ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Declaration of title and recovery of possession Ancestral property – Alienation Where the plaint schedule property is found to be ancestral property of the plaintiffs, neither one co-owner nor a family manager can alienate the property so as to confer valid title on a third party. (Paras 17–18) Agreement of sale – Unregistered document – Title An unregistered agreement of sale does not convey title in immovable property. When execution of such document is denied and handwriting expert evidence establishes forgery, no rights can be claimed thereunder. (Paras 18–19) Burden of proof – Forged document When the plaintiffs deny execution of an agreement of sale and establish forgery through expert evidence, the burden is not discharged by the defendants merely by producing the document and examining attestors. (Paras 17–18) Evidence – Admissions Admissions of defendants that the plaint schedule property is ancestral property and that plaintiffs inherited the same are relevant and binding and justify decree for declaration and possession. (Para 17)

Saturday, January 10, 2026

Declaration of title and recovery of possession Ancestral property – Alienation Where the plaint schedule property is found to be ancestral property of the plaintiffs, neither one co-owner nor a family manager can alienate the property so as to confer valid title on a third party. (Paras 17–18) Agreement of sale – Unregistered document – Title An unregistered agreement of sale does not convey title in immovable property. When execution of such document is denied and handwriting expert evidence establishes forgery, no rights can be claimed thereunder. (Paras 18–19) Burden of proof – Forged document When the plaintiffs deny execution of an agreement of sale and establish forgery through expert evidence, the burden is not discharged by the defendants merely by producing the document and examining attestors. (Paras 17–18) Evidence – Admissions Admissions of defendants that the plaint schedule property is ancestral property and that plaintiffs inherited the same are relevant and binding and justify decree for declaration and possession. (Para 17)

advocatemmmohan

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100

Second Appeal – Scope – Substantial question of law

Second Appeal lies only when the case involves a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse, contrary to evidence, or based on inadmissible material.
(Paras 15, 19)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 31

First Appellate Court – Judgment – Compliance

Where the First Appellate Court has independently considered the evidence and confirmed the findings of the Trial Court, the appellate judgment cannot be faulted for non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC.
(Paras 11, 15)

Declaration of title and recovery of possession

Ancestral property – Alienation

Where the plaint schedule property is found to be ancestral property of the plaintiffs, neither one co-owner nor a family manager can alienate the property so as to confer valid title on a third party.
(Paras 17–18)

Agreement of sale – Unregistered document – Title

An unregistered agreement of sale does not convey title in immovable property. When execution of such document is denied and handwriting expert evidence establishes forgery, no rights can be claimed thereunder.
(Paras 18–19)

Burden of proof – Forged document

When the plaintiffs deny execution of an agreement of sale and establish forgery through expert evidence, the burden is not discharged by the defendants merely by producing the document and examining attestors.
(Paras 17–18)

Evidence – Admissions

Admissions of defendants that the plaint schedule property is ancestral property and that plaintiffs inherited the same are relevant and binding and justify decree for declaration and possession.
(Para 17)

Concurrent findings – Interference barred

When findings of fact are concurrently recorded by both courts below after proper appreciation of evidence, the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence in Second Appeal.
(Paras 19–20)

Relief – Time to vacate

Even while dismissing the Second Appeal at the admission stage, reasonable time may be granted to vacate the premises.
(Para 20)

ANALYSIS (ISSUE-WISE)

1. Nature of the suit and procedural history

The suit was filed for declaration of title, recovery of possession, and mesne profits. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The First Appellate Court confirmed the decree. Defendants 2 to 5 preferred the present Second Appeal.
(Paras 1–3, 11)

2. Plaintiffs’ case

Plaintiffs asserted that the plaint schedule property was ancestral property, inherited from their ancestors, and that it was let out to the first defendant. On denial of title by the tenant in rent control proceedings, the suit was instituted.
(Paras 3–4, 16)

3. Defence of defendants

Defendants claimed title under an agreement of sale dated 06-08-1997 (Ex.B1) allegedly executed by the first plaintiff and another family member and pleaded delivery of possession in part performance.
(Paras 5–6, 12, 16)

4. Evidence and findings on Ex.B1

The Trial Court considered:

admissions of defendants regarding ancestral nature of property,
handwriting expert evidence (Ex.X1) opining that Ex.B1 was forged, and
the fact that Ex.B1 was an unregistered document.

Both Courts held that no title passed under Ex.B1 and that it was pressed into service only to squat over the property.
(Paras 17–18)

5. Ancestral property and power of alienation

The Courts below found that the property was ancestral and that neither the first plaintiff nor the family manager had authority to alienate it in favour of the second defendant.
(Para 17)

6. Scope of Second Appeal

The High Court reiterated the settled meaning of “substantial question of law” and held that none of the grounds raised by the appellants satisfied the statutory requirement under Section 100 CPC.
(Paras 15, 19)

7. Final outcome

The Second Appeal was dismissed at the admission stage. Six months’ time was granted to vacate and hand over possession.
(Para 20)

RATIO DECIDENDI

Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC is maintainable only when a substantial question of law arises; concurrent findings of fact based on evidence are not open to interference.
An unregistered agreement of sale does not convey title to immovable property, and when its execution is denied and forgery is proved by expert evidence, no rights can be claimed thereunder.
Ancestral property cannot be validly alienated by one co-owner or family manager so as to bind other co-owners.
Admissions of defendants regarding ancestral nature of property and inheritance by plaintiffs constitute strong evidence supporting decree for declaration and possession.
High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own findings for those of the courts below in the absence of perversity or illegality

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN