Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Vudumala Radha – Appellant
Versus
Narusupalli Venkata Appala Ravi Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 13.06.2022 in A.S.No.28 of 2019, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Parvathipuram, confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 28.03.2019 in O.S.No.134 of 2013, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili.
2. The appellants herein are defendants and the respondent herein is plaintiff in O.S.No.134 of 2013, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili.
3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.134 of 2013, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, with a prayer for declaration to declare that he is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property; restraining the defendants and their men and their henchmen and their successors in interest from ever interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by way of the permanent injunction as a consequential relief; and, alternatively for delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff, in case, if on any reason, if the relief of injunction is not granted to the
The burden to prove title in a property dispute lies with the plaintiff, requiring evidence such as a registered sale deed, even when seeking alternative relief of possession.
In property disputes, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish ownership through valid documentation, and appellate courts uphold concurrent findings unless legally erroneous.
In property disputes, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish title, and mere possession does not confer ownership.
Possession on the date of filing a suit is essential for granting a permanent injunction; the First Appellate Court findings on possession were upheld as correct.
In injunction suits, the plaintiff must establish possession and title; revenue records are not conclusive proof of ownership.
Mere entries in revenue records do not confer title; to maintain a suit for declaration, a party must also seek possession.
In property disputes, the onus lies on the claimant to prove title, with reliance on unproven wills and agreements leading to dismissal of claims.
In property disputes, plaintiffs must establish ownership through authoritative title documents, not solely through revenue records.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
