Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 14137

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B.R.Madhusudhan Rao, J
Mogulla Surender Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Mogulla Laxmikanth Reddy – Respondent
I.A.No.1 of 2025|APPEAL SUIT NO.106 OF 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: [List of names]
For the Respondents: [List of names]

In a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, the plaintiff must prove title on the strength of their own evidence, and cannot rely on the weakness of the defendant's case or inconclusive partition boundaries to establish ownership.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XLI Rule 27 - Suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession - Burden of proof - Onus of proof on plaintiff to establish own title without relying on weakness of defendant - Failure to establish independent evidence for encroachment - Requirement of appellate court to consider pleadings and evidence for additional evidence - Trial Court's reliance on common boundaries between parties as conclusive without sufficient evidence is erroneous - Suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession dismissed.

Facts of the case:
The suit originated from a land dispute between family members (brothers). The plaintiff filed for declaration of title and possession, claiming dispossession by the defendants on 26.01.2014. The plaintiff relied on a partition deed (Ex.A4) and revenue records. The defendants argued they were absolute owners of the disputed land through gift settlement deeds and had constructed a school in 2007. The Trial Court decreed the suit, which was challenged in appeal.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the plaintiff, in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, must succeed on the strength of their own title. The plaintiff failed to produce clear evidence identifying the specific schedule property or proving the alleged encroachment. The trial court's finding regarding the boundaries in the partition deed was deemed perverse as the boundaries were overlapping.

Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiff established clear title to the suit property and whether the Trial Court's reliance on ambiguous partition boundaries was legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaintiff seeking declaration of title must discharge the burden of proof by establishing their own case. An appellate court will not permit additional evidence that does not serve a substantial cause or fill gaps when the plaintiff has failed to establish the foundational case during the trial.

Result: Appeal allowed; Trial Court decree set aside and suit dismissed.

Table of Content
1. nature of the suit and standing of the parties involved. (Para 1 , 2)

JUDGMENT

1. This Memorandum of First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’) assailing the judgment and decree passed by learned II Additional District and Session Judge, Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Medchal in O.S.No.517 of 2015 dated 11.01.2023.

2. Appellants are the defendants and respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.517 of 2015.

3.1 Respondent - plaintiff has filed suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for mesne profits at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of filing the suit till the date of recovery of possession in respect of the plaint schedule property.

3.2 The plaint schedule property is an agricultural land to an extent of Ac.00-13 guntas forming part of survey No. 363 (presently described in pahanis as survey No. 363/ఆ), situated at Thumkunta village, Shamirpet Mandal, Rangareddy District, bounded by North: Land of M.Venkat Reddy (father of appellant No.1- defendant No.1); South: Plotted area (NCL Enclave); East: Land of M.Malla Reddy (land of M.Amarender Reddy) in survey No.363; West: Land of M.Venkat Reddy in survey No.363 (father of appellant No.1 – defendant No.1).

3.3 It is stated in the plaint that father of the respondent - plaintiff and father of the appellant No.1 - defendant No.1 were real brothers, land admeasuring Ac.14-34 guntas in survey No.363 was the joint family property of the father of respondent - plaintiff and father of appellant No.1 – defendant No.1, an oral partition has taken place between the brothers and land measuring Ac.9-18 guntas in survey No.363 along with other land to the extent of Ac.07-11½ guntas in survey No.364 fell to the share of the father of the respondent – plaintiff, similarly remaining land admeasuring Ac.5-16 guntas in survey No.363 along with other lands in another survey numbers fell to the share of father of appellant No.1 – defendant No.1. Out of Ac.9-18 guntas of land in survey No.363, respondent-plaintiff and his father and brothers sold Ac.5-26 guntas in survey No.363 to M/s.Best India Tobacco Suppliers Private Limited in the year 1996 -1997 and delivered possession. Leftover land in survey No.363 is Ac.3-32 guntas. After the death of the father of the respondent - plaintiff in the year 2000, the said remaining land i.e., Ac.3-32 guntas in survey No.363 has been mutated in the name of respondent - plaintiff and his two brothers by name M.Amarender Reddy and M.Malla Reddy in the revenue records. In the year 2002 M.Amarender Reddy died and thereafter partition has taken place between the respondent - plaintiff and his brother M.Malla Reddy and children of M.Amarender Reddy on 20.04.2007 though a registered partition deed No. 5565 of 2007. As per the registered partition deed respondent - plaintiff has got Ac.0-13 guntas in survey No.363 which is the suit schedule property and the property in Survey No.364 admeasuring Ac.1-19 ¼ guntas of Thumkunta village. Appellants-defendants illegally occupied the plaint schedule property by dispossessing him on 26.01.2014. Thereby he filed suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mesne profits.

4.1 Appellant Nos.1 and 3 – defendant Nos.1 and 3 have filed their written statement admitting that the father of appellant No.1 - defendant No.1 got Ac.5-16 guntas in survey No.363. Father of appellant No.1- defendant No.1 during his life time has executed registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.6584 of 2007 dated 21.05.2007 in favour of the appellants - defendants to an extent of Ac.3-24 guntas in survey No.363, properties situated in Survey No.362 admeasuring Ac.0-18 guntas at Thumkunta village and to an extent of Ac.1-4 guntas in survey No.363 in favor of appellant No.2 – defendant No.2 apart from other extents of land in survey No.362 admeasuring Ac.3-00 guntas of Thumkunta village. Appellant No.1-defendant No.1 has constructed the school in the y

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 14137

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADB.R.Madhusudhan Rao, JMogulla Surender Reddy – AppellantVersusMogulla Laxmikanth Reddy – RespondentI.A.No.1 of 2025|APPEAL SUIT NO.106 OF 2023

In a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, the plaintiff must prove title on the strength of their own evidence, and cannot rely on the weakness of the defendant's case or inconclusive partition boundaries to establish ownership.

Cases Referred (5)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B.R.Madhusudhan Rao, J
Mogulla Surender Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Mogulla Laxmikanth Reddy – Respondent
I.A.No.1 of 2025|APPEAL SUIT NO.106 OF 2023