ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: A. Whether the Courts below erred in law in dismissing the suit for declaration by insisting upon strict documentary title, contrary to the settled principles applicable to ancestral and village properties? B. Whether the Courts below misapplied the law relating to permissive possession and burden of proof, by failing to examine whether the Respondent discharged the onus of providing an independent title? In a suit for declaration of title, the burden lies on the Plaintiffs and they must establish that they are having title over the plaint schedule property, however, the plaintiffs have not filed any document or any revenue record (though revenue record does not confer title) to establish title . It’s the case of the defendant that suit schedule property is Gramakantam and he has purchased from vendor for valid sale consideration and the plaintiffs neither rebutted the said pleading nor filed any document evidence that the property is private ancestral property, to establish that the land is not a Gramakantam Land, as pleaded by the defendant.

Tuesday, April 21, 2026

A. Whether the Courts below erred in law in dismissing the suit for declaration by insisting upon strict documentary title, contrary to the settled principles applicable to ancestral and village properties? B. Whether the Courts below misapplied the law relating to permissive possession and burden of proof, by failing to examine whether the Respondent discharged the onus of providing an independent title? In a suit for declaration of title, the burden lies on the Plaintiffs and they must establish that they are having title over the plaint schedule property, however, the plaintiffs have not filed any document or any revenue record (though revenue record does not confer title) to establish title . It’s the case of the defendant that suit schedule property is Gramakantam and he has purchased from vendor for valid sale consideration and the plaintiffs neither rebutted the said pleading nor filed any document evidence that the property is private ancestral property, to establish that the land is not a Gramakantam Land, as pleaded by the defendant.

advocatemmmohan

Declaration of Title – Burden of Proof

In a suit for declaration of title, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to establish that they have title over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs must make out a clear case for granting such declaration and the weakness of the case of the defendant cannot be a ground to grant relief. In the present case, the plaintiffs have not filed any document or revenue record to establish title and have failed to discharge the burden cast upon them. (Paras 8, 9, 10)

Evidence – Absence of Documentary Proof

The plaintiffs relied only upon office copies of legal notices and acknowledgements marked as Exs.A1 to A5 and did not produce any documentary evidence to establish that the property belonged to their predecessor or that they acquired the same by inheritance. There is no proof that the property is ancestral property or self-acquired property of Metla Polarao or of the plaintiffs. The trial Court, therefore, rightly dismissed the suit. (Paras 5, 10)

Possession – Long Possession of Defendant

The evidence of PWs indicates that the defendant has been in long possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plea of the defendant that he purchased the property and has been in possession remained unrebutted by the plaintiffs. (Paras 5, 8)

Gramakantam Land – Nature of Property

The expression “Gramakantam” is defined as a spot of ground in a village for building huts upon. The plaintiffs have neither pleaded nor proved that the land is not Gramakantam land and have not produced any evidence to show that it is private ancestral property. (Paras 8, 10)

First Appellate Court – Confirmation of Findings

The First Appellate Court reiterated that in a suit for declaration, the plaintiff must show uninterrupted or undisputed title over the property. The evidence of PWs 2 to 4 supported the case of the defendant and the plaintiffs failed to explain why the land stands in the name of the defendant. Accordingly, the findings of the trial Court were confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. (Para 6)

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC

Interference in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is permissible only when substantial questions of law arise. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by both Courts below cannot be interfered with unless perversity is established. In the present case, no substantial question of law arises. (Paras 7, 10)

Permissive Possession – Failure to Prove

Though the plaintiffs pleaded that the defendant was permitted to occupy the property temporarily as a custodian, no evidence has been adduced to establish such permissive possession. The said plea remained unsubstantiated. (Paras 1, 8)

Concurrent Findings – No Interference

Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court concurrently held that the plaintiffs failed to establish title and dismissed the suit. The High Court found no reason to interfere with such concurrent findings. (Para 10)

Result

The Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Para 11)

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN