The Karnataka High Court stated that a mere Varadi cannot be seen as proof of giving up or transferring rights, title, and interest from one person to another.
The Karnataka High Court emphasized that a simple Varadi cannot be seen as proof of giving up rights, title, or interest from one person to another. The Dharwad Bench made this clear in Regular First Appeals related to a decision by the Additional Senior Civil Judge. Justices Sreenivas Harish Kumar and T.G. Shivashankare Gowda noted, “In this case and many others, we have seen that a simple report or varadi was wrongly viewed as a way to transfer rights for adding a person’s name. This practice is common in northern Karnataka. In several rulings, this Court has clarified that a mere varadi does not serve as a document showing the relinquishment or release of rights, title, and interest from one person to another.”
Advocate Dinesh Kulkarni represented the Appellants, while Advocates Prakash K. Jawalkar and Arun Neelopant represented the Respondents. The properties in question were agricultural lands, and both the Plaintiff and Defendant were minors when they were purchased under a registered Sale Deed. The Plaintiff acted on behalf of his minor daughter during the purchase, and the Defendant reached adulthood in 1993. An entry in the revenue records showed that the Plaintiff was released from his daughter’s guardianship, but his name remained in the records for his share. In 1995, the now-major Defendant entered into a sale agreement with another person to sell the properties.
The Plaintiff later discovered that the Defendant had given a general power of attorney to her mother to manage the properties. He also learned that the Defendant had signed a relinquishment deed to someone else, but since this deed was not registered, no title was transferred to him. Therefore, the Defendant retained full ownership of her half share. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit to declare that he and his daughter were the rightful owners of the properties, claiming that the general power of attorney and the sale deed were invalid, and sought possession of the properties from the Defendants. The Trial Court dismissed the lawsuit, leading to the case being taken to the High Court.
After hearing the arguments from both sides, the High Court stated, “Any release concerning immovable property valued over Rs.100 must be done through a registered document. If an oral partition is claimed to change revenue records, there must be evidence of that oral partition and proof that it was acted upon. Without registered documents, relinquishment or release deeds cannot be accepted by revenue officers for updating the records.” The Court concluded that the Defendant’s rights and title remained secure, but she had given up possession of the properties in collaboration with her mother, who represented a minor at that time.
She should have pursued her own legal action to regain possession if it wasn’t delivered as per Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Interestingly, the plaintiff filed the suit not just for himself but also for defendant no. 6, who is his daughter. He had no authority to sue on her behalf. The Court noted that the plaintiff had no right to file the suit individually, which justified the Trial Court’s decision to dismiss it. As a result, the High Court also dismissed the appeals.
Cause Title: Madivalappa & Ors. v. Mohammad Jafar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC-D:16491-DB)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocate Dinesh M. Kulkarni
Respondents: Advocates Prakash K. Jawalkar, Arun Neelopant, R.H. Angadi, and M.A. Deshpande.
