Purchaser Cannot Acquire More Than What Seller Owns: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Second Appeal in Partition Suit

“Sale Deed Without Title in 1/4th Share Is Invalid Against the True Co-owner—Mere Possession or Construction No Defence Against Lawful Partition” - On October 6, 2025, the Andhra Pradesh High Court firmly reaffirmed the legal principle that a buyer cannot acquire better title than the seller possesses, while dismissing a second appeal filed in a partition suit. Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao dismissed the second appeal at the admission stage, holding that no substantial question of law arises when both the trial and appellate courts have concurrently found in favour of the plaintiff’s rightful claim to 1/4th share in ancestral property.

The Court emphasized that a registered sale deed executed by only three out of four co-owners cannot prejudice the undivided legal share of the remaining co-owner, especially when there is documentary evidence proving their ownership through a registered settlement deed. The plea of adverse possession was also summarily rejected for lack of credible evidence and on account of clear rebuttal by a legal notice served in 2010.

“Mere Construction or Tax Payment Doesn’t Prove Adverse Possession—Legal Notice Rebutted Entire Defence”

The central dispute arose over a 1-acre parcel of land forming part of an ancestral holding conveyed through a registered settlement deed dated 24.09.1977. The plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 inherited the land jointly from their father. While defendants 2 to 4 held only 3/4th undivided share, they sold the entire property to defendant no.1 in 1998. The plaintiff, who was not a party to the sale, asserted that his 1/4th share was unaffected and sought partition.

Both the trial court and the first appellate court accepted the plaintiff’s claim and declared that the sale deed was binding only to the extent of 3/4th share, and that the plaintiff was entitled to partition and possession of his 1/4th undivided share.

In second appeal before the High Court, the appellants (legal heirs of defendant no.1) attempted to claim exclusive title by adverse possession, stating that defendant no.1 had been in possession since 1998, constructed a house in 2006, and paid taxes. However, the High Court found this defence legally unsustainable, observing:

“Constructing a terraced building or paying taxes does not establish the kind of hostile, continuous, and exclusive possession required to sustain a plea of adverse possession.”

The Court specifically noted that the legal notice issued by the plaintiff in 2010 had interrupted the claim of hostile possession, effectively rebutting the defendants’ assertions. The Court held that:

“The plaintiff was not a silent spectator—he issued a legal notice asserting his rights and filed suit after the defendants failed to respond. These actions invalidate any presumption of adverse possession.”

“A Buyer Who Fails to Verify Title Cannot Claim Equity—1st Defendant Bought What the Sellers Did Not Own”

The Court found it undisputed that the settlement deed of 1977, marked as Exhibit A-1, granted equal shares to the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4, and that the plaintiff had a 1/4th undivided share. This share was never relinquished or sold, yet defendants 2 to 4 purported to sell the entire property under a registered sale deed dated 30.03.1998, marked as Exhibit A-2, in favour of defendant no.1.

Crucially, the vendors (defendants 2 to 4) never entered the witness box, and the trial court held this omission against them. The High Court echoed the same concern:

“For reasons best known to the defendants 2 to 4, they have alienated the entire property including the plaintiff’s 1/4th share, which they had no authority to convey.”

“The purchaser (1st defendant) also, without verifying the title, bought the entire 1 acre, though the vendors could sell only 3/4th share. The sale deed is thus invalid to the extent it affects the plaintiff’s undivided share.”

Accordingly, the High Court affirmed that the plaintiff was entitled to partition and possession of 1/4th share, and the buyer (defendant no.1) stepped into the shoes of the sellers only to the extent of their respective shares.

“Second Appeal Is Not a Forum to Re-Appreciate Facts—Concurrent Findings Cannot Be Reopened Without Substantial Question of Law”

Dismissing the second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court reiterated the narrow jurisdiction available in second appeals. Justice Gopala Krishna Rao quoted established precedent and emphasized:

“The right of appeal is not inherent—it is a statutory right. A second appeal under Section 100 CPC lies only when a substantial question of law arises. The mere plea of erroneous factual inference or reappreciation of evidence is not sufficient.”

Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Boodireddy Chandraiah v. Arigela Laxmi, and the principle reiterated in Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki, the Court clarified:

“Concurrent findings of fact by two courts, based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, cannot be disturbed unless perversity or illegality is shown. No such circumstance arises in this case.”

It concluded that the appeal was devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself.

Plaintiff’s Share Protected—Second Appeal Dismissed Without Costs

The High Court thus upheld the plaintiff’s 1/4th undivided interest, confirming both the trial court’s decree dated 13.10.2016 and the first appellate court’s judgment dated 31.08.2023. All interim applications were closed, and the second appeal was dismissed without costs.

The judgment serves as a textbook reaffirmation of partition law, co-ownership rights, and the limits of Section 100 CPC. It also sends a clear message that purchasers must verify title and cannot rely on possession or constructions to override legitimate undivided co-ownership rights.

Date of Decision: 06 October 2025