Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 11023

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Venuthurmalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J
Shaik Baba Fakruddin – Appellant
Versus
Pedda Kullayamma – Respondent
SECOND APPEAL NO: 559/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T V Jaggi Reddy
For the Respondents: P Durga Prasad

In a suit for declaration of title, the burden of proof rests entirely on the plaintiff to establish their own title. A subsequent purchaser cannot claim the status of a bona fide purchaser if the vendor had already validly alienated the property to a prior transferee.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Admission - Substantial question of law - Necessary condition for invoking jurisdiction of High Court under Section 100. (Paras 13, 14, 34, 35)

(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Suit for declaration of title - Burden of proof - Plaintiff must establish own title through cogent evidence - Weakness of defendant's case cannot be the ground for decreeing the suit. (Para 18)

(C) Transfer of Property - Doctrine of bona fide purchaser - Scope - Does not protect subsequent purchaser if the vendor had already transferred rights in the property - Principle of 'Nemo dat quod non habet' applies. (Paras 25, 27)

(D) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI Rule 27 - Additional Evidence - Production in Second Appeal - Not permissible unless exceptional circumstances exist; party cannot be allowed to travel beyond pleadings. (Paras 30, 31, 32)

Facts of the case:
The appellant/plaintiff purchased a property in 2015 from defendants 1 to 7, whose father had already alienated the same property to defendant 8 in 1994 via a registered sale deed. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and cancellation of the 1994 sale deed. Both courts below dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove his title and the vendor had no right to transfer the property a second time.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish title and that the vendor had already transferred the property in 1994. Therefore, the subsequent sale in 2015 was invalid, and the plea of 'bona fide purchaser' was unavailable to the plaintiff.

Issues: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of title and cancellation of an earlier registered sale deed, and whether a substantial question of law exists for second appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaintiff seeking declaration of title must prove their own case regardless of the defendant's position; a subsequent purchaser cannot be bona fide if the vendor had already alienated the property years prior.

Result: Second appeal dismissed at the stage of admission.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and summary of trial and first appellate court findings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. scope of section 100 code of civil procedure regarding substantial questions of law. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
3. plaintiff must establish independent title in declaration suits regardless of defendant's evidence. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
4. bona fide purchaser doctrine cannot validate a later transfer from a vendor who previously alienated the property. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
5. strict conditions for production of additional evidence in second appeal under order xli rule 27. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
6. final dismissal for lack of substantial question of law and confirmation of lower court judgments. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)

The Court made the following:

Reserved on 31.03.2026

Pronounced on 08.04.2026

Uploaded on 08.04.2026

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

I.A.No.2 of 2024

IN/AND

SECOND APPEAL No.559 of 2024

JUDGMENT:

This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 20.06.2024 in A.S.No.04 of 2023 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-Cum-VII Additional District Court, Ananthapuramu, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 02.08.2022 in O.S.No.72 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in O.S.No.72 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.72 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu, with a prayer for declaration of title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property and for cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 18.10.1994, executed in favour of the defendant No.8 and for costs of the suit.

4. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu, dismissed the suit. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned Judge, Family Court-Cum-VII Additional District Court, Ananthapuramu, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiff/appellant 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.72 of 2020, is as follows:

The plaintiff is the bona fide purchaser of the plaint schedule property and purchased the plaint schedule property for a valid consideration of Rs.25,15,000/- under a registered sale deed dated 20.02.2015 executed by the defendant Nos.1 to 7, and ever since the date of purchase, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant No.8 herein, in collusion with the defendant Nos.1 to 7, by laying a false claim that they alleged to have purchased the plaint schedule property with the Power of Attorney Holder by name Muddappa, and has shown a fake and fabricated document alleged to have been executed in favour of the defendant No.8 by the said Muddappa. The plaintiff further pleaded that the execution of power of attorney by Muddappa is invalid for the reason that the said Muddappa has got sons and daughters, i.e., the defendant Nos.1 to 7 herein, who have already filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their shares in all the ancestral properties. The plaintiff pleaded that a Final Decree Petition in I.A.No.1743 of 1995 in O.S.No.438 of 1993 was filed, and the said P. Muddappa was allotted some properties except the properties in Plot Nos.13,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 11023

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHVenuthurmalli Gopala Krishna Rao, JShaik Baba Fakruddin – AppellantVersusPedda Kullayamma – RespondentSECOND APPEAL NO: 559/2024

In a suit for declaration of title, the burden of proof rests entirely on the plaintiff to establish their own title. A subsequent purchaser cannot claim the status of a bona fide purchaser if the vendor had already validly alienated the property to a prior transferee.

Cases Referred (2)

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Venuthurmalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J
Shaik Baba Fakruddin – Appellant
Versus
Pedda Kullayamma – Respondent
SECOND APPEAL NO: 559/2024