The Supreme Court has restored a trial court's judgment dismissing a property dispute, holding that a rectification deed cannot be used to substitute one property for another without the participation of the original transferor. The Court found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that two different survey numbers referred to the same land and ruled that the Karnataka High Court and the first appellate court had committed serious legal errors in granting relief.
Background of the Case
The dispute concerned agricultural land originally sold by late Thimmadasappa through a registered sale deed in 1971. The property subsequently changed hands twice before being purchased by K.M. Venkatamuniyappa.
All three sale deeds consistently described the land as Survey No. 1/4. However, in 1997, a rectification deed was executed between the plaintiff and his immediate vendor changing the survey number from Survey No. 1/4 to Survey No. 162.
Later, after Survey No. 162 had been re-granted to Thimmadasappa and partitioned among his sons in 2005, the plaintiff approached the civil court seeking a declaration that the partition deed was not binding on him. He also sought recognition of his ownership and a permanent injunction against the defendants.
Trial Court and Appeals
The trial court dismissed the suit after finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish that Survey Nos. 1/4 and 162 referred to the same property. It also noted the plaintiff's admission during cross-examination that the two survey numbers represented different properties.
The first appellate court reversed that decision, concluding that the boundaries mentioned in the sale deeds and the suit property were substantially similar. It declared the plaintiff the owner of the property and held that the 2005 partition deed was not binding on him.
The Karnataka High Court later affirmed the appellate court's judgment, leading the appellants to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court's Observations
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi held that the plaintiff had neither pleaded nor proved that Survey Nos. 1/4 and 162 were actually the same property.
The Court observed that relief cannot be granted on facts that were never pleaded. It noted that the plaintiff himself had admitted during evidence that the two survey numbers were distinct.
The Bench said, "No court can grant relief on a case which is not pleaded."
The Court further found that the first appellate court relied on assumptions while comparing property boundaries and even proceeded on the basis of an alleged interchange of boundaries despite there being no pleading or amendment supporting such a case.
It also pointed out that no survey records, village maps, revenue documents, expert evidence or commissioner's report had been produced to establish that the two survey numbers referred to the same parcel of land.
Rectification Deed Could Not Alter the Property
The Supreme Court held that the rectification deed executed in 1997 could not legally substitute Survey No. 162 in place of Survey No. 1/4.
The Bench observed,
"A rectification deed cannot, in the guise of correcting an error, substitute the very subject matter of a prior conveyance without participation of the original transferor."
Since the original seller, Thimmadasappa, was not a party to the rectification deed, the Court held that the document could not enlarge or alter the property originally conveyed through the earlier sale deeds.
The Court also held that the High Court erred in invoking Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act on its own, even though neither party had pleaded or argued that provision before the courts below.
Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment dated 6 July 2023 and the first appellate court's decree. It restored the trial court's judgment dismissing the suit, holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish title over Survey No. 162 and that the partition deed executed by Thimmadasappa and his sons could not be invalidated on the basis of the rectification deed. The Court made no order as to costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: Venkatesha and Anr. vs. K.M. Venkatamuniyappa (D) Through LRs. & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 23330 of 2023 (2026 INSC 705)
Judge: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Decision Date: 14 July 2026
-300x169.webp)