the factum of partition. Even in the evidence of Ram Chander, he clearly stated that there was a partition but he could not give the date and year in which the partition was effected nor the deed of the partition was produced. Under the Hindu Law, it is not necessary that the partition should be effected by a registered partition deed. Even a family arrangement is enough to effectuate the partition between coparceners and to confer right to a separate share and enjoyment thereof. Under those circumstances, when the factum of partition was evidenced by entries in the Record of Rights, which was maintained in official course of business, the correctness thereof was not questioned, it corroborates the oral evidence given by the brother and lends assurance to accept it.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2653 of 1972

Decided On: 21.02.1995

Digambar Adhar Patil Vs.  Devram Girdhar Patil (Died) and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K. Ramaswamy and B.L. Hansaria, JJ.

Citation: AIR 1995 SC 1728

Print Page

Whether burden of proof is on party to prove that revenue record is wrong if he alleges it?

The main ground urged is that since in the earlier proceedings held under the Act, the extent of pot kharab land was found to be 106.24 acres, then in the second ceiling proceedings the extent of pot kharab land could not come down to 28.20 acres. In this behalf, it is urged that the revenue authorities have relied upon the revenue entries with regard to the classification of the land and have not actually visited the land to determine which land is cultivable and which land is not cultivable. In ceiling proceedings, it is the duty of the owner of the land to show which portion of his land is exempt from ceiling proceedings. In this case, in the return filed on behalf of the owner it was mentioned that only 11.10 acres of land is pot kharab. However, on the basis of the revenue record, the officer assessed the pot kharab land as 28.20 acres. The Appellant led no evidence and has not even placed on record the revenue records prior to the earlier ceiling proceedings or the revenue record thereafter, to support his claim that even earlier the land which was declared to be pot kharab, was actually not classified as such in the revenue record. Presumption of truth is attached to the revenue record. No doubt, this is a rebuttable presumption, but it is for the party who alleges that the entries in the revenue record are wrong to lead evidences to rebut this presumption.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 2038-2039/2009

Decided On: 25.04.2018

 Vishwasrao Satwarao Naik Vs.  State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ.

Citation: 2019(1) MHLJ 484

Print Page

Whether revenue record entry can be challenged on ground that it was made fraudulently or surreptitiously?

When in a record operation
order is passed for deleting the name of Amar Singh
from possession over the land in question, Amar Singh

cannot be held to be recorded occupant within the
meaning of Section 10(e).
12. The High Court has dealt with the above aspect of
the matter and has held that continuous of entry
after the order of deletion of the name of Amar Singh
cannot confer any right. The judgment of this Court
in Vishwa Vijay Bharati vs. Fakhrul Hassan and
others, (1976) 3 SCC 642, has rightly been referred
to and relied by the High court. This Court in
paragraph 14 of the judgment was laid down following:
“14. It is true that the entries in the
revenue record ought, generally, to be
accepted at their face value and courts
should not embark upon an appellate inquiry
into their correctness. But the presumption
of correctness can apply only to genuine,
not forged or fraudulent, entries. The
distinction may be fine but it is real. The
distinction is that one cannot challenge
the correctness of what the entry in the
revenue record states but the entry is open
to the attack that it was made fraudulently
or surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a
document of all its legal effect and cannot
found a claim to possessory title.”
13. The order of A.R.O. directing the deletion of the
name of Amar Singh was passed on the report of Record
Operation Officials in which report it was mentioned
that the name of Amar Singh has been surreptitiously

recorded. The report was accepted and the direction
was issued to delete the name. We, thus, are of the
clear opinion that Asami right could not have been
obtained by Amar Singh.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.516 OF 2009

DHARAM SINGH Vs. PREM SINGH 

Dated:February 05, 2019.

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Print Page

Whether partition of joint family property can be inferred if its members are residing separate?

 Living separately without recording any family settlement in the revenue record would not lead to conclusion that the property had been partitioned by metes and bounds.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

RSA No. 4199 of 2011

Decided On: 03.05.2018

 Gurdev Singh  Vs. Ajmer Singh 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Amit Rawal, J.

Citation: AIR 2018 P&H 197

Print Page

When land should not be treated as agricultural land even if revenue record shows that it is agricultural land?

 In the present case, security interest was created in respect of several parcels of land, which were meant to be a part of single unit i.e. the five star hotel in Goa. Some parcels of land now claimed as agricultural land were apparently purchased by the debtor from agriculturists and are entered as agricultural lands in the revenue records. The debtor applied to the revenue authorities for the conversion of these lands to non-agricultural lands which is pending till date due to policy decision.

40. It is undisputed that these lands were mortgaged in favour of the creditor under a deed dated 26.02.2010. Obviously, since no security interest can be created in respect of agricultural lands and yet it was so created, goes to show that the parties did not treat the land as agricultural land and that the debtor offered the land as security on this basis. The undisputed position is that the total land on which the Goa Hotel was located admeasures 182225 sq. mtrs. Of these, 2335 sq. mtrs. are used for growing vegetables, fruits, shrubs and trees for captive consumption of the hotel. There is no substantial evidence about the growing of vegetables but what seems to be on the land are some trees bearing curry leaves and coconut. This amounts to about 12.8 % of the total area.

The mortgage is thus intended to cover the entire property of the Goa Hotel. Prima facie, apart from the fact that the parties themselves understood that the lands in question are not agricultural, it also appears that having regard to the use to which they are put and the purpose of such use, they are indeed not agricultural.

44. In 'Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Andhra Pradesh v. Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards) Paigah MANU/SC/0232/1976 : (1976) 3 SCC 864, this Court interpreted the definition of the term 'Agricultural Land' with respect to Section 2(e) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 that excluded the said term from the definition of assets. This Court observed:

We agree that the determination of the character of land, according to the purpose for which it is meant or set apart and can be used, is a matter which ought to be determined on the facts of each particular case. What is really required to be shown is the connection with an agricultural purpose and user and not the mere possibility of user of land, by some possible future owner or possessor, for an agricultural purpose. It is not the mere potentiality, which will only affect its valuation as part of "assets", but its actual condition and intended user which has to be seen for purposes of exemption from wealth-tax. One of the objects of the exemption seemed to be to encourage cultivation or actual utilisation of land for agricultural purposes. If there is neither anything in its condition, nor anything in evidence to indicate the intention of its owners or possessors, so as to connect it with an agricultural purpose, the land could not be "agricultural land" for the purposes of earning an exemption under the Act. Entries in revenue records are, however, good prima facie evidence.

Similarly, in the case of Kunjukutty Saheb v. State of Kerala MANU/SC/0634/1972 : (1972) 2 SCC 364, this Court held as follows:

We suppose that something or other can be, and often is, grown on any vacant land, but that would not necessarily make it agricultural land for our purposes. To give an example the possibility of cultivating, or even the actual cultivation of, what is essentially a building site in the heart of a town would not make it agricultural land. It is the purpose for which it is held that determines its character and the existence of a few coconut trees or a vegetable patch on the land cannot alter the fact that it is held for purposes of building and not for purposes of agriculture.

In any event, having regard to the character of the land and the purpose for which it is set apart, we are of the view that the land in question is not an agricultural land. The High Court mis-directed itself in holding that the land was an agricultural land merely because it stood as such in the revenue entries, even though the application made for such conversation lies pending till date.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 2928-2930 of 2018 

Decided On: 19.03.2018

 ITC Limited Vs.  Blue Coast Hotels Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ.

Citation: 2018(6) MHLJ 42

Print Page

Whether presumption of truth is attached to revenue record?

 The main ground urged is that since in the earlier proceedings held under the Act, the extent of pot kharab land was found to be 106.24 acres, then in the second ceiling proceedings the extent of pot kharab land could not come down to 28.20 acres. In this behalf, it is urged that the revenue authorities have relied upon the revenue entries with regard to the classification of the land and have not actually visited the land to determine which land is cultivable and which land is not cultivable. In ceiling proceedings, it is the duty of the owner of the land to show which portion of his land is exempt from ceiling proceedings. In this case, in the return filed on behalf of the owner it was mentioned that only 11.10 acres of land is pot kharab. However, on the basis of the revenue record, the officer assessed the pot kharab land as 28.20 acres. The Appellant led no evidence and has not even placed on record the revenue records prior to the earlier ceiling proceedings or the revenue record thereafter, to support his claim that even earlier the land which was declared to be pot kharab, was actually not classified as such in the revenue record. Presumption of truth is attached to the revenue record. No doubt, this is a rebuttable presumption, but it is for the party who alleges that the entries in the revenue record are wrong to lead evidences to rebut this presumption. This, the Appellants have miserably failed to do. The Appellants have also failed to lead any evidence to show that the revenue entries are wrong.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 2038-2039/2009

Decided On: 25.04.2018

Vishwasrao Satwarao Naik Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ.

Citation:(2018) 6 SCC 580

Print Page

Whether presumption of correctness of revenue entries is applicable to forged or fraudulent, entries?

