Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 6310
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J
Raja Venkatachalam and Others – Appellant
Versus
Kandula Usha and Others – Respondent
Second Appeal No: 343/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Grandhi Priyanka
For the Respondents: P S P Suresh Kumar
A registered document does not confer title unless the transferor possesses actual ownership; courts upheld the plaintiff's title as valid over defendants' claims.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Second Appeal under Section 100 - Appeal against concurrent findings - Plaintiff claimed title over property, which was upheld after establishing her purchase from the original owner - Defendants failed to prove valid title or right - Courts found no substantial question of law for reconsideration. (Paras 6, 11-28)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff purchased property in 1996 and filed suit against defendants claiming illegal constructions and entry onto property owned by her.
Findings of Court:
Concurrent findings upheld establishing plaintiff's title and dismissing defendants' claims as without merit.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff had valid title against defendants claiming property through contested documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that mere registration of a title does not confer rights unless the grantor has actual ownership; the plaintiff's documentation was sufficient to establish her title.
Result: Appeal dismissed, confirming lower courts' decisions with a directive to vacate the premises.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's claim of title established through valid purchase. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. defendants' claims dismissed for lack of valid title documents. (Para 11 , 12 , 25) |
| 3. registration of a title does not confer ownership without valid underlying rights. (Para 20 , 22 , 24) |
| 4. court's decisions reaffirmed, compliance ordered for possession return. (Para 26 , 28) |
JUDGMENT:
This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 03.01.2025, in A.S.No.27 of 2023, on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Nellore, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 06.02.2023, in O.S.No.09 of 2019, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore.
2. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.09 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore.
3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.09 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, with a prayer for declaration of her title over the plaint schedule property for delivery of possession and also for declaration that the documents executed by the defendant Nos.1 to 4 as null and void and sought for mandatory injunction for removal of the constructions raised by the defendants in the suit schedule property and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property after handing over vacant possession to the plaintiff.
4. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned III Additional District Judge, Nellore, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendants/appellants 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.09 of 2019, is as follows:
The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and she purchased the same from the legal heirs of Epuru Sulochanamma for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.1,80,000/- on 11.01.1996, under a registered sale deed and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff pleaded that originally the plaint schedule property along with other properties No.1941 and other adjacent survey numbers belonged to one Thikkavarapu family members and the father of the defendant No.3 by name Thikkavarapu Pattabhirami Reddy. The plaintiff further pleaded Thikkavarapu Rami Reddy and his two sons Thikkavarapu Pattabhirami Reddy and Siva Kumar Reddy partitioned their ancestral properties under a partition deed dated 20.08.1944, and the plaint schedule property and other several properties devolved on the father of the defendant No.3 by name T.Pattabhirami Reddy. The plaintiff further pleaded that, thereafter the father of the defendant No.3 laid plots in different survey numbers including S.No.1941 and obtained approved lay out from the Panchayat Nellore Bit I Village. The father of the defendant No.3 gifted some properties in favour of his wife, Smt. Snehalatha Reddy on 11.12.1974, and registered the same. Thereafter, the said Snehalatha Reddy died intestate on 20.01.1977, and the plaint schedule property along with other several properties under the gift deed reverted to her husband and children. The plaintiff further pleaded that, subsequently, on 28.02.1978, the defendant No.3, his sister Nandana executed a Registered General Power of Attorney in favour of their father giving all rights in respect of the properties devolved on them including the plaint schedule property on 15.05.
