Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G. RADHA RANI, J.
Mohammed Siddiq – Petitioner
Versus
Munagala Rambayamm – Respondent
Appeal Suit No. 391 of 2023
Decided On : 20-08-2024
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Sections 35-A and 201 – Suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession – Plaintiffs claimed ownership based on a sale deed executed by vendors, while defendants claimed title through adverse possession and prior sale deeds – Trial court dismissed the suit, finding plaintiffs failed to establish title or possession – Appeal dismissed, confirming trial court's judgment. (Paras 1, 8, 39)
(B) Burden of Proof – In a suit for declaration of title, the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish a clear case for granting such a declaration, and the weakness of the defendants' case does not suffice for relief. (Paras 16, 17)
(C) Agency – Termination of agency does not affect third parties without notice; the principal remains bound by the agent's acts until termination is known to third parties. (Paras 28, 29)
Facts of the case: The plaintiffs sought to declare a sale deed as null and void, claiming ownership of property based on a later sale deed, while defendants asserted ownership through earlier transactions and adverse possession. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court: The court found that the plaintiffs did not prove their title or possession, and the defendants had established their claim through prior valid transactions. (Paras 38, 39)
Issues: The main issues included whether the plaintiffs were entitled to declaration of title and recovery of possession, and whether the defendants had perfected their title by adverse possession. (Paras 15)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to establish their title or possession, and thus were not entitled to the relief sought. (Paras 36)
Result: Appeal dismissed, confirming the trial court's judgment. (Para 39)
Key Points: - The judgment states that in a suit for declaration of title, the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish their title; weakness of the defendant's case does not suffice for relief. (!) (!) - The court notes that even if the defendants possess by adverse possession, the plaintiff must prove title; otherwise relief cannot be granted. (!) (!) - The appellate court concluded that the appellants-plaintiffs are not entitled to declaration of title or recovery of possession, and the trial court's dismissal was not illegal; the appeal is dismissed. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
G. RADHA RANI, J.
1. This Appeal Suit is filed by the appellants-plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2023 in O.S. No. 56 of 2014 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.
2. The judgment in O.S. No. 56 of 2014 was passed as a common judgment along with O.S. No. 1099 of 2015. The appellants were the plaintiffs. The said suit in O.S. No. 56 of 2014 was filed to declare the document number 9686 of 1991 dated 30.10.1991 in respect of suit schedule property as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. The suit schedule property was plot No. 22, 23 and 24, totally admeasuring 605 Sq. yards covered with compound wall and having a room admeasuring 10’ x 10’ in Survey Nos. 27 and 28 situated at Upperapally Village, GHMC Rajendranagar Circle, Ranga Reddy District. Subsequently, the prayer was amended seeking for recovery of possession of the suit schedule premises.
3. The parties are herein after referred as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed before the trial court.
4. The case of the plaintiffs in brief was that the plaintiffs were the absolute joint owners and possessors of the suit schedule property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 22.08.2011 bearing document No. 3922 of 2011 executed by their vendors i.e. Poreti Narsimha Reddy and others. They were shocked and surprised when the plaintiff No. 1 received summons from the VII Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar. On verification by the plaintiff No. 1, he came to know that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed suit for perpetual injunction vide O.S. No. 1731 of 2011 against the plaintiff No. 1 and one A. Pandith Rao in respect of the suit schedule property claiming themselves as owners and possessors of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff No. 1 and the said A. Pandith Rao filed vakalath and counter affidavit in the said suit along with the documents. The plaintiffs submitted that their vendors i.e. Poreti Narsimha Reddy and others were the pattedars of the land admeasuring Acs. 3-10 gts in Sy. Nos. 27 and 28, situated at Upperpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the said pattedars executed registered General Power of Attorney on 15-10-1986 thereby appointing A. Balaiah, S. Janaiah, K. Pentaiah, E. Krishna, K. Bucha Reddy as their General Power of Attorneys in respect of the above said lands vide GPA bearing document No. 639 of 1986. The said GPA was subsequently cancelled by the said Poreti Narsimha Reddy and others on 15.06.2011. One of the GPA holder, by name, E. Krishna, in blatant violation of law, executed General Power of Attorney bearing document No. 1070 of 1987 dated 03.09.1987 thereby appointing Smt. Padmaja Narender as his General Power of Attorney in respect of the suit schedule property, which formed part and parcel of the land covered by Sy. Nos. 27 and 28 pertaining to which he himself was one of the GPA holders executed by the pattedars.
4.1. The plaintiffs submitted that Smt. Padmaja Narender executed sale deed dated 30.10.1991 bearing document No. 9686 of 1991 in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the said document would show that the said E. Krishna was the owner of the suit property. In fact, he was one of the GPA of the vendors of the plaintiffs, who were the owners of the suit property. Thus, the sale deed of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 was void ab initio for the simple reason that the executant of the said sale deed bearing document No. 9686 of 1991 dated 30.10.1991 had no title to sell the suit property. On the basis of the sale deed dated 30.10.1991, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were claiming the suit schedule property and in pursuant thereof the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed the suit for simple injunction against the plaintiff No. 1 and one A. Pandith Rao with a malafide intention. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were intending to alienate the suit schedule property on the basis of the void sale deed bearing document No. 9686 of 1991 dated 3
In a suit for declaration of title, the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish their title, and failure to do so results in dismissal, regardless of the defendants' claims.
A minor can be a transferee of property, and a sale deed executed in their favor is valid despite their incapacity to contract.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of timely and proper legal action, and the need for plaintiffs to make clear and consistent pleadings to support their claims.
Presumption that possession goes with title applies to a case like this where neither party has been able to prove or establish possession, but one of the parties is able to show its title.
In property disputes, plaintiffs must establish ownership through authoritative title documents, not solely through revenue records.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that possession is a good title against anyone who cannot show a better title. The court emphasized the importance of long possession and the burde....
The court found the trial court erred in rejecting the plaint, emphasizing the need for a full examination of the ownership claims rather than dismissing based on presumptive documents.
The plaintiffs must establish their title to claim possession, and lack of evidence to support damages claim leads to dismissal.
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
