CUSTOM SEARCH

INITIAL ILLEGALITY CANNOT BE CURED BY RESORTING TO ANY OTHER MODE

Justice D.V. Shylendra Kumar, in the case of G. Rangaiah vs Govindappa Decided on 19-02-2008 The effect of the provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 is to render illegal an act done contrary to it and such illegality cannot be cured by resorting to any other mode except the very remedial action if any provided under the very statute.

PLEADINGS SHOULD CONTAIN DETAILS OF THE ALLEGED FRAUD

In Ramesh B. Desai and Others v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta and Others [(2006) 5 SCC 638], Court emphasized the necessity of making requisite plea of Order VI, Rule 4 stating: "22. Undoubtedly, Order 6 Rule 4 CPC requires that complete particulars of fraud shall be stated in the pleadings. The particulars of alleged fraud, which are required to be stated in the plaint, will depend upon the facts of each particular case and no abstract principle can be laid down in this regard."

ESTOPPEL BY CONDUCT

In the decision reported in B.L. Sreedhar v. K.M.Munireddy (2003)2 SCC 355, the Honourable Apex Court held that if by words or conduct, a person consents to an act, which could not lawfully have been done without such consent, and others are thereby led to do that which they otherwise would not have done, such person cannot be permitted to challenge the legality of the act he authorised, to the prejudice of others who have acted relying on the fair inference to be drawn from this conduct. Where rights are so involved, they are bound by the principle of estoppel. Estoppel may be described as a rule creating or defeating a right as well as a rule of evidence.

COMPROMISE IN THE SUIT REGARDING FAMILY SETTLEMENT NEED NOT BE REGISTERED:-

In the decision reported in Kale v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, AIR 1976 SC 807, it was held that the compromise need not require any registration. In Ram Charan v. Girja Nandini, AIR 1966 SC 323, it was held that the compromise between parties in a previous suit was family settlement and was binding on them and that every party who takes benefit under it need not necessarily be shown to have, under the law, a claim to a share in the property. All that is necessary to show is that the parties are related to each other in some way and have a possible claim to the property or a claim or even a semblance of a claim on some other ground, as say affection.

AWARD PASSED BY ARBITRATORS REGARDING DIVISION OF PROPERTIES NEEDS NO REGISTRATION:-

In the decision reported in Kashinathsa v. Narsingsa, AIR 1961 SC 1077, the award of the court was accepted by the parties and subsequently ignoring such acceptance, a suit was instituted by one of the parties. Defence was set up on the basis of such acceptance. An award was passed by the Arbitrators regarding division of properties. In the circumstances, it was held that the award passed by the Arbitrators was not required to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act and that the partition thus effected based on the award dividing the family properties between the members of the family are binding on the parties.

MERE MUTATION IN REVENUE RECORD DOES NOT CREATE TITLE

A.I.R. 1997 SC 2719 = 1997(7) SCC 137 (Balwant Singh and another etc. Vs Daulat Singh (dead) by L.Rs. and others) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “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. Thus, mere mutation of property in revenue records does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. In such circumstances, merely because the patta has been changed, in pursuance, it will not confer or extinguish title of the plaintiffs/respondents herein or the third defendant/appellant herein………...”

LAW RESPECTS POSSESSION EVEN IF THERE IS NO TITLE TO SUPPORT IT

Lallu Yeshwant Singh (dead) by his legal representative v. Rao Jagdish Singh and others, (1968) 2 SCR 203, Court has held that a landlord did commit trespass when he forcibly entered his own land in the possession of a tenant whose tenancy has expired. The Court turned down the submission that under the general law applicable to a lessor and a lessee there was no rule or principle which made it obligatory for the lessor to resort to Court and obtain an order for possession before he could eject the lessee. The Court quoted with approval the law as stated by a Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Yar Mohammad v. Lakshmi Das, (AIR 1959 All 1, 4), "Law respects possession even if there is no title to support it. It will not permit any person to take the law in his own hands and to dispossess a person in actual possession without having recourse to a Court. No person can be allowed to become a Judge in his own cause."
In the oft-quoted case of Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K. C. Alexander and Ors.,(1968) 3 SCR 163, Court held that a person in possession of land in assumed character of owner and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but the rightful owner. When the facts disclose no title in either party, possession alone decides. The Court quoted Left's maxim 'Possessio contra omnes valet praeter eur cut ius sit possessionis (He that hath possession hath right against all but him that hath the very right)" and said. "A defendant in such a case must show in himself or his predecessor a valid legal title, or probably a possession prior to the plaintiff's and thus be able to raise a presumption prior in time".
In M. C. Chockalingam and Ors. v. V. Manickavasagam and Ors., (1974) 1 SCC 48, Court held that the law forbids forcible dispossession, even with the best of title.
In Krishna Ram Mahale (dead) by his LRs. v. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao, (1989) 4 SCC 131, it was held that where a person is in settled possession of property, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by recourse to law.
In Nagar Palika Jind v. Jagat Singh, Advocate, (1995) 3 SCC 426, Court held that disputed questions of title are to be decided by due process of law, but the peaceful possession is to be protected from the trespasser without regard to the question of the origin of the possession. When the defendant fails in proving his title to the suit land the plaintiff can succeed in securing a decree for possession on the basis of his prior possession against the defendant who has dispossessed him. Such a suit will be founded on the averment of previous possession of the plaintiff and dispossession by the defendant.

PATTA OR DEED OF GRANT IS NOT A TITLE DEED SAYS KAR HIGH COURT LONG BACK

In 1966 (1) Mys LJ 772 (Hazarat Asraruddin v. Hussein Khan) it has been held that a patta is not a document of title or a -deed of grant but that it is a record of demand by the Government that such and such amount is due as land revenue on such and such area. Hence, the entries in the Municipal registers cannot be placed on a higher footing than a patta maintained under the Land Revenue Code.

1964 Mys LJ (Supp) 74 (Ramakrishniah v. Madhavakrishniah) it has been held that neither the extract from the property tax register maintained by the Municipality nor the receipts of municipal takes are either evidence of tide or possession and that such registers are primarily maintained for the purpose of levy and recovery of taxes and that the column for entry of the name of the persons liable to pay the taxes reads: 'assessee, owner or occupier'. It was further held that an entry in such a register can have only some corroborative value if independent evidence was adduced to show how it came to be made.

CASE LAW ON LAND LAWS

KARNATAKA LAND LAWS