Possession does not confer title; only registered documents establish ownership, with evidence from allotment letters and pahanies deemed sufficient without further registration.

Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act - Registration Act - Second appeal against dismissal of title suit - Suit filed for declaration of title, recovery of possession, and injunction - Title established through society allotment letter and pahanies, while defendant failed to prove title through unregistered agreement - Court held that possession alone does not confer title - High Court emphasized that substantial questions of law raised by the appellant lacked merit. (Paras 6, 10, 15)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 91 and 92 - Burden of proof in establishing title lies on the party asserting ownership - Court reaffirmed that oral evidence is inadmissible to contradict written documents establishing title. (Paras 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
Appellant leased property from the respondent, who is an ex-serviceman. The respondent filed suit for recovery after the appellant failed to vacate the property post-lease, alleging the appellant obtained the lease through deceit.

Findings of Court:
The Courts below maintained that the respondent held absolute ownership based on the allotment letter and supporting documents, rejecting the appellant’s claims due to lack of title.

Issues: The primary issues were the sufficiency of the allotment letter as evidence of title, the evidentiary weight of documents submitted by the appellant, and the application of the limitation period for the suit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court articulated that without registered instruments, the allotment letter suffices as proof of title, and possession alone does not equate to ownership, emphasizing a strict adherence to evidentiary rules under the Transfer of Property Act.

Result: Second Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case's ownership dispute (Para 2 , 3)
2. summary of the first appellate court findings (Para 4)
3. substantial questions of law raised by the appellant (Para 5)
4. principles governing second appeals and evidence review (Para 6 , 7)
5. court's analysis of substantial questions and evidence (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
6. dismissal of the second appeal and confirmation of lower court decisions (Para 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT:

RENUKA YARA, J.

Heard Sri M. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant on admission. Perused the entire record.

2. The Second Appeal is preferred aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2025 in A.S.No.9 of 2019 passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, (‘First Appellate Court’), wherein the appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2019 in O.S.No.92 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, (‘Trial Court’).

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein filed suit in O.S.No.92 of 2014 seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession, damages and consequent relief of perpetual injunction, after delivery of possession against the appellant herein. In said suit, the respondent examined himself and another witness as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-24. The appellant got examined D.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-20. The learned Trial Court examined Exs.A-1 to A-20 and Exs.B-1 to B-17 and arrived at conclusion that the respondent is the original owner of the suit schedule property i.e., agricultural lands in Sy.No.36/69 admeasuring three acres and Sy.No.36/(Wet) (Paiki) admeasuring two acres eight guntas total five acres eight guntas situated at Fathenagar Village, Navipet Mandal, Nizamabad District. It is held by the Trial Court that as per Ex.A-1 final allotment issued by Fathenagar Co- operative Land Colonization Society for Ex-servicemen, the suit schedule property is allotted to the respondent for his services as Ex-servicemen on 29.01.1988. The name of the respondent is shown to be pattedar of suit schedule property in Ex.A-2 to A-11 pahanies and Ex.A-12 of the Encumbrance Certificate, whereas, the name of the appellant herein is shown as possessor in the pahanies. It is the specific case of the respondent that he has leased out the suit schedule property and therefore, the appellant came into possession of the property and therefore, with malafide intention filed suit for perpetual injunction and obtained decree in his favour to protect himself from dispossession. Therefore, suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession is sought. Since suit for declaration of title has been decreed declaring title, the appellant is directed to vacate the suit schedule property within two months from the date of judgment and decree of the Trial Court.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the appellant preferred first appeal in A.S.No.9 of 2019 before the First Appellate Court. In the said first appeal, the documents of the appellant and the respondent were examined and held that the respondent was allotted total Ac.8-00 guntas of land in Sy.No.36/69 and 36/Paiki by Sainik Welfare Board Armed Head Quarters Society, Fathernagar, as he was an ex-serviceman. The said land was allotted in the year 1988. The appellant herein was inducted on the basis of the lease with respect to land to an extent of Ac.3-00 subject to payment of Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of three years, but the appellant did not pay the said amount. The appellant also obtained signatures of the respondent and his family members on stamp papers stating that it was for his safety. After completion of three years lease period, when the respondent approached the appellant to deliver the vacant possession of the land, the appellant demanded Rs.15,00,000/-. The documents adduced by the appellant show that he is possessor and the respondent is pattedar. After examining the oral and documen