The Supreme Court recently ruled that a revenue entry does not imply abandonment of property rights, emphasising that proof of relinquishment is necessary. The bench, in its order dated 20 August, upheld a trial court’s decision affirming co-ownership of joint family property after rejecting claims of voluntary relinquishment, Live Law reported.
The Supreme Court bench presided over by Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih ruled that a revenue record entry neither creates nor extinguishes title to immovable property. This case concerns the located in Kanadia Village, Indore district, Madhya Pradesh, within a joint family property. The case concerned a feud over 12.41 acres of land, originally held by Bhagwansingh, the father of Ramprasad and Vasudev. Upon Bhagwansingh’s death, the suit property devolved in the names of the two sons and “revenue mutation was admittedly, accordingly effected in their joint names.”
When revenue records began to reflect the in the names of Vasudev and his son, the legal heirs of Ramprasad, who were appellants in this case, protested and sought a declaration of co-ownership, partition, and separate possession. According to the respondents, Ramprasad had voluntarily relinquished his interest in a statement before the Naib Tehsildar, a consent letter marked as Ex.D5 and through an affidavit.
The trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit in favour of the appellants, rejecting the defence’s claims, whereupon a second appeal was filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The appellants — legal heirs of Ramprasad — moved the Supreme Court when the High Court overturned the concurrent findings of the First Appellate Court and the trial court.
Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed the High Court’s decision and observed that a revenue entry in favour of another person would not amount to voluntary abandonment of the Appellants’ title rights.
“A right in immovable property cannot be treated as having been voluntarily abandoned merely because a revenue entry subsequently appears in favour of another person, and the underlying transaction by which title is said to have been surrendered must independently be established by the party relying upon it,” the order said.
The Court pointed out that Vasudev’s sons were unable to prove the Appellant’s execution of the relinquishment deed and noted that no independent witness was produced to establish that Ramprasad relinquished his title.
Suggesting that High Court erroneously pronounced verdict based upon the testimony of a witness irrelevant in the current transaction, the apex court ruled, “The respondents…did not otherwise establish the existence of any registered deed of relinquishment, and the material relied upon did not, to the standard required in a civil proceeding, establish that Ramprasad had legally divested himself of his interest in the suit property.”
Revenue entry does not mean property title abandonment
The Court reasoned that the mere entry of one person’s name in place of another in revenue records is not a presumption of title. Proof of the underlying transaction suggesting relinquishment of title is necessary, the Court said.
“The order of the Naib Tehsildar may regulate the revenue record, but it cannot, merely by recording one person’s name in place of another, operate as a conveyance or a relinquishment of proprietary rights, and the civil court remains fully competent to determine the underlying title, which the follows rather than creates. The statutory presumption of correctness attaching to a revenue entry under Section 117 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code 1959 is a rebuttable evidentiary presumption and not a presumption of title, ” the order reads.