A claimant seeking to invalidate competing conveyances must establish their own title to the property.

The plaintiff claimed title to the suit properties under two sale deeds dated 24 August 2007 and sought a permanent injunction and declarations that a settlement deed dated 13 March 1951 and sale deeds dated 21 May 1984 and 30 May 2007 were null and void and not binding on him

The trial court granted an injunction concerning the property covered by Exhibit A1 and declared the impugned documents null and void, but dismissed the injunction claim concerning the other properties

On the defendants’ appeal, the first appellate court set aside the declarations but affirmed the injunction concerning the Exhibit A1 property

The plaintiff brought this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure

1. Whether the first appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court’s declaration concerning the settlement deed and sale deeds, particularly when the plaintiff alleged that the second defendant lacked title to convey the properties to the first defendant

2. Whether the plaintiff established a sufficient title or other right in the properties to obtain declarations that the impugned documents were null and void

The Court considered the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with the appeal confined to the substantial question of law formulated at admission

It applied the principle that a plaintiff seeking declaratory relief must establish the title or right on which that relief is based; shortcomings in the defendants’ case do not, by themselves, prove the plaintiff’s claim

The judgment cited no specific precedent or substantive statutory provision governing the title dispute

The Court found that the plaintiff’s sale deeds did not adequately establish how his vendors acquired title to the properties in Survey Nos. 315/B and 316; the plaintiff had not produced the relevant patta or other supporting records, and there was no sufficient evidence of his possession of those properties

As to Survey No. 317, the evidence showed a purchase of a 5/6 share in 0.51 acres, not title to the larger extent claimed; the plaintiff’s witness also admitted that no documents established enjoyment of the entire 2.51 acres by the plaintiff’s predecessor

The Court therefore held that the plaintiff had not proved the rights necessary to invalidate the settlement deed and subsequent sale deeds.

It also noted that the trial court’s reasoning about joint-family property was erroneous because the parties concerned were Christians

The first appellate court’s reversal of the declarations was accordingly justified

The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, with no order as to costs