High Court holds 1968 registered sale deed proves title; dismisses second appeal for lack of substantial question of law

A single-judge bench of Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao heard a second appeal challenging concurrent decrees of the trial and first appellate courts in a suit for declaration and possession of a 435 sq.yds vacant site. The appeal was brought by defendant Nos.1 and 2 against a decree in favour of the plaintiffs who relied on a registered sale deed dated 06.05.1968; the defendants relied on an alleged gift dated 16.10.2006 and a subsequent sale dated 15.03.2007.

The High Court dismissed the second appeal at the stage of admission, holding that no substantial question of law arose for its consideration and that the concurrent findings recorded by the trial and first appellate courts did not warrant interference. The Court accepted the plaintiffs’ Ex.A-1 registered sale deed of 1968 under the presumption available to documents more than thirty years old and concluded that the plaintiffs proved title and were entitled to recovery of possession. The Court reiterated that mere registration of a document does not confer a better title than the transferor possessed, applying the principle Nemo dat quod non habet. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached to the litigation. It is regulated in accordance with law. A second appeal preferred under Section 100 of C.P.C., could be admitted only when the appellants satisfies the Court that substantial question of law between the parties arise in the case. A proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would be or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so, whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by the superior Courts or is not free from difficulty or cause for discussion of alternative views. In a case of Boodireddy Chandraiah v. Arigela Laxmi, the Apex Court held that it is not within the domain of High Court to investigate grounds on which the findings were arrived at by the last Court of fact namely, the first appellate Court. In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of facts are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate Court will not be interfered by the High Court in a second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. Where, the facts required for a point of law have not been pleaded, a litigant should not be allowed to raise that question as a substantial question of law in second appeal. Mere appreciation of facts, documentary evidence and contents of documents cannot be held to be raising a substantial question of law."

Background

The plaintiffs filed O.S. No.836 of 2007 seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession, asserting that plaintiff No.1 purchased the suit schedule vacant site by registered sale deed dated 06.05.1968 (Ex.A-1) and remained in possession. During trial plaintiff No.1 died and legal representatives were substituted. The defendants contended the land was ancestral to them, produced a registration extract for a gift said to be dated 16.10.2006 and a sale of the house portion to defendant No.3 dated 15.03.2007; they urged mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. At trial the plaintiffs examined PWs and exhibited Exs.A-1 to A-4; defendants relied on DWs and Exs.B-1 to B-3 but crucially defendant Nos.1 to 3 did not themselves give evidence.

The trial court decreed the suit; the first appellate court confirmed the decree. Before the High Court the defendants argued Ex.A-1 was not proved because attestors were not examined and raised factual contentions of ancestral possession. The High Court applied Section 90 of the Evidence Act, quoting the statutory presumption that where a document "purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature ... is in that person’s handwriting, and ... that it was duly executed and attested." The Court found Ex.A-1 to be a document over thirty years old produced from a proper custody and therefore entitled to the presumption. It further observed that defendants failed to produce contemporaneous documentary evidence or enter the witness box to rebut the plaintiffs’ case and that the 2006 gift and 2007 sale were not supported by original documents or witness testimony. The Court relied on settled principles that registration alone does not confer title beyond that possessed by the transferor and on precedents limiting the scope of second appeals where only appreciation of facts is involved.

The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirmed the judgments and decrees of the courts below, and directed the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs within three months. Pending applications stood closed and no costs were awarded.

Case Details: Case No.: Second Appeal No.78 of 2025 NeutralCitation: 2026:APHC:19328 Case Title: Chodisetti Sreenivasa Rao and Others v. Vasamsetti Somasundeswara Rao and Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): V S K Rama Rao For the Respondent(s): Kanakala Devi Prasannakumar; T Raghu Prasad