Title Cannot Be Defeated by Family Disputes Once Sale Deed Is Executed: AP High Court Dismisses Second Appeal

“Concurrent Findings of Fact Not to Be Disturbed in Second Appeal”, Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered a decisive judgment, affirming the principle that second appeals are strictly confined to substantial questions of law. Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao concluded that “the concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and appellate court, based on a registered sale deed and undisputed possession, require no interference under Section 100 of CPC.” The Court dismissed the second appeal at the admission stage, reiterating that the execution of a valid registered sale deed secures title irrespective of subsequent familial claims or payment disputes.

The dispute revolved around the title and possession of a plot (Plot No.17) situated in Guravarajupalli Village, which the plaintiff’s late husband, Paritala Kannaiah, purchased via a registered sale deed dated 25.07.1994 from defendants 1 and 2, under a ‘Lucky Dip Scheme’. The defendants, who were family members of the deceased original owner, denied the exclusive ownership of the vendors, alleging joint family status and pending partition suits.

The trial court decreed the plaintiff’s title and directed recovery of possession. The first appellate court confirmed this decree. Persisting in their challenge, the defendants approached the High Court under Section 100 CPC.

Justice V.G.K. Rao succinctly framed the legal threshold, stating: “A second appeal under Section 100 CPC is maintainable only if there is a substantial question of law. Mere alternative views on facts or contesting factual findings do not constitute such a question.”

The Court reaffirmed the limited jurisdiction of a second appeal, noting, “It is not within the domain of the High Court to reappreciate concurrent findings of fact properly arrived at by the trial and first appellate courts.”

On the title issue, the Court observed:

“The execution of a registered sale deed by the 1st defendant and as power of attorney holder for the 2nd defendant is undisputed. Such a registered document conveys valid title which cannot be unsettled by subsequent claims of undivided family rights unless duly cancelled.”

Determination of Title and Possession Rights

Referring to the evidence on record, Justice Rao pointed out: “The plaintiff produced unimpeachable evidence, including the registered sale deed, revenue records, and receipts under the Lucky Dip Scheme. The defendants neither entered the witness box nor disproved the execution or delivery of possession.”

Citing Supreme Court precedents in Boodireddy Chandraiah v. Arigela Laxmi (2007) 8 SCC 155 and Laliteshwar Prasad Singh v. S.P. Srivastava (2017) 2 SCC 415, the Court held:

“Once title is perfected through registered sale deed, possession follows. Any subsequent intra-family disputes or challenges must be addressed through appropriate partition suits but cannot override a registered transaction.”

On Allegations of Non-Payment of Consideration

The Court also addressed the argument regarding non-payment of full sale consideration:

“It is well settled that even if consideration is partly unpaid, a duly executed and registered sale deed passes title. The law does not allow a completed transfer to be undone merely on that count unless the deed is set aside by a competent court.”

Dismissing the second appeal, Justice Rao concluded: “The questions raised are neither pure questions of law nor substantial in nature. The concurrent findings are based on sound appreciation of evidence, which cannot be revisited in second appeal under Section 100 CPC.”

He added emphatically: “Family dynamics, unsettled internal shares, or absence of consideration challenge do not automatically invalidate a registered transfer—especially when possession and title have been exercised undisputedly for years.”

This judgment serves as a reaffirmation of settled jurisprudence limiting second appeals to substantial legal questions. The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s ruling fortifies the legal sanctity of registered sale deeds, shielding bonafide purchasers from belated family disputes and unwarranted factual reevaluations. The ruling acts as a caution to litigants attempting to re-litigate closed facts through the guise of second appeals.

Date of Decision: 18 July 2025