Plaintiff Claiming Absolute Ownership Must Provide Correct Property Details and Clear Evidence; Revenue Records Insufficient Proof of Possession: Supreme Court

March 24, 2025 1:27 PM

In a significant ruling reaffirming long-standing legal principles of property law, the Supreme Court of India has held that a plaintiff claiming absolute ownership of immovable property must provide clear, specific property details and conclusive evidence, stating that mere reliance on revenue records is insufficient to establish possession or title.

The decision came in the case of Naganna (Dead) by LRs. vs. Siddaramegowda (Deceased) by LRs., Civil Appeal No. 3688 of 2024, where the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim to ownership and possession of a disputed property in Chaluvearasinakoppalu village, Pandavapura taluk, Karnataka.

The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale on March 19, 2025.

Background of the Case

The litigation, spanning over three decades, centers around a house and vacant land originally said to be under the possession of Late Siddegowda, father of the original plaintiff, Naganna. The property was allegedly allotted to Siddegowda in an oral partition between him and his brother Kalegowda, but the khata (property record) remained in Kalegowda’s name.

In 1993, a sale deed was executed by Defendant No. 2, transferring the disputed property to Defendant No. 1. The plaintiff challenged this sale, alleging that the seller had no connection to the property and that the transaction was fraudulent.

While earlier suits had been filed for injunction and possession, the central case—OS No. 606/1999—was filed by Naganna seeking cancellation of the sale deed, recovery of possession, and a permanent injunction. Both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court ruled in his favor.

However, the Karnataka High Court, in RSA No. 856/2011, reversed these rulings, emphasizing the lack of title documents and clarity over property details. The Supreme Court has now affirmed the High Court’s findings.

Key Legal Issues

Whether a suit for ownership and recovery of possession can succeed without title deeds or clear identification of the disputed property.

Whether revenue records and a claim of long-standing possession are sufficient to prove ownership.

Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of the lower courts under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s reasoning, stating:

“The plaintiff must stand or fall on the strength of his own case. In the present case, the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the owner of the suit schedule property.”

The Court emphasized that revenue records such as khata entries, assessment registers, and panchayat documents, though relevant, do not establish ownership in the absence of title documents, precise measurements, and proper boundaries.

In analyzing Exhibits P2–P7, the Court found:

The records referred to different property numbers (Khata Nos. 71, 73, 111) with no clarity if they referred to the same land.

A 1995 Panchayat Pallu Patti (partition record) did not mention Khata Nos. 71 or 111.

The sale deed in favor of Defendant No. 1 (Ex. P-6) clearly described boundaries and was executed by someone in apparent possession.

The Court also noted that in a related suit (OS No. 108/2003), the same plaintiff had failed to establish title over the northern half of the disputed land.

Supreme Court’s Verdict

Dismissing the appeal, the Court observed:

“One who comes before the court with a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the schedule property, must plead the correct property number, extent and boundaries before the court with cogent and acceptable evidence.”

Bench criticized the lower courts for:

Treating revenue records as conclusive.
Assuming oral partition without any date or corroboration.
Ignoring the absence of any declaratory relief sought for ownership.

The High Court, the bench concluded, had correctly applied its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC in interfering with the perverse and unsustainable findings of the lower courts.