H. LAKSHMAIAH REDDY & ORS. versus L. VENKATESH REDDY
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 938, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
(2015] 3 S.C.R. 938 
H. LAKSHMAIAH REDDY & ORS. 
v. 
L. VENKATESH REDDY 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3725-3726 of 2015) 
APRIL 17, 2015 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Transfer of property - Mutation - Mutation entries in 
C revenue records - Creation of title - First wife of defendant 
no. 1 and mother of plaintiff purchased certain property and 
the property stood in her name in revenue record - Upon 
her death, as per the Hindu Succession Act, defendant no. 
1 and plaintiff succeeded to the suit property - Declaration 
D made by defendant no. 1 before the revenue authorities to 
change the katha in the name of plaintiff in respect of the 
suit property - Mutation effected accordingly and the 
revenue record stood in the name of the plaintiff for a long 
time - On basis thereof, plaintiff sought relief of declaration 
E against the defendants including defendants 2 to 5, children 
of defendant no. 1 from the second marriage - Suit 
dismissed by the trial court but allowed by the High Court 
-- On appeal, held: Mutation of property in revenue records 
does not convey or extinguish any title and those entries 
F are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land 
revenue -
High Court erred in concluding that the 
defendant no. 1 by his conduct had acquiesced and 
divested himself of title of his half share in suit property -
G Defendant no. 1 did not relinquish or release his right in 
respect of the half share in the suit property at any point 
of time and that
is also not the case pleaded by the plaintiff 
- Assumption on the part of the High Court that as a result 
of the mutation, defendant no. 1 divested himself of the title 
H 
938
H. LAKSHMAIAH REDDY v. L. VENKATESH REDDY 
939 
and possession of half share in suit property was wrong -
A 
Thus, the order passed by the High Court set aside. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 First defendant did not relinquish or 
release his right in respect of the half share in the suit B 
property at any point of time and that is also not the 
case pleaded by the plaintiff. The assumption on the 
part of the High Court that as a result of the mutation, 
1st defendant divested himself of the title and C 
possession of half share in suit property is wrong. The 
mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title 
and those entries are relevant only for the purpose of 
collection of land revenue. The High Court erred in 
concluding that the 1st defendant by his conduct had D 
acquiesced and divested himself of title of his half 
share in suit property. [Para 9] [944-A-C; 45-C] 
1.2 The counsel for the respondent/plaintiff 
strenuously contended that the 1st defendant is now E 
90 years old and owns lots of properties and the 
plaintiff is his only son through first wife and litigation 
pertains to only one property namely the suit property 
and though this Court gave ample opportunities, no 
settlement could be arrived at between the parties and F 
considering the special circumstances, this Court in 
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the 
Constitution may not interfere with th~ High Court 
judgment, which will do complete justice t.o the parties.
The High Court misdirected itself and committed G 
serious error warranting our interference with the 
impugned judgment The judgment and decree of the 
High Court is set aside and that of the lower appellate 
court is restored. [Paras 10, 11, 12] [945-D-H; -46-A] 
H
940 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Ba/want Singh and another vs. Dau/at Singh (Dead) by 
Lrs. And Ors. (1997) 7 SCC 137; Taherakhatoon (D) By 
Lrs. Vs. Salambin Mohammad 1999 (1) SCR 901 : (1999) 
2 SCC 635; Chandra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan 
& Anr. 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 674: (2003) 6 sec 545 -
B referred to. 
CASE LAW REFERENCE . 
(1997) 1 sec 137 
C 
1999 (1) SCR 901 
Referred to 
Referred to 
Para 6 
Para 7 
Para 7 
2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 674 Referred to 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 
3725-3726 of 2015 
From the Judgment and Order of the High Court of 
Karnataka at Bangalore dated 08.09.2010 and 25.11.201 O 
in RSA No. 1500/2009 and in RP No. 398/2010 in RSA No. 
E 1500/2009 respectively. 
Basavaprabhu S. Patil, Rajesh Mahale, Krishna Kumar, 
S. V. Jagannath for the Appellants. 
F 
· S. S. Javali, Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, P. R. Ramasesh 
G 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. These appeals are preferred against judgment dated 
8.9.2010 in R.S.A. No.1500 of 2009 by which the High 
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore allowed the Second 
Appeal filed by the respondent herein and against the final 
H order dated 25.11.2010 in RP No.398/2010 by which the
H. LAKSHMAIAH REDDY v. L. VENKATESH REDDY 
941 
[C. NAGAPPAN, J.] 
High Court dismissed the Review Petition filed by the A 
appellant. 
3. The respondent herein filed the suit against the 
appellants seeking for the relief of declaration of his title 
to the suit property and for consequential relief of B 
permanent injunction restraining the appellants herein from 
interfering with his physical possession. Briefly the case of 
the plaintiff is that the suit property belonged to Guramma 
wife of the first defendant and the mother of the plaintiff and 
on her death the first defendant had given declaration C 
before the revenue authorities to change the Katha in the 
name of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property 
and mutation was effected accordingly and the revenue 
record stood in the name of the plaintiff for a long period 
of time. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the first D 
defendant entered into second marriage with one Jayamma 
and defendants 2 to 5 are their children and they denied 
the ownership of the plaintiff in the suit property and 
therefore, the suit came to be filed. 
4. A common written statement was filed by the 
defendant stating that the suit property was purchased in 
E 
the name of Guramma under registered sale deed dated 
14.11.1959 and sale consideration was paid by the first 
defendant and after the death of Guramma, the first F 
defendant married Jayamma in 1973 and defendants 2 to 
5 were born out of the wedlock and
the plaintiff as well as 
the first defendant being the legal heirs of Guramma had 
succeeded to the suit property and the first defendant 
gifted a portion of suit property measuring 5 acres in favour G 
of defendants 2 to 5 by registered gift deed dated 
12.12.2003 and the suit is liable for dismissal. 
5. The trial court framed seven issues and after 
H 
'
' 
942 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A consideration of oral and documentary evidence dismissed 
the suit. On the appeal preferred by the plaintiff, the lower 
appellate court held that the plaintiff and the first defendant 
being class-I heirs of deceased Guramma are entitled to 
half share each in the suit property and decreed the suit 
B in part. Challenging the same the plaintiff preferred second 
appeal and the High Court allowed the same by setting 
aside the judgment of the lower appellate court and 
decreed the suit in full as prayed for. Aggrieved by the 
same the defendants have preferred the present appeals. 
C For the sake of convenience, the parties are described in 
this judgment as arrayed in the suit. 
6. Mr. Basavaprabhu S. Patil, the learned senior 
counsel appearing for the appellants mainly contended that 
D the High Court has failed to note that the plaintiff himself 
had never pleaded a case of relinquishment of the share 
by the first defendant in the suit property and what was 
pleaded in the plaint was that he had succeeded to the 
property of his mother absolutely and his father namely the 
E first defendant has consented before the revenue 
authorities for change of name in the Katha in favour of 
the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property and thus 
the first defendant had acquiesced to the fact of the entire 
F suit property being put in the name of the plaintiff and 
according to the learned counsel the mutation entry can
never be considered as relinquishment of right or title and 
the High Court has committed a serious error in accepting 
the case of the plaintiff and in support of his submissions 
G relied on the decision of this Court in Balwant Singh and 
another vs. Daulat Singh (Dead) by Lrs. And ors. 
[(1997) 7 sec 137]. 
7. Per contra the learned Senior counsel appearing on 
H behalf of the respondents contended that pursuant to the
H. LAKSHMAIAH REDDY v. L. VENKATESH REDDY 
943 
[C. NAGAPPAN, J.] 
statement made by the 1st defendant to the Revenue A 
Authorities, the entire suit property was put in the name of 
plaintiff, by effecting mutation entry in Katha and revenue 
records and thus the 1st defendant, by his conduct had 
acquiesced to the said fact, as rightly held by the High 
Court. Alternatively the learned senior counsel contended B 
that even if this Court holds in law that the 1st defendant 
continues to be the title holder of half of suit property as 
class-I heir of deceased Guramma, in view of special 
circumstances, the justice of the case does not require 
interference or the relief could be moulded in a different C 
fasion. 
In support of his submission he relied on 
Taherakhatoon (DJ By Lrs. Vs. Sa/ambin Mohammad 
(1999) 2 SCC 635 and Chandra Singh & Ors. Vs. State 
of Rajasthan & Anr. (2003) 6 SCC 545). 
8. We considered the rival contentions. There is no 
dispute in the factual matrix. Guramma was the first wife 
D 
of 1st defendant and the plaintiff was their only son and suit 
property was purchased by Guramma by Exh. P-1 sale 
deed dated 14.11.1959 and the property stood in her name E 
in revenue record. The plaintiff was born on 1.10.1965 and 
Guramma died on 20.1.1966. As per Section 15 of the 
Hindu Succession Act, the husband and the son of 
deceased Guramma, namely 1st defendant and the plaintiff, 
F 
being class-I heirs succeeded to the suit property. As per 
Exh. P-8,
Katha of suit property was changed to the name 
of plaintiff from his mother on 9.1.1990 and 
the 
endorsement therein made by the Tahsildar reveals that the 
1st defendant accepted the mutation of entry in the name G 
of the plaintiff, being their only son and on the basis of the 
said declaration, the mutation was effected arid it was not 
challenged. Exh. D-10 is the RTC extract covering the 
period from 1989 to 1992 and the plaintiff was shown as 
the owner of the suit property. 
H
944 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
9. 
As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel 
apearing for the appellants, 1st defendant did not relinquish 
or release his right in respect of the half share in the suit 
property at any point of time and that is also not the case 
pleaded by the plaintiff. 
The assumption on the part of 
B the High Court that as a result of the mututation, 1st 
defendant divested himself of the title and possession of 
half share in suit property is wrong. The mutation entries 
do not convey or extinguish any title and those entries are 
relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue. 
C The observations of this Court in Balwant Singh's case 
(supra) are relevant and are extracted below : 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"21. We have considered the rival submissions and we 
are of the view that Mr Sanyal is right in his contention 
that the courts were not correct in assuming that as a 
result of Mutation No. 1311 dated 19-7-1954, Durga 
Devi lost her title from that date and possession also 
was given to the persons in whose favour mutation was 
effected. In Sawarni VS. tnder Kaur (1996) 6 sec 
223, Pattanaik, J., speaking for the Bench has clearly 
held as follows: (SCC p. 227, para 7) 
"7 .... Mutation of a property in the revenue record 
does not create or extinguish title nor has it any 
presumptive value on title. It only enables the person 
in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land 
revenue in question. The learned
Additional District 
Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion 
that mutation in favour of lnder Kaur conveys title in 
her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the 
entire judgment." 
22. Applying the above legal position, we hold that the 
widow had not divested herself of the title in the suit
H. LAKSHMAIAH REDDY v. L. VENKATESH REDDY 
945 
[C. NAGAPPAN, J.] 
property as a result of Mutation No. 1311 dated 19-7-
A 
1954. The assumption on the part of the courts below 
that as a result of the mutation, the widow divested 
herself of the title and possession was wrong. If that 
be so, legally, she was in possession on the date of 
coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act and she, 
B 
as a full owner, had every right to deal with the suit 
properties in any manner she desired." 
In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the 
High Court erred in concluding that the 1st defendant by C 
his conduct had acquiesced and divested himself of title 
of his half share in suit property and the said erroneous 
conclusion is liable to be set aside. 
10. The learned senior counsel appearing for the D 
respondent/plaintiff strenuously contended that the 1st 
defendant is now 90 years old and owns lots of properties 
as enumerated in the list furnished by him before this 
Court and the plaintiff is his only son through first wife and 
litigation pertains to only one property namely the suit E 
property and though this Court gave ample opportunities, 
no settlement could be arrived at between the parties and 
considering the special circumstances, this Court in 
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution 
may not interfere with the High Court judgment, which will F 
do complete justice to the parties and relied on the 
decisions cited supra. 
11. We
are not in a position to appreciate this 
contention. 
The High Court misdirected itself and G 
committed serious error warranting our interference with 
the impugned judgment. 
12. In the result the impugned judgment and decree 
of the High Court are set aside and the judgment and H

946 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A decree of the lower appellate court is restored and the 
appeals are allowed in the above terms. No costs. 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeals allowed.