When Boundaries Are Undisputed and Possession Is Peaceful, Courts Will Not Entertain Belated Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Law Favors Long Possession Under Registered Sale Deed—Defendant Slept on His Rights for Decades: In a decisive ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati dismissed a second appeal in Khatib Abdul Gaffar (Deceased) through LRs v. Veeraballi Nagi Reddy (Deceased) through LRs & Others, upholding concurrent findings by the trial and first appellate courts. Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, while affirming the plaintiffs' title and possession over the suit property, held that “when a registered sale deed with specified boundaries is followed by decades of peaceful possession, the Court will not dislodge ownership merely on the basis of vague oral claims”.

The judgment reiterates the importance of boundaries in title disputes and emphasizes that defendants who fail to act for decades cannot later disrupt long-settled possession on account of speculative assertions.

The plaintiffs filed civil suit before the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of a property purchased by the first plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 12.06.1962 (Ex.A-1). Though the document mentioned an extent of Ac.0-11 cents, the plaintiffs claimed to be in possession of Ac.0-13½ cents, contending that the additional Ac.0-02½ cents was also part of the land transferred and had been continuously possessed by them for over 37 years.

The defendant disputed this and alleged encroachment beyond the sold extent. Both the trial court and the appellate court found in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring their title and granting permanent injunction. The legal heirs of the deceased defendant challenged these findings through the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

“Findings of Fact Based on Evidence Cannot Be Disturbed in Second Appeal”

The Court began by outlining the limited scope of interference under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. Relying on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Bhagwan Sharma v. Bani Ghosh and Kondira Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar, Justice Rao observed:

“Unless the findings of the courts below are perverse, based on inadmissible evidence, or in disregard of settled legal principles, the High Court cannot substitute its own view on facts.”

The Court held that both the Senior Civil Judge and the V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty had given well-reasoned and evidence-based judgments.

“Title Flows from the Boundaries, Not Mere Extent or Survey Numbers”

Rejecting the appellant’s claim that the plaintiffs encroached into Ac.0-02½ cents beyond the area sold, the Court made a crucial legal observation:

“It is a settled principle that in case of inconsistency between boundaries and extent, the boundaries shall prevail.”

The Court noted that the boundaries described in Ex.A-1 were undisputed, and the seller had physically handed over possession at the time of execution, including marking the four corners with boundary stones.

“Possession Since 1962 Without Objection—Title and Injunction Rightly Granted”

The High Court placed emphasis on the fact that the plaintiffs had been in undisturbed possession of the suit property since 1962, and that the defendant did not raise any objection for more than 37 years until land prices escalated in 1999.

Justice Rao remarked: “The defendant’s own admission reveals that the property was not valuable at the time of sale, but has now become valuable. Courts will not encourage such opportunistic litigation that challenges peaceful possession after several decades.”

Further, the Court found that the defendant had not retained any land on the northern side of the sold property and had not pleaded that the disputed portion was retained.

“Failure to Cross-Examine Plaintiff is Fatal—His Unchallenged Testimony Stands”

The appellants argued that the primary plaintiff’s evidence (P.W.1) should be discarded as he died before cross-examination. Rejecting this contention, the Court observed:

“A date was fixed for cross-examination, and the defendant failed to avail the opportunity. The death of the witness thereafter cannot be used to discredit his unchallenged testimony.”

Moreover, P.W.2, another plaintiff, corroborated all material aspects of P.W.1’s version. The Court noted that the Village Karanam, who scribed the sale deed, also confirmed that boundaries were specified, and possession was delivered at the time of sale.

Justice Rao concluded that the findings of the lower courts were based on sound legal reasoning and credible evidence. He declared:

“Both the trial court and the first appellate court correctly found that the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration of title and permanent injunction. There is no perversity or legal infirmity requiring interference under Section 100 CPC.”

The second appeal was accordingly dismissed, with the Court directing that each party bear their own costs.

Date of Decision: 3 July 2025