Page 1

1

                       REPORTABLE   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 3725-3726 OF 2015 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 3377-3378 of2011]

H. Lakshmaiah Reddy & Ors. ..       Appellants    

-vs-

L. Venkatesh Reddy  ..    Respondent

J U D G M E N T

C. NAGAPPAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These  appeals  are  preferred  against  judgment  dated  

8.9.2010 in R.S.A. No.1500 of 2009 by which the High Court  

of Karnataka at Bangalore allowed the Second Appeal filed  

by the respondent herein and against the final order dated  

25.11.2010  in  RP  No.398/2010  by  which  the  High  Court  

dismissed the Review Petition filed by the appellant.

3. The respondent herein filed the suit against the  appellants  

seeking for  the relief  of  declaration of his title to the suit  

property  and  for  consequential   relief  of  permanent

Page 2

2

injunction restraining the appellants herein from interfering  

with his physical possession. Briefly the case of the plaintiff  

is that the suit property belonged to Guramma wife of the  

first defendant and the mother of the plaintiff  and on her  

death the first defendant had given declaration before the  

revenue authorities to change the Katha in the name of the  

plaintiff  in  respect  of  the  suit  schedule  property  and  

mutation was effected accordingly and the revenue record  

stood in the name of the plaintiff for a long period of time.  It  

is  the further case of the plaintiff  that the first  defendant  

entered  into  second  marriage  with  one  Jayamma  and  

defendants  2  to  5  are their  children and they denied the  

ownership of the plaintiff in the suit property and therefore,  

the suit came to be filed.

4. A  common  written  statement  was  filed  by  the  defendant  

stating that the suit property was purchased in the name of  

Guramma under registered sale deed dated 14.11.1959 and  

sale consideration was paid by the first defendant and after  

the death of Guramma, the first defendant married Jayamma  

in 1973 and defendants 2 to 5 were born out of the wedlock  

and the plaintiff as well as the first defendant being the legal  

heirs of Guramma had succeeded to the suit property and

Page 3

3

the  first  defendant   gifted  a  portion  of  suit  property  

measuring  5  acres  in  favour  of  defendants  2  to  5  by  

registered gift deed dated 12.12.2003 and the suit is liable  

for dismissal.

5. The trial court framed seven issues and after consideration  

of  oral and documentary evidence  dismissed the suit. On  

the  appeal  preferred  by  the  plaintiff,  the  lower  appellate  

court held that the  plaintiff  and the first defendant being  

class-I heirs of deceased Guramma are entitled to half share  

each  in  the   suit  property  and  decreed  the  suit  in  part.  

Challenging the same the plaintiff preferred second appeal  

and the High Court allowed the same by setting aside the  

judgment of the lower appellate court and decreed the suit  

in full as prayed for.  Aggrieved by the same the defendants  

have  preferred  the  present  appeals.  For  the  sake  of  

convenience, the parties are described in this judgment as  

arrayed in the suit.

6. Mr.  Basavaprabhu  S.  Patil,  the  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing for the appellants mainly contended that the High  

Court  has  failed to note that  the plaintiff  himself  had never  

pleaded  a  case  of  relinquishment  of  the  share  by  the  first  

defendant in the suit  property and what was pleaded in the

Page 4

4

plaint was that he had succeeded to the property of his mother  

absolutely  and  his  father  namely  the  first  defendant  has  

consented before the revenue authorities for change of name  

in the Katha  in favour of the plaintiff  in respect  of the suit  

schedule property and thus the first defendant had acquiesced  

to the fact of the entire suit property being put in the name of  

the plaintiff and according to the learned counsel the mutation  

entry can never  be considered as relinquishment of  right  or  

title  and  the  High  Court  has  committed  a  serious  error  in  

accepting  the  case  of  the  plaintiff  and  in  support  of  his  

submissions relied on the decision of this Court in  Balwant  

Singh and  another vs.  Daulat Singh (Dead) by Lrs. And  

ors.  [(1997) 7 SCC 137].

7. Per  contra  the  learned   Senior  counsel  appearing  on  

behalf  of  the  respondents  contended   that  pursuant  to  the  

statement  made  by  the  1st defendant  to  the  Revenue  

Authorities,  the  entire  suit  property  was  put  in  the  name  of  

plaintiff,  by  effecting  mutation  entry  in   Katha  and  revenue  

records  and   thus  the  1st defendant,   by  his  conduct  had  

acquiesced to the said fact, as rightly held by the High Court.  

Alternatively the learned senior counsel contended that even if  

this Court holds in law that the 1st defendant continues to be the

Page 5

5

title holder of  half of suit property as class-I heir of deceased  

Guramma, in view of special circumstances, the justice of the  

case  does  not  require  interference  or   the  relief  could  be  

moulded in a different fasion.  In support of his submission he  

relied  on     Taherakhatoon  (D)  By  Lrs.   Vs.  Salambin  

Mohammad  (1999) 2 SCC 635 and  Chandra Singh & Ors.  

Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2003) 6 SCC 545).

8. We considered the rival contentions. There is no dispute in  

the factual matrix. Guramma was the first wife of 1st defendant  

and  the  plaintiff  was  their  only  son  and  suit  property  was  

purchased by Guramma by Exh. P-1 sale deed dated 14.11.1959  

and the property stood in  her  name in revenue record.   The  

plaintiff  was  born  on  1.10.1965  and  Guramma  died  on  

20.1.1966. As per Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, the  

husband  and  the  son  of  deceased  Guramma,  namely  1st  

defendant and the plaintiff, being class-I heirs succeeded to the  

suit  property.  As  per   Exh.  P-8,  Katha  of  suit  property  was  

changed to the name of plaintiff from his mother on 9.1.1990  

and  the endorsement therein  made by the Tahsildar  reveals  

that the 1st defendant  accepted the mutation of entry in the  

name of the plaintiff, being their only son and on the basis  of  

the said declaration, the mutation was effected and it was not

Page 6

6

challenged.  Exh. D-10 is the RTC extract covering the period  

from 1989 to 1992 and the plaintiff was shown as the owner of  

the suit property.

9. As  rightly  contended  by  the  learned  senior  counsel  

apearing for the appellants,  1st defendant did not relinquish or  

release his right in respect of the half  share in the suit property  

at any point of time and that is also not the case pleaded by the  

plaintiff.   The assumption on the part of the High Court that as a  

result of the mututation, 1st defendant divested himself   of the  

title and possession of half share  in suit property is wrong.   The  

mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title  and those  

entries  are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land  

revenue.  The observations of this  Court in Balwant Singh’s case  

(supra) are relevant and are extracted below  :

“21. We have considered the rival submissions and  we are of  the view that  Mr Sanyal  is  right  in  his  contention  that  the  courts  were  not  correct  in  assuming  that  as  a  result  of  Mutation  No.  1311  dated 19-7-1954, Durga Devi lost her title from that  date and possession also was given to the persons  in whose favour mutation was effected. In Sawarni  vs.  Inder Kaur  (1996)  6 SCC 223,   Pattanaik,  J.,  speaking for the Bench has clearly held as follows:  (SCC p. 227, para 7)  “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

Page 7

7

conclusion  that  mutation  in  favour  of  Inder  Kaur  conveys  title  in  her  favour.  This  erroneous  conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment.”

22. Applying the above legal position, we hold that  the widow had not divested herself of the title in the  suit property as a result of Mutation No. 1311 dated  19-7-1954.  The  assumption  on  the  part  of  the  courts below that as a result of the mutation, the  widow divested herself of the title and possession  was  wrong.  If  that  be  so,  legally,  she  was  in  possession on the date of coming into force of the  Hindu Succession Act and she, as a full owner, had  every right to deal with the suit properties in any  manner she desired.”

In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the High Court  

erred in  concluding that the 1st defendant by his conduct had  

acquiesced  and divested himself of  title of his  half share in suit  

property and the  said erroneous  conclusion is liable to be set  

aside.

10. The  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  

respondent/plaintiff  strenuously  contended  that  the  1st  

defendant is now 90 years old and owns lots  of properties as  

enumerated in the list furnished by him before  this Court and  

the  plaintiff  is  his  only  son  through  first  wife  and  litigation  

pertains to only  one property namely the suit   property and  

though this  Court  gave ample opportunities, no   settlement  

could  be  arrived  at  between the  parties  and  considering  the  

special  circumstances,  this  Court  in  exercise  of   jurisdiction

Page 8

8

under Article 142 of the Constitution may not interfere with the  

High Court   judgment,   which will  do complete justice to the  

parties and relied on the decisions cited  supra.

11. We are not in a  position to appreciate this  contention.  

The High Court misdirected itself and committed  serious error  

warranting our interference with the impugned judgment.

12. In the  result the impugned judgment and decree of the  

High Court are  set aside  and the judgment and decree of the  

lower appellate  court is restored and the appeals are allowed in  

the above terms.  No costs.

…………………………….J. (V. Gopala Gowda)

…………………………….J. (C. Nagappan)

New  Delhi; April  17 ,  2015

Page 9

9

ITEM NO.1B-FOR JUDGMENT       COURT NO.11             SECTION IVA                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil  Appeal   No(s)............../2015  @  SLP  (C)  Nos.   3377- 3378/2011 H. LAKSHMAIAH REDDY & ORS.                         Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS L. VENKATESH REDDY                                 Respondent(s)

Date : 17/04/2015 These matters were called on for pronouncement of  JUDGMENT today. For Appellant(s)                      Mr. Rajesh Mahale,Adv.                       For Respondent(s)                      Mr. P. R. Ramasesh,Adv.                       

   Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan pronounced the judgment of  the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda and  His Lordship.

Leave granted. The  appeals  are  allowed  in  terms  of  the  signed  

Reportable Judgment.       (VINOD KR.JHA)    (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)

COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)