Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 3761

HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
G.RADHA RAN, J
plaintiffs – Appellant
Versus
defendants – Respondent
Second Appeal No.46 of 2007 | A.S.No.22 of 2004 | O.S.No.355 of 2000

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri N.Ashok Kumar, Sri S.R.Deshmukh
For the Respondents: Sri Kotagiri Sreedhar

Unregistered documents cannot establish title to property, necessitating definitive proof of ownership; mere possession does not equate to adverse possession without a clear hostile claim.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Sections 100 and 96 - Adverse possession and title - Appeal against reversal of trial court’s decision confirming plaintiffs' ownership of land - Lower Appellate Court's reliance on an unregistered sale deed (Ex.B1) dated 12.07.1975 deemed improper - Document cannot establish title without proper registration under Section 49 of Registration Act - Burden of proof lies on defendants to establish sale - Findings of the Lower Appellate Court criticized for being perverse and lacking basis. (Paras 10, 18, 19, 40)

(B) Adverse Possession - Clear establishment of possession and hostile claim required - Mere long-term possession does not result in adverse possession without acknowledgment of ownership - Defendants failed to prove continuous adverse possession for requisite period. (Paras 12, 36, 38)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs asserted rights to agricultural land based on inherited title; defendants countered with claims of prior purchase and adverse possession. Key issues included ownership proofs and validity of competing sale documents. Defendants had previously contested ownership via a third-party affidavit, which was disputed by plaintiffs. (Paras 1-5)

Findings of Court:
Trial court upheld plaintiffs’ claims after determining defective proofs from defendants. Lower Appellate Court’s reversal was premised on acceptance of an unestablished and improperly registered document which could not confer legal ownership. Presumptions under registration laws were misapplied. (Paras 7, 8, 19, 20)

Issues: Central questions involved the admissibility of unregistered documents to prove title and the existence of perverse findings in lower Court judgment. (Paras 9, 41)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the party affirming its title; unregistered documents being inadmissible for proving ownership rendered the decision of the lower Appellate Court erroneous. Adverse possession must meet strict criteria not satisfied by defendants. (Paras 24, 42)

Result: Second appeal allowed confirming the trial court’s decree in favor of the plaintiffs.

JUDGMENT:

This Second Appeal is filed by the appellants - respondents - plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2006 passed in A.S.No.22 of 2004 by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SC / ST (POA) Act - cum - V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2004 passed in O.S.No.355 of 2000 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration, recovery of possession and correction of revenue records of land in Survey No.408/EE (408/4) admeasuring Ac.1-14 ½ guntas situated at Rajampet Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District. The plaintiffs contended that they were the pattadars and owners of the above agricultural land. Their father Vadde Venkaiah along with three others Golla Antaiah, Vadde Sailoo (father of defendants) and Munnuru Narayana, purchased Ac.5-18 guntas of land in Survey No.408 from M.Ramaiah and M.Pochaiah under registered sale deed No.716 of 1966 on 27.06.1966 for a consideration of Rs.1000/-. All the purchasers made the land into four equal parts. Each got Ac.1-14 guntas of land in Survey No.408. Accordingly, mutation was made in their names by giving separate sub-numbers in revenue records as 408/A, 408/AA, 408/E and 408/EE (408/1, 408/2, 408/3 and 408/4). The suit land was in Survey No.408/EE (408/4) admeasuring Ac.1-14 ½ guntas that fell to the share of the father of the plaintiffs Vadde Venkaiah. During the lifetime of Venkaiah, he cultivated the land personally. Six years ago, due to ill-health, the father of the plaintiffs gave the suit land for cultivation on batai (year to year crop sharing basis) to the father of the defendants Vadde Sailoo. The father of the defendants Vadde Sailoo died five years ago. The defendants continued cultivation on the same condition. The father of the plaintiffs also died four years ago, leaving behind the plaintiffs as his only legal heirs. After the death of the plaintiffs' father, the defendants gave share in the crop till Ugadi festival of 2000. But, on 11.09.2000, the defendants made tomtom in the village that they would not give any share in the crop to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs approached the defendants on 15.09.2000 along with their relatives and caste elders to know the reason for denial to give share in the crop for the season. But the defendants without disclosing any reason, refused to give the share in the crop and denied the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Neither the plaintiffs nor their father during his lifetime created any kind of ownership rights in favor of the defendants or their father, except giving land for cultivation on crop share basis. The plaintiffs verified the records in the Revenue Office and the Sub-Registrar Office, Sangareddy. As per the Sub- Registrar, Sangareddy, no encumbrances were created over the suit land in favor of anybody. In the revenue records of recent year, the names of defendants were recorded as pattadars without any kind of transfer right created by any member of the plaintiffs' family. The entries in the revenue records were false and concocted. Without the knowledge of the plaintiffs, the said entries were made. The defendants were in permissive possession of the suit land as cultivators. As such, the plaintiffs got issued a legal notice on 09.11.2000 to the defendants demanding them to vacate from the suit land. They also filed an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer (for short "MRO"), Sangareddy for correction of revenue records and filed the suit seeking the above reliefs.

3. The defendants filed written statement contending that the suit land was sold by the father of the plaintiffs to the father of the defendants in the year 1975. The defendants' father purchased the suit land on 12.07.1975 for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,050/- and the defendants succeeded to the said land after their father's death. The plaintiff No.1 was the attesting

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 3761

HIGH COURT OF TELANGANAG.RADHA RAN, Jplaintiffs – AppellantVersusdefendants – RespondentSecond Appeal No.46 of 2007 | A.S.No.22 of 2004 | O.S.No.355 of 2000

Unregistered documents cannot establish title to property, necessitating definitive proof of ownership; mere possession does not equate to adverse possession without a clear hostile claim.

HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
G.RADHA RAN, J
plaintiffs – Appellant
Versus
defendants – Respondent
Second Appeal No.46 of 2007 | A.S.No.22 of 2004 | O.S.No.355 of 2000