 It is true that the entries in the revenue record ought, generally, to be accepted at their face value and courts should not embark upon an appellate inquiry in to their correctness. But the presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine, not forged or fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine but it is real. The distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of what the entry is the revenue record states but the entry is open to the attack that it was Made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title.

Supreme Court of India

Vishwa Vijai Bharti vs Fakhrul Hasan & Ors on 4 May, 1976

Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1485, 1976 SCR 519

BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. SHINGAL, P.N.

Print Page

Whether a person acquires right to retain possession if there is entry in revenue record regarding his possession?

Coming to the question whether the plaintiff was placed in possession by
Buchamma, in our opinion, it is apparent that Yashoda was enjoying the property in her
lifetime, though it appears that defendant no. 3 was residing with Yashoda, but she has
not claimed any derogatory title to Yashoda nor has claimed adverse possession. Her
claim of an adopted daughter of Yashoda has not been found established. The entry of
possession in some revenue records simplicitor does not confer any right to defendant
no. 3 to retain the possession of the property. The property on the death of Yashoda had
been passed on to Buchamma being class IInd heir, as such she had the right to sell the
property to plaintiff. Even if Buchamma had not placed plaintiff in possession of
property on strength of his title conferred by way of sale deed in question he had right to
recover possession. The first appellate Court was thus right in decreeing the suit. The
High Court has erred in allowing appeal.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4816 OF 2016

Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (D) Th. Lrs. 
V
Muddasani Sarojana 
Citation:(2016) 12 SCC 288

Print Page

Whether purchaser of property can be denied title in property on ground that his name is not mutated in revenue record?

 In addition to the abovementioned reason, the contention advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents that the Appellants failed to get the mutation of entries of the suit land incorporated in record shows that there was no intention on their part to act upon the contents of the two sale deeds, cannot be accepted as mere mutation of entries does not confer title upon the deceased Respondent No. 1 in the immovable property. In the case of Sawarni v. Index Kaur and Ors.MANU/SC/0730/1996 : (1996) 6 SCC 223, this Court held as under:

7...Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment....

22. In the case of Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand and Ors. MANU/SC/0065/1994 : (1993) 4 SCC 349, this Court held that the entries in jamabandi are not proof of title in respect of an immoveable property. In the case of Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh and Ors.MANU/SC/0399/1994 : (1993) 4 SCC 403, this Court observed that entries made by patwari in official record are only for the purpose of records and do not by itself prove the correctness of the same nor can statutory presumption be drawn on the same, particularly, in the absence of corroborative evidence. The Respondent cannot claim to have acquired title over the suit property by pleading adverse possession only in the absence of the name of the Appellants in the revenue records. In the case of Thakur Kishan Singh (Dead) v. Arvind Kumar MANU/SC/0015/1995 : (1994) 6 SCC 591 andP.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and Ors. v. Revamma and Ors. MANU/SC/7325/2007 : (2007) 6 SCC 59, this Court held that in cases where the possession was initially permissive, the burden lies heavily on that person alleging adverse possession to prove that the possession has become adverse. Mere possession for long time does not convert permissive possession into adverse possession.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2151 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2489 of 2011)

Decided On: 01.03.2016

 Prem Nath Khanna  Vs. Narinder Nath Kapoor and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V. Gopala Gowda and U.U. Lalit, JJ.

Citation:(2016) 12 SCC 235,AIR 2016 SC 1433.

Print Page

Whether issue of possession can be decided on the basis of revenue record?

 It is true that the entries in the revenue record cannot create any title in respect of the land in dispute, but it certainly reflects as to who was in possession of the land in dispute on the date the name of that person had been entered in the revenue record. That apart, in that decision of this Court, on which reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the respondent, it was admitted that the landlord did not receive any rent from the person in possession. Relying on this admission of the person from whom no rent was received, it was found that the plea of tenancy was a false one. As noted herein earlier, in the present case, not only the revenue records clearly show that the appellants were in continuous possession of the land in dispute, and the admission of the respondent that the appellants were tenants in an earlier recovery proceedings, and in the absence of any document having been produced by the respondent to show that the entries in the Record of Rights were wrong, it is not possible for us to rely on the aforesaid decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondent. So far as the decision of a learned Judge of the Bombay High Court in the case of Rita Premchand & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2001 (4) MLJ 671] is concerned, there is no dispute about the proposition enunciated in the said decision which says that the entries in the revenue records are not dispositive or conclusive on questions of title and that the revenue record cannot create any title and are relevant only for fiscal purposes.
Reportable

Supreme Court of India

Narasamma And Ors vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 19 March, 2009

Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, Harjit Singh Bedi

Citation:2009(4) ALLMR 969 SC

Print Page

When plaintiff is not entitled to get decree for partition as per muslim law?

