C. Krishnappa vs Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bangalore and Another

Chandrakantharaj Urs, J.-The petitioner claims to be the purchaser of property bearing No. 44, situate on the 9th Main Road, Mattikere Extension, Bangalore. 54, measuring 30'' x 40''. He claims to have purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 22-8-1988 from its previous owner who has also made over the earlier title deeds relating to the property. On an application made, to the Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bangalore to effect change in the properly register, he has been informed, as evidenced by Annexure-H dated 30-9-1989 that one Mohammed Sheriff also has applied for mutation in respect of the same property in his favour. Therefore, both of them have been referred to obtain adjudication in the Civil Court in regard to their title following which the katha would be changed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court inter alia contending that under Sec. 114 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, once the relevant documents mentioned in that section have been submitted the Commissioner has no choice but to effect change in the katha.

I do not think Sec. 114 of the Act should be understood to have cast such obligatory duty on the Commissioner. Essentially, it provides for the procedure and the persons who may apply for a change in the property register. It provides as to the type of documents which would evidence title and which are required to be produced at the time of the application. The section itself does not provide for any guidance when there is objection to the change of katha. It is well known that entry in the property register in itself is not evidence of title except in rare cases like banks accepting an extract of the property register as evidence of title for purposes of mortgage by deposit of title deeds. It is also equally well known, a mere sale deed in itself is not conclusive evidence of title. Person not having title may also execute a sale deed.That does not make the purchaser owner of the property if the owner is some one else and he or persons claiming under him dispute.

Mr. C.M. Desai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that in the instant case all the earlier transactions effected in relation to the property, the register of properties indicate the title of his vendor to be absolute. I do not think this Court should subscribe to the correctness of that proposition. A number of transactions recorded in such books as property register maintained by a Municipal Corporation are not conclusive evidence of title of any of them whose name may be found. More so, when a third party claims title to the same property. A vendor can only convey that title which he has or which he has acquired. If he has good title to the property, he has acquired then only he conveys good title to the property.

The endorsement at Annexure-H is reasonable. When there is dispute to change mutation and after entries in the property register and there is an objector, the wise course for the Commissioner is not to decide the question of title directly or indirectly himself but refer the parties to the Civil Court which is the competent forum where all questions of title to property should be decided.

However, Mr. Desai, relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Kamal Chopra v Commissioner, Bangalore City Corporation (1988(3) I.L.R. 2416;. In the said case, the Court has not laid down any proposition other than what has been stated above. In fact, it is said that it is not open to the Corporation to adjudicate title to the property. But, however, in the course of the judgment, the learned Judge has referred to sub sec. (3) of Sec. 114 of the Act which refers to documents that should accompany the application, i.e., documents supporting title of parties to the property. Nobody may have any quarrel with that proposition. That does not take the case of the petitioner any further than what I have stated above. If there is a dispute in regard to title, the dispute must be decided, in a Civil Court before mutation may be entered in the property register when both the parties are applicants for change of katha before the Corporation.

For the above reasons, this petition is without merit and it is rejected.

Writ petition rejected.