Plaintiffs Must Prove Their Title, Not Rely on Weakness of Opponent’s Case: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Suit Claiming Mutt Property as Ancestral Land

“Burden of Proof Lies on the Plaintiff; Revenue Records Are Not Title Deeds” – In a detailed and precedent-reaffirming judgment delivered on 7th January 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a civil appeal seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction over agricultural land, strongly reiterating that plaintiffs in a declaratory suit must succeed solely on the strength of their own title, and not on the weakness of the defendants' case.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam upheld the Trial Court’s dismissal of the suit filed by the appellants, who had claimed ownership over approximately 18 acres of agricultural land in Kurnool District, alleging it to be their ancestral property, while the second respondent—Sri Pothuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamy Mutt—asserted ownership as an endowment institution.

“Mere Use of Surname ‘Matam’ Cannot Create Title in Mutt Property” – Plaintiffs' Case Falls on Lack of Ancestral Link Evidence

The Court observed at the outset that the appellants had failed to discharge their initial burden of proof to establish a clear title to the property. The suit was based largely on the use of the surname "Matam", cist receipts (tax payment documents), and pattadar passbooks, all of which were found insufficient to establish ownership.

“We are of the considered view that once the suit was filed for declaration over the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs, the burden was on the plaintiffs to prove the title to the suit schedule property,” the Court stated, relying on Union of India v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (2014) 2 SCC 269, where it was held that “the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title… irrespective of whether the defendants have proved their case or not.”

Background: Plaintiffs Claimed Ancestral Title Based on Name and Possession

The plaintiffs—brothers—claimed that the property belonged to their great-grandfather, Matam Veera Brahmam Swamy, and had descended through their lineage. They relied on entries in revenue records, pattadar passbooks, and tax receipts, and alleged that they were in cultivatory possession of the land.

On the other hand, the second respondent Mutt, represented by its Manager, refuted the plaintiffs’ claims, stating that the lands were part of the Mutt’s endowment properties. It was contended that the plaintiffs’ ancestors were merely associated with the Mutt in a religious and service capacity, and that the plaintiffs were attempting to usurp the Mutt's property by misusing the commonality of the name "Matam".

Legal Issues: Ownership, Possession, and Evidentiary Value of Revenue Records

The core legal issues involved were:

• Whether the plaintiffs could prove title to the suit land based on ancestral lineage and possession.

• Whether entries in revenue records and pattadar passbooks could constitute proof of ownership.

• Whether the doctrine of presumption of title from possession under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 113 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) could aid the plaintiffs.

The Court firmly rejected the contention that pattadar passbooks and cist receipts could constitute title. “Mutation in revenue records does not confer any title nor is a proof of title,” it ruled, citing Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner (2007) 6 SCC 186 and Jagdish Prasad Patel v. Shivnath (2020) 19 SCC 57.

“Possession Follows Title” Principle Not Applicable When Defendant’s Title is Proven

The plaintiffs also invoked Section 110 of the Evidence Act, arguing that they were in possession, hence ownership should be presumed. But the Court rejected this argument, stating:

“The presumption of ownership under Section 110 is rebuttable and can be raised only when the possession is prima facie lawful and the contesting party has no title.”

The bench referred to Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala (2019) 6 SCC 82, where it was held that the maxim ‘possession follows title’ applies only where there is no definite proof of possession by another party, especially in the case of open lands.

The Court further relied on Yerikala Sunkalamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 630, to reinforce that the presumption under Section 110 (or Section 113 of the BSA, 2023) applies only where no party can establish title, and the person in possession is not a wrongful occupant.

In this case, the Court found that Exhibits B7, B8, X11–X15 clearly established that the suit land stood in the name of the Endowment Department and the Mutt. Therefore, the plaintiffs could not take the benefit of presumption under Section 110.

Plaintiffs’ Surname Does Not Establish Title to Mutt’s Land

Rejecting the plaintiffs’ reliance on the surname “Matam” and the alleged lineage from Matam Veera Brahmam Swamy, the Court held:

“Mere resemblance of the surname ‘Matam’ would not make the property recorded in the name of ‘Mutt’ the ancestral property of the plaintiffs.”

It was categorically noted that the plaintiffs failed to adduce any registered title document, revenue adangal entries, or reliable oral evidence to connect their lineage to the Mutt’s founder or to the property in question.

Revenue Records Cannot Be Used to Manufacture Ownership

The Court extensively discussed the legal effect of revenue entries and mutation records:

“Revenue entries are not documents of title. They are fiscal entries made for the purpose of collection of land revenue and cannot confer ownership.”

This view was supported by decisions such as State of A.P. v. Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Co. (2013) 9 SCC 319 and Nagar Palika v. Jagat Singh (1995) 3 SCC 426, wherein the Supreme Court has consistently held that mutation orders or revenue entries are not judicial determinations of ownership.

The Court also observed that the plaintiffs had raised crop loans based on these records during the pendency of litigation, which had no evidentiary value.

Civil Court Jurisdiction Upheld, But Title Not Proved

Though the Trial Court had ruled that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit (issue no. 3), it still dismissed the suit based on lack of proof of title. The appellate Court upheld this view, finding no error of fact or law, and affirmed the dismissal of the suit.

In dismissing the appeal, the High Court reiterated the foundational principle of property law:

“The plaintiffs having failed to establish title by adducing document of title, the suit for declaration could not succeed.”

The Court concluded that the appellants were trying to take advantage of the weakness of the defendants’ case, which is not permissible in law, especially in a declaratory suit.

Date of Decision: 07 January 2026