A declaration of title requires proof of the plaintiff’s own traceable title, not reliance on weaknesses in the defence.

The plaintiff sought a declaration of title and permanent injunction over land in Survey No. 708, claiming title through sale deeds dated 23 May 2008 and 18 August 2008 (Exs. A2 and A3), tracing ownership to Chinnasankaramurthy Karayalar and his heirs.

The defendants disputed that chain and claimed title through Somalinga Chettiar, his son Suriyan Chettiar, and a 1974 release deed in favour of Muthammal (Ex. B6).

The Trial Court dismissed the suit; the First Appellate Court reversed and granted relief to the plaintiff. The defendants appealed under Section 100 CPC.

Whether the plaintiff established a legally traceable title to Survey No. 708 through Exs. A2 and A3, sufficient to obtain a declaration of title.

Whether the First Appellate Court properly assessed the competing title and possession evidence when reversing the Trial Court.

Under Section 100 CPC, the appeal was considered on the substantial questions of law framed by the Court.

A plaintiff seeking a declaration of title must establish the plaintiff’s own title and cannot succeed merely on the weakness of the defence.

A person cannot convey a better title than that person possesses; accordingly, a registered sale deed does not establish the purchaser’s title unless the vendor had valid, traceable title to convey.

The plaintiff’s chain of title was deficient because Survey No. 708 was not shown in the antecedent documents relied on in Exs. A2 and A3, and the alleged oral relinquishment by the original owner’s daughters was unsupported by independent evidence.

The defendants’ evidence was also insufficient: although Ex. B6 referred to Survey No. 708, they did not prove Suriyan Chettiar’s antecedent title or the alleged partition allotting the property to him; the possession documents did not establish the defendants’ continuous possession.

The plaintiff therefore failed to discharge the burden of proving title, and the First Appellate Court had not adequately addressed the gaps in the plaintiff’s chain.

The Second Appeal was allowed; the First Appellate Court’s judgment and decree were set aside, and the Trial Court’s dismissal of the suit was restored. No order as to costs; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.