Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.26 seconds)Durga Das vs The Collector & Ors on 7 August, 1996
In Durga Das v. Collector,
(supra) the plaintiff had sought compensation based on
the assertion that he was shown as a tenant with
respect to a portion of land. In that case, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the trial court had erred in
relying on the revenue records to declare title in favor of
the plaintiff. The Court clarified that, in the context of
Cont'd..
Union Of India & Ors vs Vasavi Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors on 7 January, 2014
In Union of India v. Vasavi Co-Op Housing Society Ltd.,
(supra) the Court reiterated that in a suit for title and
possession, the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish
a clear case for the grant of such declarations. It was
held that revenue entries do not confer title and should
not be treated as documents of title.
Jayamma Venkatram vs Ashraf Jahan Begum on 21 May, 2020
39. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs by relying on the
decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case
of Smt. Jayamma Venkataram and Another Vs. Smt.
Ashraf Jahan Begum and Another (supra) has
contended that, considering the possession of the
plaintiffs over the suit schedule property for a long time
and revenue entries stands in the lineage of his family
continuously without any challenge, inference to be
drawn about legitimacy of title. The Hon'ble High Court
in the above said decision has held thus;
Section 136 in Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [Entire Act]
Nair Service Society Ltd vs Rev. Father K. C. Alexander & Ors on 12 February, 1968
21. This Court in Nair Service Society Ltd. v.
K.C. Alexander [AIR 1968 SC 1165 : 1968 Ker LT
182] observed: (AIR p. 1173, para 15)
"That possession may prima facie raise a
presumption of title no one can deny but this
presumption can hardly arise when the facts are
Cont'd..
Section 110 in Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [Entire Act]
Section 67 in Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [Entire Act]
H. Lakshmaiah Reddy & Ors vs L. Venkatesh Reddy on 17 April, 2015
The Hon'ble Apex
Court, in H. Lakshmaiah Reddy v. Venkatesh Reddy,
(supra) reiterated this principle, emphasizing that
mutation entries merely enable the person in whose
favor they are made to pay the relevant land revenue,
and do not create or extinguish title. In my humble
view, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions are
applicable in situations where there is no substantive
evidence to prove the acquisition of title to the disputed
land. However, in the present case, the plaintiffs are not
relying solely on mutation entries or revenue records
but are also relying on the grant order passed by the
Amaldar under the land grant rules in force at the time.
Furthermore, as discussed earlier, when the defendants
Cont'd..
1