Partition Suit Without Declaratory Relief Not Maintainable When Title Is Disputed: Andhra Pradesh High Court Holds in Major Ruling on Assigned Lands

“Plaintiffs have approached the trial Court…without seeking declaratory relief… the suit is hopelessly barred by the law of limitation.” —  Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered a decisive judgment in the long-pending land dispute case, setting aside a two-decade-old decree of partition granted by the trial court. In a comprehensive decision spanning critical issue of property law, the Court held that transfers of government-assigned land made before 1954 are not hit by the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, and further clarified that a simple partition suit cannot be used as a tool to dispute titles of third parties.

The Court, presided by Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao, reversed the 2003 decision of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, which had declared a 1964 land sale void and partly decreed a partition of the disputed land. The High Court held that the trial court’s findings were legally unsustainable and based on erroneous appreciation of evidence, statutory interpretation, and limitation law.

"Transfers Made Prior to 18.06.1954 Not Covered Under 1977 Act” – Court Invokes Government Orders to Uphold 1964 Sale

The central issue in the case revolved around whether a land transaction made in 1964, concerning land assigned by the government in 1920, was void under the 1977 Act. The plaintiffs, claiming ancestral title, alleged that the 1964 sale violated Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.

Rejecting this argument, the Court relied on G.O.Ms.No.1142 dated 18.06.1954 and G.O.Ms.No.575 dated 16.11.2018, which explicitly exclude lands assigned before 18.06.1954 from the purview of the Act. The Court observed:

“The alienation under Ex.B-1, dated 21.01.1964, is valid in law and not hit by the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, since the land was assigned in 1920.”

Referring to Shaik Abdul Kalam Azad v. A. Babu, the Court reiterated that land assigned prior to 1954, unless specifically prohibited from alienation, does not attract the operation of the 1977 Act. It criticised the trial court for failing to consider this crucial legal distinction:

“The learned trial Judge was apparently wrong… the judgment is erroneous and cannot be sustained.”

“25 Years of Silence Cannot Be Cured by Filing a Partition Suit” – Suit Barred by Limitation and Adverse Possession Established

The High Court held that the plaintiffs had no explanation for waiting over 27 years to approach the court. The land in question had been sold in 1964, permanent structures had been raised, and land revenue was paid continuously by the purchasers.

Justice Rao noted: “The plaintiffs are not in possession for more than 25 years… The present suit is hopelessly barred by the law of limitation.”

The Court emphasized that the purchasers, including the Diocese of Guntur Society and its associated educational institution, had been in uninterrupted possession since the mid-1960s. Citing multiple documents and possession records, the Court observed that the claim of the plaintiffs had long since extinguished both on facts and law.

The Court underscored that the defendants were not co-heirs or co-owners but third-party purchasers. Therefore, any challenge to their title could only have been brought through a proper declaratory suit:

“The defendant Nos.3 and 4 are not co-heirs… the Court cannot decide title of third parties in a partition suit.”

“Partition Suit Cannot Be Used to Dispute Strangers’ Title” – Reliance Placed on Supreme Court’s Trinity Infraventures Ruling

In perhaps the most critical legal finding, the Court drew upon the Supreme Court’s authoritative pronouncement in Trinity Infraventures Ltd. v. M.S. Murthy, holding:

“In a simple suit for partition, the parties cannot assert title against strangers, even by impleading them as proforma respondents.”

Applying this ratio, the Court faulted the plaintiffs for trying to use a partition suit as a substitute for a title suit. The plaintiffs neither paid the requisite court fee for a declaratory action nor framed the appropriate cause of action.

Moreover, several of the original plaintiffs had died during the pendency of the suit without their legal representatives being impleaded. The Court held that the failure to substitute legal heirs led to partial abatement, rendering the suit untenable. Quoting State of Punjab v. Nathu Ram, the Court reiterated:

“The decree against the surviving respondents, if the appeal succeeds, would be ineffective… and the suit stands abated.”

Trial Court Erred in Declaring 1964 Sale Void and Granting Partition – Entire Suit Dismissed

In conclusion, the High Court found that the plaintiffs had failed to establish legal title, possession, or maintainability of the partition claim. The findings of the trial court were found to be flawed in law and unsupported by evidence.

The judgment emphatically concluded:

“The plaintiffs have failed to establish their case… the findings and conclusions recorded by the trial Court are not based on proper appreciation of evidence… the appeals deserve to be allowed.”

Accordingly, both appeal suits were allowed, and the decree of partition passed by the trial court was set aside. The original suit filed by the plaintiffs in 1991 was dismissed in entirety, with each party directed to bear their own costs.

Date of Decision: 10 October 2025