Karnataka Village Abolition Act, 1961: Grant of property and re-grant of property in favour of the original holders by the State – Devolution on holders – Held: Person can only transfer to other person a right, title or interest in any tangible property which he is possessed of to transfer it for consideration or otherwise – Once it is proved that on the date of transfer of any tangible property, the seller of the property did not have any subsisting right, title or interest over it, then a buyer of such property would not get any right, title and interest in the property purchased by him for consideration or otherwise – Such transfer would be an illegal and void transfer – On facts, appellants failed to substantiate the right, title and interest of the original holders in the suit land through whom they claim to derive interest in the suit land, whereas the respondent was able to prove his subsisting right, title and interest in the suit land – Original holders parted with the suit land, one through court auction proceedings in 1942 and the other by direct sale/purchase in 1943 in favour of the purchaser– Furthermore, though the original holders got back the land by re-grant but they lost all their rights, title and interest in the suit land on the expiry of 12 years from the date of re-grant in their favour (assuming the re-grant to be valid) in 1985 – They again lost their ownership rights due to dismissal of their two suits – In view thereof, the appellants, have no locus to claim any interest in the suit land – Thus, the High Court rightly held that neither the original holders and nor appellants, who claimed through original holders, had any right to claim any interest in the suit land – Maharashtra Hereditary Offices Act.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is a settled principle of law that a person can only transfer to other person a right, title or interest in any tangible property which he is possessed of to transfer it for consideration or otherwise. In other words, whatever interest a person is possessed of in any tangible property, he can transfer only that interest to the other person and no other interest, which he himself does not possess in the tangible property. So, once it is proved that on the date of transfer of any tangible property, the seller of the property did not have any subsisting right, title or interest over it, then a buyer of such property would not get any right, title and interest in the property purchased by him for consideration or otherwise. Such transfer would be an illegal and void transfer. The appellants have failed to substantiate the right, title and interest of the original holders (three PATIL) in the suit land through whom they claim to derive interest in the suit land, whereas the respondent (plaintiff) has been able to prove his subsisting right, title and interest in the suit land on the date of filing of the suit, out of which these appeals arise. The appellants, therefore, have no locus to claim any interest in the suit land. [Para 40-42, 39] [790-C-E; 790-A-B]
1.2 The reasons as to why the appellants failed to prove the subsisting right, title and interest of the original holders (intending sellers-three PATIL) in the suit land are more than one. First, the original holders (three PATIL) had filed two suits,in relation to the suit land asserting therein their ownership rights over the suit land against the present plaintiff and other members of SV but both the suits were dismissed by the Civil Court on 23.11.2004. These dismissal attained finality regardless of the fact as to on what grounds they suffered dismissal. These dismissals were binding on the original holder (three PATIL). A fortiori, these dismissals are binding on the appellants too because the appellants were claiming through the original holders (three PATIL). It is for this reason, the original owners did not have any subsisting right, title and interest in the suit land, which they could have or/and were capable to transfer to the appellants whether for consideration or otherwise on the date when they entered into an agreement of sale of the suit land to the appellants on 23.03.2001. Second, it cannot be disputed that original holders (three PATIL) had parted with the suit land long back by legal mode of transfer, one through Court Auction proceedings in 1942 and the other by direct sale/purchase on 14.05.1943 in favour of SV. These rights were then devolved on his legal representatives by inheritance consequent upon the death of SV. Since then, the original holders (three PATIL) did not have any subsisting right, title and interest in the suit land.[Para 46-51] [791-A-F]
1.3 It also cannot be disputed, that the Civil Court had already recognized the rights, title and interest of the legal representatives of SV in the suit land in O.S. No.9/1969 filed by them against the purchaser-Society. This suit was decreed in favour of legal representative of SV on 26.08.1977 and remained upheld up to this Court. It is due to these reasons also, all the rights, title and interest of original holders (three PATIL) in the suit land stood extinguished. [Para52-53] [791-G-H; 792-A]
1.4 Assuming for the sake of argument that as a result of the re-grant orders made by the State in favour of the original holders (three PATIL), the rights, title and interest in the suit land again reverted to them in 1973 but they failed to exercise their right of ownership over the suit land for a long time, hence their right of ownership stood extinguished. It was only after 31 years from the re-grant order, the original holders woke up from slumber and filed two suits against the plaintiff and other members of SV in the Civil Court. The two civil suits also suffered dismissal from the Civil Court on 23.11.2004 and attained finality. [Para 58-59] [792-E-G]
