A declaration and recovery-of-possession claim fails without proof of title and precise identification of the property.

The plaintiff, D. Murugan, claimed title to the suit property through a final partition decree allotting it to his grandfather, Ramasamy Gounder, and a later decree in a partition suit brought by Murugan and his mother against Ramasamy.

He sought declaration, mandatory injunction and recovery of possession, alleging that the defendants had encroached on the property.

The defendants disputed the property’s boundaries and identity, relying on subdivision and revenue records and asserting that the plaintiff had converted and sold portions of the land to third parties.

The trial court dismissed the suit; the First Appellate Court reversed that decision and decreed the suit.

The first defendant’s second appeal was admitted on two substantial questions of law concerning the First Appellate Court’s treatment of the evidence.

1. Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in relying on answers given by the defendant in cross-examination without properly considering the documentary evidence?

2. Whether the First Appellate Court erred in disregarding the plaintiff’s admissions in cross-examination when finding that he had established title to the suit property?

3. Whether the plaintiff established the identity and extent of the property for which he sought declaration and recovery of possession?

Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a second appeal lies on a substantial question of law.

A plaintiff seeking a declaration of title must establish clear and lawful title through evidence and cannot succeed merely on the weakness of the defence; the property claimed must also be sufficiently identified to support declaratory and possessory relief.

The Court referred to A.P. State Wakf Board through Chairperson v. Janaki Busappa and Others, 2026 (2) MWN (Civil) 631, and E. Bharatheedasan v. Jayachandran and Others, S.A. No. 167 of 2015, decided 23 October 2025, for the plaintiff’s burden of proving title.

The Court considered the plaintiff’s admissions that the land had been converted into house plots and that portions had been sold to third parties, alongside the subdivision and patta evidence.

It found that the plaintiff had not identified what extent remained unsold or established the precise boundaries of the portion allegedly encroached upon; the plaint did not adequately specify the portion to be recovered.

The Court therefore held that the plaintiff had not proved title to the property as claimed or established its identity sufficiently for the reliefs sought.

It concluded that the First Appellate Court had relied on isolated answers while failing to account for material admissions and documentary evidence.

It allowed the second appeal, set aside the First Appellate Court’s decree, and restored the trial court’s dismissal of the suit.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed, with no order as to costs.