### Plaintiff seeking declaration of title must succeed on the strength of their own title.

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction, and compensation regarding 560 sq.ft. of land in Khasra No. 111.

He claimed ownership via a registered sale deed dated 25/02/1992 from one Abdul Wahid Khan.

When the State acquired a portion of the land for a road, a dispute arose as the Waqf Board (Defendant No. 1) claimed the land was dedicated via a 1932 Waqf deed.

Respondents argued the vendor had no title to sell the land and revenue records showed the land as "Abadi Nazul" owned by "Mohammad Israil Waqf".

Both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiff failed to prove his vendor’s title.

The plaintiff then approached the High Court in Second Appeal.

Whether the lower courts were justified in law in holding that the land in dispute was not in the title and ownership of Abdul Wahid Khan (the vendor), despite holding that the property was not proved to be Waqf property?

The Court applied the fundamental principle that in a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of their own title and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent Union of India v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited, which establishes that the burden of proof lies squarely on the plaintiff to establish a clear case for declaration.

Furthermore, it emphasized that under Section 100 of the CPC, interference in a Second Appeal is only permissible on substantial questions of law where findings are perverse or contrary to settled legal principles.

The Court reasoned that although the plaintiff produced a registered sale deed (Ex.P-1), a deed alone does not confer title unless the vendor’s prior ownership is established.

The revenue records (Ex.P-3, P-4, P-7) consistently showed the land as Government "Abadi Nazul" or associated with the Waqf, while neither the plaintiff’s nor the vendor’s name appeared as owners.

The Court noted that even though the Defendants failed to produce the 1932 Waqf deed to prove the property’s Waqf character, this "weakness of the defence" did not relieve the plaintiff of his primary burden to prove his vendor's title.

Since the plaintiff admitted in cross-examination that he was not recorded as the owner and provided no proof of the vendor's acquisition of the land, the concurrent findings of the lower courts were deemed legally sound.

The Court held that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving his vendor’s title, rendering the sale deed ineffective for a declaration of ownership.

The Second Appeal was dismissed, and the judgments of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court were upheld.