| Headnote |
Issue for consideration: The plaintiff’s vendor applied u/s. 9A of the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954 and sought occupancy rights in respect of 15 acres of Sy. No. 3. According to the plaintiff, the claim of the plaintiff’s vendor succeeded before the Special Deputy Commissioner of Inams. However, the appellant-defendant alleged that the Commissioner’s order granted occupancy rights u/s. 9 in favour of his predecessor-in-interest. Trial Court after examining revenue records adduced by the plaintiff and the Commissioner’s order, held that the ownership of the suit property vested in the plaintiff’s vendor. Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the decision of the Trial Court. Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954 – Portions of Sy. No.3 was sold to two different parties, a dispute between the two parties arose and, in fact, triggered the suit instituted by the plaintiff, inter alia, praying for declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to Schedules ‘A’ and ‘B’ property, against the defendant – The Trial Court held that the ownership of the suit property vested in the plaintiff’s vendor – However, the first Appellate Court overturned the findings of the Trial Court – The High Court upheld the order of the Trial Court – Propriety: Held: A bare perusal of the s.9 and s.9A reveals that while s.9 allows an Inamdar to make an application for occupancy rights, a tenant is afforded an opportunity for the same u/s. 9A of the Act subject to the condition that he was a tenant in respect of the subject land immediately prior to the date of vesting – Therefore, it is only a tenant or an Inamdar, who could have made such an application – In the instant case, before the Commissioner, the plaintiff’s vendor was one of the applicants while the defendant’s predecessor-in-interest was one of the respondent Inamdars – The Commissioner lucidly stated that the claimants were not tenants at the time of vesting and, therefore, the claims of, inter alia, the plaintiff’s vendor, were ordered to be rejected – It was further said that their respective survey numbers were to be registered in favour of the Inamdars u/s. 9 – This can have only one possible meaning, that the claim of the plaintiff’s vendor for occupancy right as a tenant was rejected, and that of the defendant’s predecessor-in-interest was acknowledged – The Commissioner’s order distinctly denying the rights of occupancy to the plaintiff’s vendor is evidence that renders the revenue entries unworthy of acceptance – Also, an examination of the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff, also tilts the balance against him – The deed simply states that the plaintiff’s vendor traces her title not to a grant in her favour by the government, but through a sale deed executed in her favour – Further, there is a categorical recital in the deed that the property is neither Inam land nor tenanted land, and that there is no legal impediment to the sale of such property – Some element of mischief being present is clear inasmuch as a relevant fact was concealed, i.e., the plaintiff’s vendor had indeed applied for occupancy rights under the Act but had failed to secure them – Such an application would never have been necessary, had the property not been Inam or tenanted land, thus laying bare the deficiency in the plaintiff’s title – The High Court, while observing that there existed a lawfully registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, failed to identify this inherent defect in the title claimed by the plaintiff – The first Appellate Court rightly overturned the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit – The Commissioner’s order was correctly interpreted to determine as to in whom occupancy rights vested in respect of the ‘B’ schedule property – As a result, the plaintiff’s suit shall stand dismissed. [Paras 8, 9, 16, 17, 31] Maxim – Nemo dat quod non habet – Whether plaintiff’s vendor having been denied the right of title in the land by the Commissioner’s order, could have conveyed the same to her vendee: Held: It is settled law that a vendor cannot transfer a title to the vendee better than he himself possesses, the principle arising from the maxim nemo dat quod non habet, i.e., “no one can confer a better title than what he himself has” – In the instant case, the plaintiff’s vendor having been denied the right of title in the land by the Commissioner’s order, could not have conveyed the same to her vendee. [Para 18] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954 – The High Court framed the following question of law for decision “Whether the lower appellate court had erred in law in not considering Ex P-1 to Ex P-29 and the admissions made by defendant (DW-1)?” – The High Court interpreted the Commissioner’s order to be in favour of the plaintiff’s vendor – Propriety: Held: The question framed by the High Court did not merit the label of a substantial question of law so as to warrant interference with the first appellate decree u/s. 100 of the CPC – That apart, the High Court was remiss in reversing the findings of facts rightly arrived at by the first Appellate Court – The first Appellate Court had overturned the findings of the Trial Court, on the premise that revenue records alone could not aid the plaintiff in establishing his title, especially in the glaring absence of any Inam grant in favour of the plaintiff’s vendor – The decision to adopt the Trial Court’s approach of interpreting the Commissioner’s order within the framework of the revenue records that were exhibited was yet another aspect in which the High Court fell in error – An attempt ought to have been made by the High Court to harmoniously read the Commissioner’s order with the provisions of the Act and to interpret the same so as to render it in consonance with the law, the failure of which leads to the inescapable conclusion that the same is indefensible – The High Court while rendering the judgment and order under challenge proceeded on an erroneous approach and contrary to settled law – The plaintiff having failed to meet the burden of proof imposed on him by law, his suit against the defendant must fail. [Paras 28, 29,30] Title – Documents of title – Revenue records Held: It is trite law that revenue records are not documents of title. [Para 11] |