1.5 Whatever so-called rights, title and interest which the original holders derived from the orders of re-grant in 1973 in the suit property in their favour, the same stood extinguished by efflux of time. The reason was that in order to keep such new rights intact and enforceable, the original holders (three PATIL) were under a legal obligation to have filed a suit for claiming a declaration and possession of the suit land and this ought to have been done by them within 12 years from the date of re-grant, i.e., 1973. They, however, failed to do so within 12 years and when they actually tried to exercise their rights by filing the suit in 2004 (after 31 years), by then it was too late to exercise such rights. By that time, their rights in the suit land stood extinguished. [Para 60-62] [792-G-H; 793-A-B]
1.6 Section 27 of the Limitation Act deals with extinguishment of right to property. It says that at the determination of the period prescribed in the Act for any person to institute a suit for possession of any property, his right to such property shall be extinguished. Articles 64 and 65 of the Schedule provide 12 years period for filing a suit to claim possession of any immovable property. The period of 12 years prescribed in these two articles is required to be counted from “the date of dispossession” (Article 64) and “when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff” (Article 65). [Para 63] [793-C-D]
1.7 The original holders failed to file the civil suit against the plaintiff claiming possession of the suit land on the strength of their new title namely, re-grant in relation to the suit land, within 12 years from the date of re-grant and, therefore, by virtue of Section 27, their all rights, title and interest in the suit land got extinguished. [Para 64] [793-D-E]
1.8 Neither the original holders (three PATIL) and nor the appellants could take any benefit of the orders of re-grant dated 31.03.1973 and 01.04.1973 made by the State so as to divest the legal representatives of SV (plaintiffs) from their rights, title and interest in the suit land which they had legally acquired through Court Auction in 1942 and direct purchase of part of the suit land on 14.05.1943 from the original holders (three PATIL) in 1942/
43. The plaintiff in alternative can be held to have acquired title against the original holders by operation of law. The reason is not far to seek. [Para 65, 68] [793-F; 794-A]
1.9 The plaintiff continued to remain in lawful possession of the suit land since 1942/1943, first through SV and after his death through his legal representatives. It is not disputed that the original holders (three PATIL) were aware of the ownership rights of SV over the suit land since 1942/1943 as SV got the suit land by State Auction proceedings and also by direct sale/purcahse. It was proved that the possession of SV over the suit land was throughout long, continuous, uninterrupted, open and peaceful with assertion of ownership from 1942 till 2004 to the knowledge of the whole world. The facts confirm the possessory rights, title and interest of the plaintiff in the suit land against everyone including the original holders by operation of law. [Para 69-71] [794-B-D]
1.10 A right in the property once extinguished by operation of law, it cannot be revived unless the law itself provides for its revival in a particular situation. Such is not the case here. There is, however, another infirmity in the case of the appellants, which disentitle them to claim any relief in relation to the suit land. The appellants, for proving the right of ownership of the original holders in the suit land, have placed reliance on the orders dated 31.03.1973 and 01.04.1973 of the State by which the State is alleged to have made re-grant of the suit land in favour of the original holders (three PATIL). [Para 75-77] [794-G-H; 795-A]
1.11 In the absence of any adjudication of the right of ownership of the original holders (three PATIL) on the strength of these two orders by the competent Court as against the other stakeholders having an interest in the suit land and especially the legal representatives of SV, it is not possible to give any benefit of these two orders in favour of the original holders (three PATIL) in these proceedings. That apart, what is the effect of passing of the two orders on the rights, title and interest of the purchasers of the suit land because admittedly, the suit land was sold to the purchaser (Late SV) prior to passing of these two orders and whether these orders will ipso facto divest the purchasers of their rights, title and interest in the suit land were required to be gone into by the competent Court after affording an opportunity to such affected persons.[Para 78-79] [795-B-D]
1.12 The original holders (three PATIL) though filed the civil suits to get these issues adjudicated against the affected persons but failed in their attempt to get these issues adjudicated. In other words, by the time the original holders (three PATIL) approached the Civil Court, their all rights in the suit land itself got extinguished on account of efflux of time (31 years). Thus, the appellants have no case. [Para 80, 81] [795-E-F]
1.13 The High Court was right in holding that neither the original holders (three PATIL) and nor the appellants, who claimed through original holders, had any right to claim any interest in the suit land. [Para 82] [795-F-G]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.