In a suit for declaration of title, the burden of proof rests entirely on the plaintiff to establish their own title. A subsequent purchaser cannot claim the status of a bona fide purchaser if the vendor had already validly alienated the property to a prior transferee.

JUDGMENT :

Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J.

This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 20.06.2024 in A.S.No.04 of 2023 on the file of the Judge, Family Court- Cum-VII Additional District Court, Ananthapuramu, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 02.08.2022 in O.S.No.72 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in O.S.No.72 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.72 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu, with a prayer for declaration of title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property and for cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 18.10.1994, executed in favour of the defendant No.8 and for costs of the suit.

4. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu, dismissed the suit. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned Judge, Family Court-Cum-VII Additional District Court, Ananthapuramu, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiff/appellant approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.72 of 2020, is as follows:

The plaintiff is the bona fide purchaser of the plaint schedule property and purchased the plaint schedule property for a valid consideration of Rs.25,15,000/- under a registered sale deed dated 20.02.2015 executed by the defendant Nos.1 to 7, and ever since the date of purchase, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant No.8 herein, in collusion with the defendant Nos.1 to 7, by laying a false claim that they alleged to have purchased the plaint schedule property with the Power of Attorney Holder by name Muddappa, and has shown a fake and fabricated document alleged to have been executed in favour of the defendant No.8 by the said Muddappa. The plaintiff further pleaded that the execution of power of attorney by Muddappa is invalid for the reason that the said Muddappa has got sons and daughters, i.e., the defendant Nos.1 to 7 herein, who have already filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their shares in all the ancestral properties. The plaintiff pleaded that a Final Decree Petition in I.A.No.1743 of 1995 in O.S.No.438 of 1993 was filed, and the said P. Muddappa was allotted some properties except the properties in Plot Nos.13, 19, 23, 25, 26 and 27.

The plaintiff further pleaded that based on the said allotment, the defendant Nos.1 to 7 have sold the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff on 20.02.2015 and delivered possession to the plaintiff on the same day. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant Nos.1 to 7, with a mala fide intention to grab the plaint schedule property, filed the suit without disclosing the sale in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.644 of 2012 against the defendant No.8. The plaintiff further pleaded that one Lakshmi Narasamma, under the alleged power of attorney given by Muddappa, who is the father of the defendant Nos.1 to 7, has executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant No.8 in the year 1994, at which time the suit in O.S.No.438 of 1993 was pending before the Principal District Munsif Court for partition and separate possession of the properties, and as Muddappa is not the competent authority to execute the sale deed in fav