Plaintiffs Cannot Sleep Over Their Rights For 25 Years And Then Claim Title – Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Declaration Suit Filed After Long Delay

“In a suit for declaration, plaintiffs must succeed on the strength of their own title; they cannot rely on the weakness of the defendant’s case” – In a significant ruling Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the dismissal of a suit seeking declaration of title and possession over land, filed more than 25 years after the defendants had taken possession. Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, presiding over the Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, held that the plaintiffs failed to prove legal ownership or possession, and the delay in approaching the court was fatal to their claim.

The Court reaffirmed that “the burden lies on the plaintiffs to establish their own title by legal evidence; mere long silence and unsupported claims cannot revive extinguished rights.” With no substantial question of law found under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, the second appeal was dismissed, and the concurrent findings of the trial and first appellate courts were affirmed.

“Adverse Possession Needs No Separate Pleading When Plaintiffs Themselves Admit Long-standing Possession by Defendants” – Court Reiterates Limitation Principle

Plaintiffs’ Inaction and Faded Claims Fail to Shake Longstanding Possession

The plaintiffs, Vallepalli Subba Rao and Vallepalli Venkata Rama Krishna, had approached the Junior Civil Judge at Jangareddigudem in 2010, claiming title and seeking possession of Ac.1.02 cents of land allegedly encroached upon by the defendants. They asserted ownership through a 1961 registered sale deed and claimed 1/3rd right in a tank portion, now converted into agricultural land. Alternatively, they sought partition of the land, alleging joint ownership.

The trial court rejected their suit, citing lack of title, extinguishment of rights due to limitation, and continuous possession by the defendants. The IX Additional District Judge, Kovvur, upheld the judgment in first appeal. Unyielding, the plaintiffs escalated the matter to the High Court through a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

Plaintiffs Admitted Defendants’ Possession Since 1984 – No Cause of Action Shown For 25 Years

The High Court emphasized that the plaintiffs themselves, including their key witness (PW2), admitted that the defendants had been cultivating the land since 1984 following a family partition, and that no tank existed at the time of such partition.

“There is no mention in the plaint as to when the tank lands were converted into agricultural land. On the contrary, plaintiffs' own witnesses confirm there was no tank and that the land had been in cultivation by the defendants for decades,” the Court observed.

The plaintiffs claimed that encroachment took place in May 2009, but the Court noted that this claim was contradicted by the plaintiffs’ own evidence, which confirmed open, continuous, and uninterrupted possession by the defendants since the 1980s.

Ex.B.3 Partition Document Though Unregistered Was Admissible To Prove Prior Oral Partition

Addressing one of the main legal contentions, the Court held that the unregistered partition deed (Ex.B.3) was rightly relied upon by the courts below. The document, though unregistered, was treated as a memorandum evidencing a prior oral partition, which is permissible in law.

Justice Rao remarked, “Ex.B.3 is admissible to prove the factum of earlier oral partition. Plaintiffs’ own witnesses have confirmed that the partition took place in 1984, and defendants have cultivated their respective shares ever since.”

The Court further noted that the plaintiffs allowed the defendants to enjoy the land for more than 25 years and failed to produce any document to prove continued ownership or possession during this period.

Revenue Records Are Not Proof of Ownership – Plaintiffs’ Reliance on Passbooks Rejected

The plaintiffs relied on pattadar passbooks and adangals (Exs.A1, A2, A6–A9) to establish possession. The High Court, however, held that such revenue entries do not confer legal title in the absence of documentary proof of ownership.

“Revenue records are not conclusive proof of ownership. The plaintiffs had no registered deed or any consistent possession to support their title claim,” the Court said, endorsing the approach taken by both lower courts.

Plaintiffs and Defendants Were Not Co-heirs – Alternative Relief of Partition Also Rejected

Rejecting the alternative relief of partition sought by the plaintiffs, the Court categorically stated:

“The plaintiffs and defendants do not fall under the category of co-heirs or co-sharers. There is no presumption of joint possession or joint title that can be claimed in this case.”

The plaintiffs attempted to rely on N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy, arguing that co-heirs' possession is presumed to be joint. However, the Court distinguished the case, ruling that such a presumption does not apply when there is no legal or familial basis to claim co-heirship or co-ownership

Adverse Possession Established – Limitation Bars Plaintiffs’ Title Claim

Even though the trial court did not frame an explicit issue on adverse possession, the High Court held that the plaintiffs’ claim was barred by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, as the defendants were in open and uninterrupted possession for more than 25 years. The Court reiterated the settled law:

“In a suit for declaration and possession, the plaintiff must stand on the strength of his own title. Even if the defendants' case is weak, the plaintiff cannot succeed unless he proves title.”

It further cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., holding that the burden of proof in such suits lies squarely on the plaintiff, and the plaintiff must be non-suited if they fail to discharge this burden, regardless of whether the defendants proved their title or not.

Dismissing the second appeal, Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao concluded that: “The plaintiffs lost their right more than 25 years before approaching the court. Their own admissions confirm possession with the defendants since 1984. Both the trial and appellate courts rightly rejected the claim.”

The High Court found no legal infirmity or perversity in the findings of the courts below. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Date of Decision: 01 September 2025