Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 839

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Ravi Nathi Tilhari, Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, JJ
Matam Ashok Kumar and Another – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
O.S.No.6 of 2004

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Veera Reddy, Krishnavamsi, Sodum Anvesha
For the Respondents: Kata Sambasiva Rao

In property disputes, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiffs to substantiate their claims with valid evidence, as mere possession or revenue entries are insufficient to establish title.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Burden of proof - Section 110 of the Evidence Act - In a suit for declaration of title, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove their title with convincing evidence - Mere entries in revenue records do not confer ownership. (Para 54)

(B) Title and Possession - Presumption that possession follows title - This presumption is only applicable when a person can establish a continuous lawful possession; the burden remains with the plaintiffs to demonstrate their title. (Para 54)

(C) Jurisdiction - Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain suits for declaration of title. (Para 12)

Facts of the case:
The appellants, claiming title to ancestral land, lost their suit for declaration of title and injunction against respondents who asserted ownership of the properties through previous claims and documents. The appellants relied heavily on pattadar passbooks and cist receipts, claiming they were in possession and cultivation of the lands despite lack of substantial documentary evidence proving their ownership.

Findings of Court:
The learned trial court ruled against the plaintiffs, finding they could not establish their title or provide convincing evidence that the properties belonged to their ancestors, which was necessary to prove their claims.

Issues: Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration of title and whether the civil court had jurisdiction over the dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed the principle that plaintiffs bear the burden of proof in claims of title, which must be supported by relevant and convincing evidence, and clarified that without such proof, the suit must be dismissed regardless of the defendants’ evidence or lack thereof.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The plaintiff bears the burden to prove title with cogent evidence in a declaration of title suit; revenue entries or possession alone do not prove title. (!) (!) (!) - Revenue records, pattadar passbooks, and cist receipts are not conclusive proof of title; mutation entries and revenue records do not confer title, and title must be proven by title documents or strong evidence of ancestors’ ownership. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain suits for declaration of title; the burden remains on plaintiffs to prove their title, irrespective of defendants’ evidence. (!) (!) - The presumption "possession follows title" under Section 110 of the Evidence Act is rebuttable and applies only where possession is prima facie lawful and there is no definite proof of another title; revenue records alone do not prove title. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

What is the burden of proof in a suit for declaration of title, and must the plaintiff prove title with convincing evidence despite respondent evidence?

What is the status and evidentiary value of revenue records, pattadar passbooks, and cist receipts in proving title to ancestral property?

What is the scope of civil court jurisdiction to entertain suits for declaration of title and the effect of mutation entries on title?

Table of Content
1. plaintiffs claim ancestral property. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
2. plaintiffs argue legal standing based on possession. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. burden of proof lies on plaintiffs for title. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATHTILHARI, J.

1. 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.4.57 cents in Sy.No.316 of Narasapuram village, Rudravaram Mandal.

I. Facts:

i) Plaintiffs’ case:

4. The plaintiffs/appellants filed the suit with the averments that they are the brothers, living jointly and their father became mentally unsound about 12 years back and disappeared and his whereabouts were not known. So, he was presumed to be dead. The grandfather of the plaintiffs was one Matam Seshaiah and his father (the grandfather of the plaintiffs) was one Matam Ayyanna. His father was Matam Veera Brahmam Swamy. So, the case set up was that the family name of the plaintiffs was ‘Matam’ and their ancestor was Matam Veera Brahmam Swamy. The plaint schedule property was said to be the family properties of the plaintiffs being their ancestral property. They pleaded to be in possession and enjoyment of the same absolutely and independently and also paying cists till it was abolished. The plaintiffs after they grew up and after the death of their father, developed the land and had been cultivating by employing the modern tools, irrigating the land with bore- well water. Item-1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties constituted one field, in which the plaintiffs’ father dug one bore-well during his lifetime. The plaintiffs also dug two more bore-wells in the said land. In item No.3, the plaintiffs dug two more bore-wells and in all the three items, the plaintiffs were doing intensive cultivation and raising two crops in a year. In item No.4 there was no bore-well and only dried crops were raised. The 1^st plaintiff, in addition, was also carrying a Xerox Centre in Cuddapah and the 2nd plaintiff was then doing MCA course at Tirupati, and their cousin brother, namely, K. Munnaiah was said to be helping the plaintiffs and supervising the cultivation. They also raised crops by pledging the original documents with Syndicate Bank, Alamur. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Rudravaram issued pattadar passbooks. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal and Mandal Revenue Officer, Rudravaram issued title deeds for the plaint schedule land in favour of the plaintiffs and those title deeds were pledged with the Syndicate Bank, Alamur for raising crop loan.

5. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the original pattadar passbooks were taken by the Revenue Inspector Mallikarjun at the instance of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rudravaram on 30.08.2004 and receipt with the seal of the Mandal Revenue Officer for taking possession of two pattadar passbooks for item Nos.1 to 3 of the plaint schedule property was issued which was filed with the plaint. The circumstances under which the Revenue Inspector seized those pattadar passbooks were published in Andhra Jyothi, Daily Supplement news paper dated 04.09.2004. Some of the cist receipts available with the plaintiffs for payment of cists by their predecessors in title were also filed. It was alleged that the defendants were trying to inte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document