No Substantial Question of Law Exists Where Findings Are Fact-Based: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute

“Possession of One Co-owner Cannot Ripen Into Adverse Possession Against Other Co-owners”, Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered a key verdict reiterating the settled principle that where factual findings of lower courts are based on proper appreciation of evidence, no second appeal lies merely to re-appreciate facts. Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, speaking for the High Court, upheld the concurrent judgments of the trial court and first appellate court granting a half-share partition decree to the plaintiff.

“This Court finds no perversity or misapplication of law in the judgments below. Where findings are based on judicial admissions and consistent evidence, no substantial question of law arises within the purview of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,” the Court firmly stated while dismissing the appeal at the admission stage.

The dispute revolved around a suit for partition filed by Atla Nasaramma against her niece, Polu Nasaramma, claiming a half-share in ancestral properties inherited from their common father, late Polu China Musalaiah. The trial court and appellate court decreed the suit in the plaintiff’s favour. The defendant, represented by Mr. P. Rajasekhar, approached the High Court invoking Section 100 CPC, claiming ouster and adverse possession by her father and thereafter by herself.

The plaintiff, Atla Nasaramma, asserted that her father’s properties devolved equally upon herself and her brother Nasara Reddy after their father’s death 25 years prior to the suit. After the brother’s death, the defendant, daughter of Nasara Reddy, became co-owner along with the plaintiff. Alleging inconvenience in joint ownership due to the guardian’s non-cooperation, the plaintiff sought partition and separate possession.

The defendant opposed the suit contending that her father, Nasara Reddy, had been in exclusive possession of the property since their father’s death, perfecting his title by adverse possession, and claimed that the plaintiff had relinquished her rights long ago after receiving consideration.

On Judicial Admissions:

The High Court highlighted that the defendant’s own pleadings and legal notices admitted that the suit properties were joint family properties inherited from their common father. Justice Rao remarked:

“Admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions and the best piece of evidence against the maker. Having admitted the jointness, the burden shifted on the defendant to prove relinquishment, which she miserably failed to discharge.”

The Court relied on Ex.A-3 (Reply Notice) where the defendant herself described the property as joint family property but could not prove any relinquishment by the plaintiff.

On Ouster and Adverse Possession:

Rejecting the plea of ouster and adverse possession, the Court reaffirmed that:

“Mere long possession by one co-sharer does not amount to ouster. Possession by one is presumed to be on behalf of all co-owners unless there is clear, hostile, and overt denial of title.”

Quoting from Mohd. Mohammad Ali v. Jagadish Kalita, the Court reiterated that mutation entries or unilateral possession cannot establish ouster unless accompanied by unequivocal denial of co-ownership, which was absent in this case.

On Lack of Substantial Question of Law:

The Court cited the Supreme Court’s binding precedent in Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal and Nazir Mohammed v. J. Kamala, clarifying that:

“High Courts under Section 100 CPC cannot disturb concurrent factual findings unless there is perversity, misapplication of law, or conclusions drawn without evidence.”

In this case, both courts below had rendered concurrent judgments after examining oral and documentary evidence, leaving no scope for interference.

On Composite Family Plea:

The defendant’s contention regarding composite family and jointness with extended relatives was outrightly rejected by the High Court. The Court observed:

“Pleadings govern the case. In absence of any plea regarding composite family custom, stray statements in cross-examination do not alter the legal conclusions.”

The High Court concluded: “This appeal is devoid of any merit or legal substance to invoke jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. No substantial question of law arises.”

Accordingly, the second appeal was dismissed at the admission stage itself without costs, affirming the decrees of the lower courts.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s ruling serves as a significant reinforcement of the legal position that second appeals are not avenues for revisiting facts but for addressing substantial legal errors, if any. The judgment safeguards the rights of rightful heirs in ancestral properties while discouraging untenable claims based on unsubstantiated assertions of adverse possession.

Date of Decision: 9th July 2025