1989 (8) TMI 369

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icipal funds and the land has been in its possession since then. According to the plaintiff-respondents, the aforementioned G.O. was cancelled and the land was settled with Guttahalli Hanumaiah in 1929 under G.O. No. 3540, which, however, has not been produced in the case. Guttahalli Hanumaiah remained in possession till 1937 when he died. After his death his widow the plaintiff No. 2 came in possession and continued till 1969 when an area of 2.02 acres was would to the plaintiff No. 1. In 1970 there was an agreement of sale by the plaintiff No. 2 in favour of the plaintiff No. 1 for the sale of the remaining land also for a total sum of Rs. 20,000/- out of which Rs. 10,000/- is said to have been paid. On 8.8.1973 the plaintiff got his name....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... established that for deciding the nature of a suit the entire plaint has to be read and not merely the relief portion, and the plaint in the present case does not leave any manner of doubt that the suit has been filed for establishing the title of the plaintiffs and on that basis getting an injunction against the appellant Corporation. The court fee payable on the plaint has also to be assessed accordingly. It follows that the appellant's objection that the suit is not maintainable has to be rejected. The additional Civil Judge, who heard the appeal from the judgment of the trial court, examined the question of plaintiffs' title and rejected their case. The question of possession was also separately taken up, and it was found that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....question of title and possession and made adverse comments against the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court without giving any valid reason therefor. So far the revenue records are concerned, the appellate court considered the same and held that they did not support the plaint. The High Court has reversed the finding saying that the interpretation of the first appellate court was erroneous. It is firmly established that the revenue records are not documents of title, and the question of interpretation of a document not being a document of title is not a question of law. These errors have seriously vitiated the impugned judgment of the High Court which must be set aside. 6. As the very approach of the High Court in decid....