LexStreakRead free →
Madras High Court· 28 August 2026

Do revenue records such as a patta or an adangal extract by themselves confer title to immovable property?

RAMAR UDAYAR v. Subburaya Udayar (Died)
SA.397/2004 · 2026:MHC:3527 · S.A. No.397 of 2004
Coram: Justice R.Sakthivel
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.13 Indian Evidence Act, 1872📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

No. It is settled law that revenue records alone do not confer any title or right over the suit property. Where the other compelling evidence available on record shows otherwise, such records are not sufficient for a plaintiff to assert title over the entire extent.

Headnote

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.13 — s.40 — Declaration of title — Antecedent title — Revenue records — Preponderance of probabilities — Declaration of title — Antecedent title — Burden on the plaintiff — Held: A plaintiff who claims antecedent title and does not claim adverse possession must prove that title by adducing sufficient evidence; failure to produce any acceptable document of title defeats the claim to declaration. (¶25) Revenue records — Patta and adangal extract — No conferment of title — Held further: Revenue records alone do not confer any title or right over the suit property, and where the other compelling evidence on record shows otherwise they do not suffice to assert title. (¶23) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.13 — s.40 — Judgment in a suit between other parties — Not binding — Held further: A judgment and decree in a suit to which the party was not made a party, and which concerned a different property, is not binding upon him, and declining to act upon it contravenes neither section 13 nor section 40. (¶21) Recovery of possession — Admitted possession of the defendant — Preponderance of probabilities — Held further: Where the plaintiff himself seeks recovery of possession, the defendant's possession on the date of suit is admitted, and the preponderance of probabilities lying with the defendant, no interference is warranted. Second Appeal dismissed. (¶24, 25)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 23It is true that Ex.A9 - UDR Patta and Ex.A.41 - Adangal Extract for the Fasli Year 1377 to 1381 stand in the name of plaintiff's brother - Kulandaivel. It is settled law that, the revenue records alone does not confer any title or right over the suit property. As the other compelling evidence available on record shows otherwise, this Court is of the view that Ex-A.9 and Ex-A.41 are not sufficient for the plaintiff to assert his title over the entire extent of Suit survey number.
Acts & Sections
s.13 Indian Evidence Act, 1872s.40 Indian Evidence Act, 1872s.100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of RAMAR UDAYAR v. Subburaya Udayar (Died) — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, may a court decline to act on a judgment and decree passed in a suit to which the party against whom it is produced was not a party?What must a plaintiff who claims antecedent title, and not adverse possession, establish in a suit for declaration?What is the consequence, on the question of possession, of a plaintiff seeking the relief of recovery of possession?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections