No Person Can Transfer A Better Title Than What He Possesses In Property So Transferred: Andhra Pradesh High Court

" Will Confined To Bangalore Properties Cannot Pass Title Over Nellore Plot ", High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati has dismissed a second appeal at the stage of admission itself, affirming concurrent findings of two courts below that a vendor who had already parted with title to a plot in 1981 through a registered sale deed could not revive and bequeath that property through a Will executed in 1991 — and that a purchaser under such a Will-based chain of title acquired nothing.

Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, applying the foundational principle of nemo dat quod non habet, held that no substantial question of law arose from the challenge to the concurrent decrees, and confirmed the plaintiff's title over Plot No.9 in Sy.No.1941, Nellore, while granting the defendants two months to deliver vacant possession.

The plaint schedule property — Plot No.9 in Sy.No.1941, Nellore — had a long and layered title history tracing back to the Thikkavarapu family. One Thikkavarapu Pattabhirami Reddy was the original owner of the property. His wife Snehalatha Reddy, to whom he had gifted some properties in 1974, died intestate in 1977, and the properties reverted to her husband and children. In 1978, both children — the defendant No.3 and his sister Nandana Ishbiliya — executed a registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of their father Pattabhirami Reddy, authorising him to sell, mortgage, or lease the plots devolving upon them. Exercising this GPA, Pattabhirami Reddy in 1981 sold Plot Nos.9 and 10 to one Epuru Sulochanamma under a registered sale deed. The legal heirs of Sulochanamma subsequently sold Plot No.10 in 1994 and Plot No.9 — the suit property — to the plaintiff Kandula Usha in 1996 under a registered sale deed for Rs.1,80,000.

Decades later, in September 2018, defendant No.3 purported to sell the very same Plot No.9 to defendant No.1 (Raja Venkatachalam) for Rs.30,00,000 under a registered sale deed, claiming ownership by virtue of a registered Will said to have been executed by his father Pattabhirami Reddy on 30.05.1991. Defendant No.1 subsequently gifted 24 sq.ft. to defendant No.2 and also entered into a development agreement with a builder firm to construct residential apartments on the site. When the plaintiff visited the property in January 2019, she found illegal constructions and filed O.S.No.09 of 2019 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, seeking declaration of title, delivery of possession, and a declaration that all documents executed by the defendants were null and void.

Both the trial court and the first appellate court (III Additional District Judge, Nellore) decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved, defendant Nos.1 and 2 approached the High Court by way of second appeal.

The substantial questions of law urged by the appellants were whether the concurrent findings were contrary to law, whether the Will of 1991 conferred title on defendant No.3, and whether the first appellate court erred in affirming the trial court's decree. A new argument was also raised for the first time in second appeal — that the property was ancestral and that defendant No.3 and his sister were co-owners along with their father by virtue of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Court's Observations and Judgment

The High Court began by reiterating the strict threshold for maintainability of second appeals. Only when a substantial question of law arises — one that directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and is either an open question or not free from difficulty — can a second appeal be entertained under Section 100 CPC. The Court emphasised that "mere appreciation of facts, documentary evidence and contents of documents cannot be held to be raising a substantial question of law."

"The questions raised, strictly speaking, are not even pure questions of law, let alone substantial questions of law."

Turning to the merit of the defendants' title, the Court examined the 1991 Will (Ex.B-1) which the defendants relied upon as the root of their claim. The propounder of the Will himself — D.W.2, who was also the vendor of defendant No.1 — admitted in his own evidence before the trial court that there was no specific recital about the plaint schedule property in the Will, and that the Will related only to properties situated at Bangalore and movable properties.

"D.W.2 admits that there is no specific recital about the plaint schedule property in the Will and the Will relates to the property situated at Bangalore and movable properties."

This concession, the Court held, was fatal to the defendants' case on the face of it. By the time the Will was executed in 1991, Pattabhirami Reddy had already conveyed Plot No.9 through a registered sale deed in 1981 as the GPA holder of his daughter Nandana Ishbiliya. He had therefore ceased to hold any right or title in that property long before the Will came into existence, and had nothing to bequeath.

"By the date of alleged Will Ex.B-1 dated 30.05.1991, the father of the defendant No.3 i.e. Pattabhirami Reddy is not having any rights in respect of the plaint schedule plot No.9 in view of the registered sale deed executed by Pattabhirami Reddy as the General Power of Attorney holder of his children on 20.03.1981 in favour of Epuru Sulochanamma."

The Court then applied the principle of nemo dat quod non habet with full force. Merely because a document is registered does not mean it confers title — the registering authority only records the transaction and does not adjudicate upon title. Registration cannot cure a fundamental defect in the transferor's title. Since defendant No.3 held no title on the date he purported to sell Plot No.9 to defendant No.1 in 2018, no title could have passed under that registered sale deed, however large the consideration paid.

"The execution of a registered document by itself will not create any new title and the execution or registration of the said document covering any immovable property is governed by the principle 'nemo dat quod non habet' — no person can transfer or pass a better title than what he possesses in the property so transferred."

The Court also dealt firmly with the newly-raised argument based on Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. It was not pleaded in the written statement before the trial court, never suggested to the plaintiff's witnesses in cross-examination, and not raised before the first appellate court either. The Court reiterated the settled rule that a second appellate court cannot entertain a question that was never raised in pleadings or evidence.

"The Second Appellate Court cannot go into the question which had not been raised by the appellants in their pleadings or in the evidence."

The Court further noted that the GPA of 1978, under which both children — including defendant No.3 himself — had authorised their father to deal with and sell the suit property, was never challenged and remained uncancelled. This made the 1981 sale deed in favour of Sulochanamma unimpeachable, and the plaintiff's title through Sulochanamma's legal heirs, under the 1996 registered sale deed, was found to be valid and complete.

Holding that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both courts were neither perverse nor illegal and were based on proper appreciation of evidence, the Court declined to interfere.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the second appeal at the admission stage itself, confirming the judgments and decrees of both courts below and declaring the plaintiff's title over Plot No.9 to be valid. The defendants were granted two months to deliver vacant possession to the plaintiff. The judgment is a significant restatement of the nemo dat rule in property disputes — underscoring that registration of a document cannot breathe title into a transaction when the vendor had none to give, and that a Will cannot bequeath what the testator had already conveyed away decades before his death.

Date of Decision: 09 March 2026