The first defendant has relied on the entries made in RTC extracts after the year 1954 upto 1985. Before the sale of property in the year 1985, the entries in RTC were made in the name of first defendant. Earlier, the entries in the RTC were made in the name of Mehtabsab and later the name of first defendant-Tameezuddin (son of Mehtabsab) was entered in the revenue records.

 The plaintiffs have not adduced evidence to rebut the presumption available under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.The plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 are the descendents of Rahimsab so also, defendants Nos. 3 to 5. The plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 have not placed any material to show that suit item No. 1 was possessed by Rahimsab at any point of time. Therefore, the averments of plaint that suit item No. 1 was acquired by Rajesaheb who was their common ancestor and the plaintiffs and defendants (except defendant No. 6) being the descendants of deceased Rajesaheb are entitled to share in the suit properties cannot be accepted. The plaintiffs have not produced documentary evidence to prove that suit item No. 1 was acquired and left by deceased Raje Saheb.

Karnataka High Court

Mr Rajesab @ Goremiyan vs Tameesoddin Since Decd By His Lrs on 5 September, 2014

Author: N.Ananda

Citation;AIR 2015(NOC)438 Kar

Print Page

Whether civil court can give direction to revenue authority to delete or insert name of person in revenue record?

Insofar as the relief directing the survey authorities of
Village Nagorcem-Palolem to delete the name of Damaciano
Fernandes from the Index of survey record in Form No. I & XIV of
survey No. 248/34 of Village Nagorcem-Palolem and to insert the
name of the plaintiff in its place, is concerned, it is well settled
that such a direction cannot be given by the Civil Court in view of
express bar under Section 106 of the Land Revenue Code, 1968,
(the Code, for short) which provides that no suit shall lie against
the Government or any officer of the Government in respect of a
claim to have an entry made in any record or register as
maintained under this Chapter or to have any such entry omitted
or amended. Such function is assigned to revenue authorities
under the Code. In the case of “Narayan Mugu Teli (since
deceased) Vs. Ramchandra Mugu Teli” [2004 (3) ALL MR
880], it has been held that it is neither the function of Civil Court
to issue direction for making or deleting entries in the record of
rights and that this function is assigned to the revenue authorities
under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. It is further observed
that the proper relief which could be prayed for was declaration
of the title to suit land and once such a declaration is obtained
from the Court, the revenue authority will have to make or
correct the entries accordingly in the record of rights in respect
of the suit land. The provisions of the Code are almost similar to
the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. In the case of “Anandi
Bhicaro Veluskar and others Vs. Kustanand Vithu Veluskar
and others” [2006 (6) Bom. C.R. 384], this Court relied upon
the judgment in the case of “Narayan Mugu Teli” (supra) and
held that the Appellate Court could not have directed insertion of
the names of the plaintiffs in the survey records. Again in the case
of “Narendra Voikunt Raikar Vs. Amaral Pereira” [2007 (3)
Mh. L.J. 252], a similar view has been taken. The Land Revenue
Code provides for the procedure for correction of the land
records.
Therefore, the trial Court could not have directed the
Survey Authorities/Talathi to delete the name of “Damaciano
Fernandes” and insert the name of the plaintiff in the index in
Form No. I and XIV of Survey No. 248/34.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
SECOND APPEAL NO. 100 of 2004
Shri Damaciano Fernandes,

versus
St. Anthony's Chapel,

CORAM :- U. V. BAKRE, J.

Pronounced on : 13th June, 2014.
Citation; 2015(2)ALLMR576

Print Page

Whether court can grant declaration of title relying on revenue record?

 In Sajana Granites (12 supra), a Division Bench of this court made an observation that "the entries in revenue records do not confer any title." This court made such an observation having noticed that the document Ex.A11 therein is not the patta, which is the primary evidence, and is only an extract from the revenue register, it is secondary evidence on the issue relating to grant of patta. Since no record from the office of the Settlement Officer was summoned to show that the Settlement Officer examined the history of the suit property, the court refused to grant declaration of title merely basing upon Ex.A11 an extract from the Revenue Register."

Andhra High Court

Union Of India (Uoi) Represented ... vs Vasavi Cooperative Housing ... on 6 September, 2002

Equivalent citations: 2002 (5) ALD 532, 2002 (5) ALT 370

Bench: B S Reddy, G Rohini

Print Page