2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 20465
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
CHADALAVADA VENKATA PADMAVATHI – Appellant
Versus
RAMINENI RAVINDRA – Respondent
SA 720/2025
A sale deed executed by an impersonator (not the real owner) is void ab initio and conveys no title; it does not require formal cancellation and can be simply ignored.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 100 - Second appeal - Power of High Court - High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact of first appellate court, which is the final court of fact, except where such findings are erroneous due to being contrary to mandatory provisions of law, settled legal position, based on inadmissible evidence, or without evidence. (Paras 15, 16, 17)
(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Articles 59, 65 - Suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession - Applicability - Suit based on title for recovery of possession is governed by Article 65, which prescribes a 12-year limitation period from the date of dispossession, not Article 59. (Paras 26)
(C) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sale deed executed by impersonation - Effect - A sale deed executed by an impersonator is void ab initio and conveys no title; it does not require formal cancellation and can be simply ignored. (Paras 24, 27)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff purchased the suit property from its original owner (vendor) under a registered sale deed dated 04-04-2008. The plaintiff claimed the defendants dispossessed him on 10-12-2008. The defendants claimed title through a chain of sale deeds: defendant No. 2 purchased the property on 21-10-2002 from one person, who impersonated the original owner (the plaintiff's vendor), and then sold it to defendant No. 1 on 11-05-2006. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, which was confirmed by the first appellate court. The defendant No. 1 filed this second appeal.
Findings of Court:
The second appeal was dismissed. The court found that the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 was executed by an impersonator, making it void ab initio and conveying no title. Thus, defendant No. 2 had no valid title to pass to defendant No. 1. The claim of adverse possession by the defendant was negated as it is inconsistent with a claim of title under a valid document. The suit was held to be governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act and was within the limitation period. The judgment of the first appellate court was found to be compliant with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC.
Issues: The main issues included whether the suit for declaration and possession was maintainable without cancellation of the defendants' earlier sale deeds, whether the claim was barred by limitation under Article 59, whether the sale deed executed by an impersonator was valid, and whether the title of the appellant had become adverse.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that a sale deed executed by an impersonator is void ab initio and conveys no title; such a document need not be cancelled and can be simply ignored. A suit for declaration of title and possession based on title is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, not Article 59. A person claiming title under a registered document cannot simultaneously claim adverse possession. The findings of fact by the lower appellate court, being based on evidence, are not to be disturbed in a second appeal unless perverse or illegal.
Result: The second appeal was dismissed, confirming the decree and judgment of the first appellate court. The appellant-defendant was directed to deliver vacant possession to the plaintiff within two months. (A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 100 - Second appeal - Power of High Court - High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact of first appellate court, which is the final court of fact, except where such findings are erroneous due to being contrary to mandatory provisions of law, settled legal position, based on inadmissible evidence, or without evidence. (Paras 15, 16, 17)
(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Articles 59, 65 - Suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession - Applicability - Suit based on title for recovery of possession is governed by Article 65, which prescribes a 12-year limitation period from the date of dispossession, not Article 59. (Paras 26)
(C) Law of Property - Sale deed executed by impersonation - Effect - A sale deed executed by an impersonator is void ab initio and conveys no title; it does not require formal cancellation and can be simply ignored. (Paras 24, 27)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff purchased the suit property from its original owner (vendor) under a registered sale deed dated 04-04-2008. The plaintiff claimed the defendants dispossessed him on 10-12-2008. The defendants claimed title through a chain of sale deeds: defendant No. 2 purchased the property on 21-10-2002 from one person, who impersonated the original owner (the plaintiff's vendor), and then sold it to defendant No. 1 on 11-05-2006. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, which was confirmed by the first appellate court. The defendant No. 1 filed this second appeal.
Findings of Court:
The second appeal was dismissed. The court found that the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 was executed by an impersonator, making it void ab initio and conveying no title. Thus, defendant No. 2 had no valid title to pass to defendant No. 1. The claim of adverse possession by the defendant was negated as it is inconsistent with a claim of title under a valid document. The suit was held to be governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act and was within the limitation period. The judgment of the first appellate court was found to be compliant with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC.
Issues: The main issues included whether the suit for declaration and possession was maintainable without cancellation of the defendants' earlier sale deeds, whether the claim was barred by limitation under Article 59, whether the sale deed executed by an impersonator was valid, and whether the title of the appellant had become adverse.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that a sale deed executed by an impersonator is void ab initio and conveys no title; such a document need not be cancelled and can be simply ignored. A suit for declaration of title and possession based on title is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, not Article 59. A person claiming title under a registered document cannot simultaneously claim adverse possession. The findings of fact by the lower appellate court, being based on evidence, are not to be disturbed in a second appeal unless perverse or illegal.
Result: The second appeal was dismissed, confirming the decree and judgment of the first appellate court. The appellant-defendant was directed to deliver vacant possession to the plaintiff within two months."
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background and case of parties (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 18 , 20 , 22) |
| 2. arguments by appellant on limitation and validity of documents (Para 13 , 14 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidence and findings (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 29) |
| 4. disposal of second appeal and order (Para 30) |
JUDGMENT:
This second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'C.P.C.'), is filed aggrieved against the decree and judgment dated 10-07-2025 in A.S.No. 240 of 2012 on the file of the Court of learned III Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short, 'the first appellate Court'), in confirming the decree and judgment dated 06-08-2012 in O.S.No. 86 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur (for short, 'the trial Court').
2. The appellant herein is defendant No. 1, respondent No. 1 herein is plaintiff and respondent No. 2 herein is defendant No. 2 before the trial Court.
3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No. 86 of 2009 on the file of the trial Court with a prayer for declaration of his title over plaint schedule property and for consequential relief of possession and for costs.
4. The trial Court decreed the suit with costs declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of plaint schedule property and directed defendant No. 1 to deliver possession of plaint scheduler property to the plaintiff within one month from the date of the judgment. Felt aggrieved of the same, unsuccessful defendant No. 1 in the above said suit filed A.S.No. 240 of 2012 on the file of the first appellate Court. By decree and judgment dated 10-07-2025 in A.S.No. 240 of 2012, the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal suit by confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court.
5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they were arrayed in the original suit.
6. Case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No. 86 of 2009, is as follows:
The plaintiff purchased plaint schedule property from one Alla Venkateswara Rao, S/o Bushaiah, on 04-04-2008 vide document No. 1172/2008 of S.R.O., Koretipadu. The said Alla Venkateswara Rao purchased plaint schedule property and some other property, comes to 1200 square yards, from one Tarumani Subba Rao, S/o Sri Ranga Rao, on 30-06-1979 vide document No. 3856/1979. On 10-12-2008, the defendants dispossessed the plaintiff from plaint schedule property and grabbed it stating that they are the owners of plaint schedule property. On enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that one Bikki Venkateswarlu, in collusion with defendant No. 2, executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 regarding plaint schedule property on 21-10-2002 vide document No. 7528/2002 by impersonating the said Alla Venkateswara Rao. Defendant No. 2 sold plaint schedule property to defendant No. 1 on 11-05-2006 vide document No. 6328/2006 and physical possession was not delivered to defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff questioned Alla Venkateswara Rao who stated that he never executed any sale deed and he never sold plaint schedule property to anybody except to the plaintiff. Since Alla Venkateswara Rao did not execute any document in favour of defendant No. 2, defendant No. 2 did not get any title over it and he had no right to convey the property to defendant No. 1 and thereby, defendant No. 1 did not get any title over plaint schedule property.
7. Case of defendant No. 1, as seen from her written statement, is as follows:
The plaintiff has neither title nor possession over plaint schedule property and she purchased the same from defendant No. 2 and availed loan from LIC Housing Finance Limited on 11-05-2006. Defendant No. 2 purchased plaint schedule property on 21-10-2002. Defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff colluded together and got filed the suit. Defendant No. 1 has filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendant No.
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
