Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"Where Identity Of Property Is Unclear, No Declaration Of Title Can Be Granted", High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, reiterating the principle that a plaintiff cannot claim declaratory or injunctive relief without affirmatively establishing her title and the identity of the suit property. Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao upheld concurrent findings of fact by the trial and first appellate courts, which had dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for declaration of title, mandatory injunction, and refund of sale consideration.

The ruling underscores that a purchaser who fails to establish the identity and possession of the property allegedly encroached upon is not entitled to equitable relief, particularly when the defendant’s possession is established and construction predates the sale.

Sale Without Survey, Doubts Over Boundaries, and a 1996 Construction

The dispute arose from a suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff, Y. Peddakka, seeking a declaration of title over a portion of land measuring Ac.1.50 cents, demolition of a house allegedly constructed by the first respondent-defendant (Ganganna), and, in the alternative, a refund of ₹2,60,765 from her vendors (respondents 2 to 5) if they lacked valid title.

According to the plaintiff, she purchased Ac.5.00 cents of land on May 12, 2003, through a registered sale deed (Ex.A3). However, the first respondent had already constructed a house on a portion of this land in 1996, after obtaining municipal permission, and claimed title through earlier registered sale deeds from 1967 and 1971.

Both the trial court (in O.S. No. 316 of 2005) and the first appellate court (in A.S. No. 66 of 2013) dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove her title or the identity of the property. The High Court affirmed these findings, dismissing the second appeal.

Plaintiff’s Title “Built on Admissions and Assumptions”

Justice Rao emphasized that in a suit for declaration of title, the burden is firmly on the plaintiff to prove both her own title and that of her vendors.

“In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff has to prove her title and also the title of her vendor. The plaint schedule disputed property is measuring Ac.1.50 cents out of Ac.5.00 cents… the evidence of the plaintiff’s vendor is not at all supporting the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has got right and title within the boundaries and extent mentioned in the plaint schedule,” observed the Court.

The plaintiff and her vendors admitted under cross-examination that they had not conducted any physical survey or verified the boundaries prior to the sale. Importantly, D.W.3 (the plaintiff’s vendor) conceded that they included the survey number in the sale deed based solely on information provided by the plaintiff’s husband and admitted, “they kept the suit schedule property vacant and they never enjoyed the same.”

The plaintiff herself testified that she had no physical possession and that the property was vacant when she purchased it, despite documentary evidence and municipal records establishing that the defendant’s house had existed there since 1996.

No Mandatory Injunction When Defendant’s Construction Predates Plaintiff’s Title

Refusing to grant the relief of mandatory injunction, the Court underscored that since the defendant’s construction existed prior to the plaintiff’s purchase, and no encroachment was established, she had no enforceable right to seek demolition.

“The material on record clearly goes to show that the defendant No.1 made structures in the year 1996, much prior to the purchase of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff,” the Court noted. “The plaintiff failed to establish that the property in possession of the defendant No.1 included the property purchased by her under Ex.A-3 sale deed.”

Justice Rao further pointed out that the plaintiff’s own admission destroyed her claim: “The property they sold under Ex.A-3 to the plaintiff is different from the property constructed by the defendant No.1 in the year 1996.”

Refund of Sale Consideration Not Maintainable Without Seeking Cancellation of Sale Deed

The plaintiff had also sought a refund of the sale consideration in the alternative, but the Court rejected this claim as well, stating that without seeking cancellation of the registered sale deed, the refund could not be granted.

“Admittedly, the plaintiff has not sought any relief of cancellation of the said sale deed, in such case, the plaintiff is not entitled to the refund of the sale consideration as sought for,” Justice Rao held, citing settled law and referring to her own testimony that there was no clause in the sale agreement obligating the vendors to return the consideration.

The Court observed that “the present suit filed by the plaintiff is not at all maintainable without seeking relief for cancellation of sale deed. On that ground alone, the suit is liable to be dismissed against the defendant Nos.2 to 5.”

“No Substantial Question Of Law Arises”: Scope of Section 100 CPC Restated

Reaffirming the limited jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, the Court held that the second appeal involved no substantial question of law, as both lower courts had properly appreciated the evidence on record and rendered concurrent findings.

Quoting from Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar, the Court reiterated:

“The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the First Appellate Court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn… were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law… or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence.”

In this case, the Court found no perversity, illegality, or misapplication of law in the judgments of the trial and appellate courts.

Order XLI Rule 31 CPC Complied With In First Appeal

Rejecting the appellant’s argument that the appellate court had failed to comply with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, the High Court held that the judgment of the first appellate court fulfilled all procedural requirements.

“The First Appellate Court has framed the points for determination, discussed the evidence of each witness and decided the first appeal by giving reasons in its judgment,” the Court noted, citing B.V. Nagesh & Another v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy and Nafees Ahmad v. Soinuddin in support of its findings.

Relief Denied on All Counts

The High Court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to establish her title, identity of the property, or any right to mandatory injunction or refund. The defendant's possession and prior construction stood unshaken, and the Court saw no merit in interfering with the well-reasoned concurrent findings.

The second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Date of Decision: 08 December 2025