Supreme Court: Original Hakkupatra Confirmed as Conclusive Title, 1999 Decree Set Aside

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva, allowed the appeal filed by the legal representatives of Balakrishna (deceased) and set aside the trial‑court decree dated 1999 as well as the High Court’s affirmation. The Court declared that the respondents, represented by the legal heirs of G.N. Kanniah Naidu (deceased), were not entitled to ownership of Site No. 261, Munnekolala New Extension, Varthur Hobli. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Balakrishna’s son produced the original Hakkupatra dated 5 January 1972 to establish title over the suit site, whereas the decree‑holder G.N. Kanniah Naidu relied only on a photocopy of the same document together with intermittent tax receipts. The dispute centered on whether the photocopy could substantiate ownership and whether the decree of 1999, which granted possession to the plaintiff, was valid. The appellant also questioned the appealability of the application filed under Order XXI, Rules 97‑101 CPC (IA ‘A’).

The Court held that the original Hakkupatra was conclusive evidence of title and that a photocopy, even when accompanied by sporadic tax receipts, could not override the original document. It further ruled that an application under Order XXI, Rules 97‑101 CPC (IA ‘A’) constituted a regular first appeal and was therefore appealable. Consequently, the trial‑court’s finding of title in favour of the plaintiff and the High Court’s confirmation were deemed erroneous, leading to the vacating of the 1999 decree and related orders.

Read the judgment and its head note on DLJ: Balakrishna(D) Tr.Lrs vs G.N.Kanniah Naidu (Dead) Thr. Lrs (2026 INSC 1155).