Madras HC Reaffirms That Patta, Chitta and Tax Receipts Only Prove Possession, Not Title; Overrules First Appellate Reliance on Them and Restores Trial Court Decree—Binding Authority for Subordinate Courts
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | SA/181/2015 of THE DIST COLLECTOR Vs GANESAN |
| CNR | HCMA010450072015 |
| Date of Registration | 20-03-2015 |
| Decision Date | 26-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. KUMARESH BABU |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Bench | Single-Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Reaffirms existing principle; binds subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure / Property Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that revenue records such as Patta, Chitta extracts and tax receipts cannot by themselves constitute proof of title—they only evidence possession. Since the plaintiff did not plead adverse possession and failed to produce the alleged assignment deeds, the reliance on subsequent revenue entries was improper. The First Appellate Court’s casual overturning of the Trial Court’s well-considered finding—ignoring government lease documents and assignment-cancellation orders—amounted to a legal error. Accordingly, the Trial Court decree dismissing the suit was restored. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities | Relied on the well-settled principle that revenue records prove possession only, not title—assignment deeds must be produced to establish ownership. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The plaintiff sued for declaration of title in 1991, claiming assignment and purchase of salt-production land. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court reversed, relying on Patta, tax receipts and Chitta extracts. The Government’s lease-grant orders and cancellation of assignment were ignored. The District Collector’s second appeal challenged that reliance. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts under the Madras High Court |
| Overrules | FTC-II A.S.No.6 of 2003 (SCA.S.No.23 of 1997) |
| Follows | Trial Court judgment and decree in O.S.No.174 of 1991 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Revenue records (Patta, Chitta extracts, tax receipts) remain inadmissible as standalone proof of title—they only support possession.
- Assignment deeds or sale deeds must be produced in evidence; absence of such deeds is fatal to a title claim.
- A first appellate court cannot casually overturn a trial court by preferring subsequent revenue entries over government lease and cancellation orders.
- This decision is a binding precedent on subordinate courts in property-declaration suits under Section 100 CPC.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Trial Court examined all exhibits (including government lease orders) and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for failure to prove title.
- First Appellate Court relied exclusively on revenue records (Exs. A10–A50), ignoring lease documents and cancellation of assignment.
- On second appeal, it was held that revenue records cannot found title; they only confirm possession.
- Plaintiff had not pleaded adverse possession nor produced assignment deeds, so title was not established.
- First Appellate Court’s decision amounted to a legal error; Second Appeal allowed, restoring the Trial Court decree.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (District Collector)
- Revenue records cannot confer title—they only evidence possession.
- The alleged assignment was a lease, later cancelled, so no subsisting right of ownership.
- Trial Court correctly dismissed the suit; First Appellate Court erred in ignoring government lease orders.
Respondent (Ganesan)
- Lands were assigned to predecessors and purchased in his wife’s name, now deceased.
- Possession evidenced by Patta, Kisth receipts and Chitta extracts.
Factual Background
Ganesan filed O.S.No.174/1991 for declaration of title and permanent injunction over salt-production lands, claiming assignment to his predecessors and purchase in his wife’s name. The defendants produced government orders granting and cancelling a salt-lease. The Trial Court dismissed the suit in November 1996. On appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed in 2003, relying on revenue entries. The Collector’s second appeal challenged that reliance.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code governs second appeals on substantial questions of law.
- The court applied the established rule that intrinsic revenue records cannot substitute for title deeds in civil title litigation.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms well-settled law on revenue records and title.