-
by sayum
26 August 2026 1:49 PM
"A Document Executed by One Without Title Is a Mere Paper — It Creates No Rights in Law", In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the settled legal proposition that a sale deed executed by a person who has no legal title over the property is void ab initio and cannot create any right, title, or interest in favour of the purchaser. Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao dismissed all three second appeals filed by Kommineni Lalitha, upholding concurrent findings of the trial and first appellate courts that her sale deed was legally unsustainable.
The High Court held that since Lalitha’s vendors—Nelluri Ramaiah and Siva Naga Parvathi—had no title whatsoever, the sale deed executed by them in her favour (Ex.B-1 / Ex.B-7) in 1998 was “non est in the eye of law”, and thus "void ab initio." The rightful owners, Nelluri Atchamma and Kolasani Veeraiah, were alive and in possession when Lalitha purportedly acquired title. The Court ruled, “A vendor who has no legal title cannot pass a better title to the vendee. A void document creates no rights.”
"Second Appeal Cannot Entertain New Pleas Without Pleadings or Framed Substantial Questions of Law": Court Rejects Hindu Succession Argument
At the stage of the second appeal, counsel for the appellant attempted to invoke Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, arguing that since the property originally belonged to a female Hindu (Jonnalagadda Aadilakshmi), and assuming she died issueless, the succession would not pass to her husband (Koteswara Rao), but to her father's heirs. The High Court refused to entertain the argument, stating categorically:
"In the absence of any pleading at any earlier stage and without framing a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC, this argument cannot be entertained for the first time in a second appeal."
Relying on Arunachala Gounder (2022) 7 SCC 705, the Court clarified:
"Section 15(2) is applicable only when the female Hindu dies intestate and issueless. If she dies leaving a husband or any issue, the property devolves under Section 15(1)(a)."
The Court observed that no evidence or pleadings had ever been made about whether Aadilakshmi died leaving issues, making the application of Section 15(2)(a) untenable.
"Suit for Permanent Injunction Not Maintainable Where Title Is in Dispute": Court Applies Supreme Court’s Ruling in T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy
Kommineni Lalitha had filed O.S.No.126 of 2004 seeking a permanent injunction simpliciter, claiming possession based on her 1998 sale deed. The trial court dismissed her suit, and the same was upheld by the appellate and second appellate courts. Justice Rao stressed:
"When the plaintiff’s title is under serious cloud and dispute, she must necessarily seek declaration of title, not merely an injunction."
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy v. M. Mallappa (2022) 11 SCC 308, the Court reiterated that:
"A simple suit for injunction is not maintainable when complicated questions of title are involved or when plaintiff’s title is disputed. In such cases, declaratory relief is mandatory."
Since Lalitha's vendors had no title, and the property was lawfully purchased in 1988 by Atchamma and Veeraiah (Ex.B-5), her claim to possession was baseless, and her suit was rightly dismissed.
"Appellate Court’s Compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC Adequate When Reasoned Judgment Exists"
Lalitha also contended that the first appellate court had not properly complied with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, alleging that it failed to frame specific points for determination. Dismissing the argument, the High Court held:
"Though the appellate court must state points for determination, give decisions, and reasons, non-framing of points is not fatal where the judgment clearly shows conscious application of mind and reasons for conclusions."
Relying on precedents including B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy (2010) 13 SCC 530 and Nafees Ahmad v. Soinuddin (2025 SCC OnLine SC 826), the Court concluded that the appellate judgment was reasoned and legal.
The litigation originated from three clubbed suits concerning a 2-acre agricultural land in Vadlamanu village. Two suits sought declaration of title and possession (O.S.No.306 of 2004 and O.S.No.12 of 2006), while one suit (O.S.No.126 of 2004) filed by Lalitha sought only injunction.
The Courts found that:
Original title holders, Atchamma and Veeraiah, purchased the land lawfully in 1988 under Ex.B-5;
Lalitha’s sale deed (Ex.B-1/Ex.B-7) executed by Ramaiah and Siva Naga Parvathi in 1998, was void, as they had no title;
The plaintiff in O.S.No.12 of 2006, who purchased from the real owners in 2004, proved valid title (Ex.A-1);
Veeraiah, in O.S.No.306 of 2004, retained title over his half share (1 acre), which was illegally encroached under the guise of interim orders in the injunction suit;
All findings were concurrent across all three courts, with no ground for interference under Section 100 CPC.
Appeal Dismissed — Void Document Creates No Right
The High Court concluded:
"The appellant failed to establish any right or title. The sale deed under Ex.B-1 being executed by a person with no title is void-ab-initio. The lower courts rightly cancelled the document and granted relief to the real owners."
No substantial question of law was found to arise under Section 100 CPC, and all three second appeals were accordingly dismissed.
Date of Decision: December 24, 2025
