Revenue records as title evidence: later unilateral entries cannot displace pattadar rights without proof of lawful vesting.
Revenue and settlement records showing a party as pattadar and khatadar can support correction of the record of rights, declaration of title and injunction unless the State proves lawful confiscation, vesting or other valid proceedings. Later unilateral entries describing the land as Government land, or a duplicated survey number, do not by themselves displace the original title record. On procedure, non-substitution of one deceased respondent did not cause total abatement because the surviving sharers could represent the distinct rights involved, and the reference to a third Judge was valid under the applicable chartered court procedure. The limitation and estoppel objections also failed.
Issues: (i) Whether the appeal before the High Court had abated on the death of one respondent, and whether the reference to the third Judge was incompetent for want of compliance with Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether the plaintiffs established entitlement to correction of revenue records, declaration of title and injunction on the strength of the revenue and settlement records, notwithstanding the plea that the suit land vested in the State as jagir land.
Issue (i): Whether the appeal before the High Court had abated on the death of one respondent, and whether the reference to the third Judge was incompetent for want of compliance with Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Analysis: The rights of the plaintiffs were held to be distinct and capable of being represented by the surviving sharers, so non-substitution of one deceased respondent did not cause total abatement. The Court also held that the Andhra Pradesh High Court was governed by the Letters Patent procedure, and that the reference to the third Judge was valid under the applicable chartered court procedure. The absence of a joint formulation of points did not vitiate the reference where the disagreement between the Judges was evident from their separate judgments.
Conclusion: The plea of abatement failed, and the objection to the reference to the third Judge was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiffs established entitlement to correction of revenue records, declaration of title and injunction on the strength of the revenue and settlement records, notwithstanding the plea that the suit land vested in the State as jagir land.
Analysis: The Court treated the khasra pahani, setwar, vasul baqui, village map and touch plan as material evidence showing that the predecessor of the plaintiffs was recorded as pattadar and khatadar of the suit land. It found no proof of any lawful confiscation, vesting or proceedings by which the original land was converted into Government land, and held that mere subsequent entries describing land as Sarkari or the appearance of a duplicated survey number could not displace the original record of title. The Jagir Abolition Regulation did not assist the State on the facts because the State failed to prove that the suit land had validly vested in it. The Court further found no merit in the limitation and estoppel objections.
Conclusion: The plaintiffs were entitled to rectification of the record of rights, declaration of title and consequential injunction, and the State's challenge was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The judgment of the High Court was sustained in substance, and the plaintiffs' entitlement to have the revenue records corrected in their favour was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Where revenue and settlement records consistently show a person as pattadar or khatadar, the State cannot displace that title merely by later unilateral revenue entries or a duplicated survey number without proving lawful confiscation, vesting or other valid proceedings.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
