Direction To Deposit Rents Cannot Be Sought In Title Suit If Not Prayed For In Main Relief, Especially After 5-Year Delay: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"Status of the respondents / defendants as tenants and subletting the plaint schedule properties to third parties has to be determined only at the time of trial based on the issues framed in the main suit", Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a direction to defendants to deposit rents cannot be granted during the pendency of a title suit if such a prayer exceeds the scope of the main relief and is sought after a significant delay.

A bench of Justice Ninala Jayasurya observed that when rival claims of ownership exist based on a contested Will, the status of the parties must be determined through a full-fledged trial rather than interim applications. The Court emphasized that interlocutory orders under Section 151 CPC cannot be used to grant reliefs that the plaintiff failed to seek in the primary suit.

The petitioner filed a suit in 2017 seeking a declaration of title and delivery of possession, claiming to be the sole heir of her father and stepmother. The respondents contested the suit, asserting absolute ownership of the properties under a 2008 Will executed by the petitioner’s late stepmother in their favour. In 2025, eight years after filing the suit, the petitioner filed interlocutory applications seeking a direction to the defendants to furnish tenant particulars and deposit rents allegedly collected from the property into the court.

The primary question before the court was whether the defendants could be directed to furnish tenant particulars and deposit rents under Section 151 CPC when their status as owners was yet to be adjudicated. The court was also called upon to determine if interim relief involving the collection of rents could be granted when such a prayer was absent from the original suit for declaration of title.

Interim Relief Cannot Go Beyond Main Prayer In Suit

The Court noted that although the plaintiff alleged non-payment of rents in the original plaint, the main suit only sought declaration of title and delivery of possession. No specific relief regarding the recovery or deposit of rents was initially prayed for in the suit filed in 2017. The bench observed that the applications in question were filed five years after the institution of the suit, seeking a direction to deposit allegedly collected rents.

"Such a prayer goes beyond the relief sought for in the suit."

Determination Of Status As Tenants Requires Full Trial

Addressing the rival claims, the Court highlighted that the defendants asserted ownership based on a 2008 Will, whereas the plaintiff claimed they were merely tenants who had stopped paying rent. The bench agreed with the Trial Court’s view that the status of the respondents as tenants and the allegation of subletting are matters of evidence. These issues must be resolved through a full-fledged trial based on the issues framed in the main suit.

"The said opinion of the learned Trial Court against the background of the respective stands taken by the petitioner / plaintiff and the respondents / defendants cannot be found fault with."

Burden Of Proof On Allegations Of Rent Collection

The Court further emphasized that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to substantiate the claim that the respondents were collecting rents from third parties. The petitioner had alleged that the defendants were collecting approximately Rs. 75,000 per month from sub-tenants but failed to provide oral or documentary evidence to prove this assertion at the interim stage.

"In the absence of valid proof, even assuming that there is some justification in the claim made by the petitioner / plaintiff, no relief can be granted."

Scope Of Interference Under Article 227

The Court found no illegality or perversity in the Trial Court's common order dated June 26, 2025. Justice Jayasurya held that there was no incorrect exercise of jurisdiction that warranted interference under the supervisory powers of the High Court. The Court noted that since there was a "cloud in respect of the title," the Trial Court was right to refrain from passing interim orders that would effectively decide a contested status.

"This Court see no substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner."

The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petitions, affirming that interim directions for rent deposits cannot be used to bypass the necessity of proving ownership and tenancy at trial. The ruling underscores that interim applications under Section 151 CPC must align with the primary reliefs sought in the suit and cannot be filed after an inordinate delay without evidentiary support.

Date of Decision: 22 April 2026