Unregistered partition deed and revenue records cannot establish title against corroborated ancestral inheritance and registered records.

The respondents (plaintiffs in O.S. No. 140/2011) claimed title as legal heirs of Bommaya Gounder, whose father Pandara Gounder allegedly acquired the land in 1912 and 1925.

The appellants (defendants in O.S. No. 140/2011 and plaintiffs in O.S. No. 31/2012) claimed title via three registered sale deeds from 1982-1983 based on an unregistered partition deed dated 05.10.1982.

While the Trial Court dismissed both suits, the First Appellate Court reversed the dismissal of O.S. No. 140/2011, granting a declaration of title for a restricted area (4.74 acres), and affirmed the dismissal of the appellants' suit for bare injunction (O.S. No. 31/2012).

1. Whether the respondents' suit was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act given the knowledge of fixed survey stones in 2006?

2. Whether P. Bommaya Gounder and the respondents’ predecessor are the same person, particularly regarding the validity of the genealogy rejected by the Tahsildar?

3. Whether the suit for bare injunction (O.S. No. 31/2012) was maintainable without seeking a declaration of title when a cloud on title existed?

4. Whether the First Appellate Court could "mould the relief" by granting a declaratory right for a lesser extent than originally prayed for?

Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which bars a mere declaration where the plaintiff is able to seek further relief but omits to do so.

Principles from Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, establishing that a suit for bare injunction is not maintainable when there is a serious cloud on the title.

Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, and Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, holding that unregistered and unstamped partition deeds are inadmissible to prove title.

Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, where the three-year period for declaration runs from the date the right to sue "first accrues," interpreted here as the date of actual knowledge of the adverse documents.

The court can grant a "lesser relief" than prayed for, as supported by Kesavalu Naidu v. Doraiswami Naidu.

The Court found that the respondents proved their lineage through a legal heir certificate (Ex.A9) and established a chain of title back to 1919-1925 via patta and adangal records (Ex.A1-A6).

The appellants' title was deemed defective because their 1982-1983 sale deeds relied on an unregistered 1982 partition deed (Ex.A16) that failed to trace any relationship to the original owner, Pandara Gounder.

Regarding limitation, the Court upheld the First Appellate Court’s finding that the cause of action accrued in 2010 upon the discovery of the sale deeds through an Encumbrance Certificate, not in 2006 when survey stones were fixed, as the lands were barren.

The Court rejected the appellants' suit for bare injunction, noting they suppressed the existence of the title dispute (O.S. 140/2011), thereby failing the Anathula Sudhakar test.

The "moulding of relief" was held proper as the respondents filed a memo voluntarily restricting their claim to the area occupied by the appellants.

The appellants' suit for bare injunction was not maintainable without a prayer for declaration given the clear cloud on title.

The court is duty-bound to grant a lesser relief (title over 4.74 acres) when the larger relief is not made out but the entitlement to the smaller portion is proved.

The High Court dismissed both Second Appeals and confirmed the First Appellate Court’s judgment, answering all substantial questions of law against the appellants.