Plaintiff Must Succeed On His Own Strength of Title: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Second Appeal for Failure to Prove Ownership

“No Substantial Question of Law When Both Courts Found Against Plaintiff on Merits”: In a significant pronouncement reinforcing the strict application of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the appeal at the admission stage on 10th July 2025, holding that the plaintiff had utterly failed to establish his title to the disputed property and no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

Hon’ble Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao observed at the outset, “In a suit for declaration of title and possession, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title, not on the weakness of the defendant’s case.” Emphasizing the settled principle, the Court reaffirmed that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, cannot re-appreciate evidence unless perversity or a substantial question of law is demonstrated.

The appellant-plaintiff, Lukka Venkateswara Rao, had filed a suit seeking a declaration of title, possession, and permanent injunction over a portion of land described as the ‘B’ schedule property, contending it formed part of the ‘A’ schedule property purchased by him under a sale deed dated 06.10.2006. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, and the First Appellate Court affirmed the findings, leading to the present second appeal.

Justice Gopala Krishna Rao critically examined the entire chain of documents presented by the plaintiff and found glaring omissions. “The crucial foundational title deeds, namely the sale deeds dated 18.09.1967 and 31.01.1954, which purportedly established the root of title, were not produced before any court,” the Court noted, adding, “Both the Courts below rightly drew adverse inference against the plaintiff.”

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC 269, the Court reiterated, “Even if the defendant’s title fails, in the absence of proof of plaintiff’s title, the suit must fail. The plaintiff must stand on the strength of his own case.”

A key factual finding that weighed against the plaintiff was the evidence showing the existence of a compound wall constructed by the defendants in 2003, well before the plaintiff’s purchase in 2006. The Court remarked, “The plaintiff’s case of encroachment in June 2007 is contradicted by evidence, which shows the boundary wall existed years prior. The lower courts were correct in disbelieving this baseless claim.”

On the core issue of the second appeal, the Court firmly held, “The second appeal can be entertained only if a substantial question of law arises. The record reveals concurrent findings of fact, supported by evidence, with no perversity or misapplication of law. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere.”

Relying further on the principles laid down in Boodireddy Chandraiah v. Arigela Laxmi, (2007) 8 SCC 155, and Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki, (2007) 1 SCC 546, Justice Gopala Krishna Rao concluded, “Neither has there been an incorrect burden of proof nor a disregard of material evidence. The findings are based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence.”

Dismissing the second appeal at the admission stage, the Court declared, “There is no perversity or illegality in the judgments of the courts below, and no substantial question of law arises. Hence, the second appeal stands dismissed.”

The High Court further ordered, “Considering the circumstances of the case, both parties shall bear their own costs,” and closed all pending miscellaneous petitions.

This decision stands as a reaffirmation of the long-settled legal doctrine that a declaratory suit on title must independently establish ownership, and the High Court’s appellate jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely to revisit facts without demonstrating a substantial legal question.

Date of Decision: 10th July 2025