First Appellate Court Cannot Grant Relief Beyond Pleadings Or Determine Shares In A Non-Partition Suit: Jharkhand High Court

" First appellate court has certainly travelled beyond the scope of the suit while declaring the share of the vendor of the plaintiff over the suit property and accordingly the relief granted to the plaintiff that he would be entitled to 1/18th share of the suit property cannot be sustained in the eyes of law," Jharkhand High Court, in a significant ruling dated May 6, 2026, held that a First Appellate Court cannot invoke Order 41 Rule 33 of the CPC to grant a relief that was neither pleaded by the plaintiff nor formed part of the original suit's scope.

A bench of Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary observed that in a suit for declaration of title and possession, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of their own title and cannot benefit from the weaknesses in the defendant’s case.

The dispute involved a claim over 0.06 decimals of land in West Singhbhum, where the plaintiff sought a declaration of exclusive title based on a 1990 sale deed. The contesting defendant claimed the property through his deceased wife, who had allegedly purchased it in 1961, and also pleaded adverse possession. While the Trial Court dismissed the suit, the First Appellate Court reversed the findings, granting the plaintiff a 1/18th share and joint possession, leading to this second appeal.

The primary question before the court was whether the First Appellate Court erred in law by reversing the trial court’s findings without complying with Order 41 Rule 33 CPC. The court was also called upon to determine if the findings of the appellate court regarding the title and the rejection of evidence were perverse or based on a misreading of the record.

Appellate Court Cannot Re-frame Suit Into Partition Proceeding

The High Court noted that the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of exclusive title and recovery of possession based on a specific plea of prior partition. However, the First Appellate Court, after finding that the partition was not proved, proceeded to declare that the plaintiff held a 1/18th undivided share in the property.

Court Explains Limits Of Order 41 Rule 33 CPC

The Court observed that since the suit was not one for partition and other co-sharers were not parties to the litigation, the appellate court had no jurisdiction to determine individual shares. It held that the power under Order 41 Rule 33 of the CPC is discretionary and must be exercised to do complete justice between the parties, but it cannot be used to grant reliefs that are fundamentally outside the frame of the suit.

Plaintiff Must Establish Better Title To Succeed

Citing the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited (2014), the Court emphasized that in a title suit, the burden lies entirely on the plaintiff. The bench noted that even if the defendant fails to prove their own title or a plea of adverse possession, the plaintiff is not automatically entitled to a decree unless they adduce sufficient evidence to prove their ownership.

Revenue Records Do Not Confer Or Extinguish Title

The Court reiterated the settled legal principle that entries in revenue records or 'Khatiyans' do not confer title to a property; they only serve the purpose of identifying who is liable to pay land revenue. It found the First Appellate Court's reliance on the 1964 Survey Settlement to doubt a 1961 registered sale deed was perverse, especially when the plaintiff’s own witness had identified the execution of the earlier deed.

"The legal position is clear that the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title... even if the title set up by the defendants is found against them, the plaintiff must be non-suited."

Validity Of Prior Registered Sale Deed

The Court found that the 1961 sale deed (Exhibit C) executed in favor of the defendant's predecessor was duly proved by the plaintiff’s own witness, P.W. 3. Since this deed remained unchallenged and was executed decades before the plaintiff’s 1990 deed, the vendor of the plaintiff had no saleable interest left to convey at a later date.

Finding On Adverse Possession Upheld But Title Claim Dismissed

While the High Court agreed with the First Appellate Court that the defendant could not prove adverse possession—partly because one cannot claim title and adverse possession simultaneously—it held that this failure did not cure the defects in the plaintiff's title. The Court noted that the plaintiff miserably failed to prove his exclusive title over the property as claimed in the plaint.

"Once the title with respect to the suit property had already passed in 1961, there was no occasion for a second sale deed with respect to the same property in favour of the plaintiff in 1990."

The High Court concluded that the First Appellate Court committed a serious error of law by granting relief beyond the pleadings and ignoring the proven execution of a prior registered document. Consequently, the High Court set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restored the Trial Court's decree dismissing the suit.

Date of Decision: 06 May 2026