Clearing Revenue Arrears By Coparcener Doesn’t Confer Exclusive Title Over Ancestral Property: Karnataka High Court

The Court emphasised that once the revenue charge is cleared, the property “reverts back to its original position”, and therefore continues to retain its ancestral character. At best, the coparcener who paid the arrears may claim reimbursement or adjustment at the time of partition, but cannot exclude other family members.

On the evidentiary aspect, the Court reiterated that the burden to prove a property as ancestral lies on the party asserting it, and mere recitals in documents are insufficient without supporting material such as revenue records or proof of devolution. Accordingly, the Court upheld the trial court’s rejection of claims over other properties for lack of proof.

A Bench comprising Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum was adjudicating a Regular First Appeal arising from a partition suit, where the trial court had dismissed the claims over several properties for want of proof of their ancestral nature. While most findings were upheld, the Court carved out an exception with respect to one property (Item No. 9), which had been subjected to revenue arrears proceedings and later restored.

The Bench observed, “The restoration of khata under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act must therefore be understood in its proper legal context. It was an administrative act recognizing the discharge of arrears and restoring the revenue entry to the name of the person representing the original tenure holder. Such restoration cannot be equated to a fresh acquisition of title. Payment of arrears by one coparcener to remove an encumbrance over joint family property does not metamorphose the character of the property into his separate property. At best, he may be entitled to seek equitable adjustment or reimbursement in appropriate proceedings, but he cannot, by unilateral payment of revenue arrears, appropriate the entire ancestral property to himself”.

“…the expression ‘reverted back to its original position’ is of considerable legal significance. It necessarily presupposes that the property regains the very character which it possessed prior to the creation of the charge. If the land was ancestral in character before the creation of the revenue charge, the discharge of such charge and restoration of khata would revive the same ancestral character. There is no legal transformation of the nature of the property merely because arrears were paid by one of the coparceners”, the Bench further observed.

Advocate N. Vageesh appeared for the appellants and Advocate K.N. Nitish appeared for the respondents.

The Court in the dispute considered, inter alia, whether payment of land revenue arrears and subsequent restoration of property confers exclusive ownership or alters its ancestral character; whether classification as ‘pada land’ results in loss of title; whether the suit properties were proved to be ancestral; and whether unregistered documents or procedural lapses like non-payment of court fees can defeat coparcenary rights.

The appellants, in the matter, contended that the property was originally ancestral and that its restoration upon payment of arrears could not extinguish their coparcenary rights. On the other hand, it was argued that since the land had been classified as “pada land” and restored in the name of one individual, it became his self-acquired property.

The Court rejecting this contention, held that mere discharge of a revenue liability by one coparcener does not clothe him with exclusive title. It observed that unless there is clear evidence of absolute vesting of the property in the State and a fresh grant conferring independent title, restoration of land upon payment of arrears is only a revival of the pre-existing rights.

The Court also declined to place reliance on an unregistered document allegedly acknowledging exclusive ownership, noting that coparcenary rights, being rights by birth, cannot be extinguished except through a registered partition or legally recognized mode of transfer.

On the objection relating to nonpayment of court fee, the Bench further held, “…The liability to pay court fee is a matter between the litigant and the State. The Court is empowered to direct payment of proper court fee at any stage of the proceedings. Nonpayment or deficit payment does not extinguish the substantive right of a coparcener to seek partition of joint family property. At best, it is a curable procedural defect”.

Allowing the appeal in part, the Court held that the appellants are entitled to a 1/3rd share each in the restored property (Item No. 9), subject to payment of requisite court fees, while affirming the remaining findings of the trial court.

Cause Title: K.G. Venkataramanasa & Ors. v. K.V. Honnusa & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:12145]

Appearances:

Appellants: N. Vageesh, A. Rama, Advocates.

Respondents: K.N. Nitish, S. Nagaraj, Arun B., Anil Kumar Shetty, H.N. Venkatesh, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment