Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, MAHESWARA RAOKUNCHEAM
Matam Ashok Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of A.P. Rep. by its District Collector, Kurnool – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts around property ownership and claims. (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. court's findings on title evidence. (Para 11 , 12 , 22) |
| 3. possession and title are separately evaluated. (Para 18 , 21 , 24) |
| 4. burden of proof lies with the plaintiffs. (Para 25 , 26 , 30 , 54) |
| 5. final order and dismissal of appeal. (Para 55 , 56) |
JUDGMENT :
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Krishnavamsi, learned counsel, representing Ms. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Kata Sambasiva Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent.
2. No representation for the 2nd respondent.
3. This Appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs in O.S.No.6 of 2004 being aggrieved from the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2011 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. The suit was filed against the defendants/respondents 1 and 2 for declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule properties i.e., an extent of 7.60 cents in Sy.No.248; extent of Ac.0.92 cents; and extent of Ac.5.15 cents in Sy.No.691 of Aamuru village, Rudravaram Mandal and an extent of Ac.
In a suit for declaration of title, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to substantiate ownership with clear evidence; mere possession is inadequate for claims. Title must be proven, not presumed.
Revenue records do not establish ownership; the burden of proving title lies with the plaintiff, and failure to provide valid documentation leads to resolution against the claim.
The court held that the respondents established their title and possession over the suit land, dismissing the appellants' claims due to insufficient evidence.
A plaintiff must establish their own ownership in a suit for title and possession, as entries in revenue records do not confer title.
Possession follows title; entries in revenue records do not confer ownership. A suit for injunction is maintainable without seeking declaration of title when possession is established.
Entries in revenue records create a presumption of ownership that must be rebutted by the opposing party; mere claims of adverse possession without supporting ownership evidence are insufficient.
The burden of proof in title suits rests with the plaintiffs to establish a superior title; revenue entries are insufficient to confer ownership.
Mere entries in revenue records do not confer title; to maintain a suit for declaration, a party must also seek possession.
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
