SHAIK BABA FAKRUDDIN vs Y PEDDA KULLAYAMMA — SA/559/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 100. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 08th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: APHC010385922024

Filing Number

SA/30441/2024

Filing Date

04-Sep-2024

Registration No

SA/559/2024

Registration Date

05-Sep-2024

Judge

Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao

Coram

Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

SA ( 22 )

Sub-Category

DECLARATION OF TITLE(IMMOVABLE PROPERTY) ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL Section

Decision Date

08-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 28-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 100

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHAIK BABA FAKRUDDIN

    Adv. T V JAGGI REDDY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Y PEDDA KULLAYAMMA

  2. 2.T Chinna Kullayamma

  3. 3.A Krishna Murthy,

  4. 4.K Kumari

  5. 5.A Suryanarayana,

  6. 6.Bestha Parvathi

  7. 7.Anchala Kullaya Swamy,

  8. 8.K Suseelamma,

    Adv. P DURGA PRASAD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Apr-2026

    Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna RaoView PDF

    Court Decision Summary The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the plaintiff's second appeal seeking declaration of title over a property purchased in 2015 for Rs. 25,15,000 from defendants 1-7. The court upheld the concurrent findings of lower courts, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish valid title because his vendors had no legal right to sell the property—their father had already transferred it to defendant 8 through a registered sale deed in 1994 as manager of the ancestral Hindu Joint Family property. The principle "Nemo dat quod non habet" (no one can transfer better title than they possess) applied, and the subsequent sale 26 years later without disclosure constituted fraud rendering the plaintiff's acquisition invalid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 31-Mar-2026

    Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna RaoView PDF

  4. 31-Mar-2026

    For Orders

    Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna RaoView PDF

  6. 16-Mar-2026

    Admission

    Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao

  7. 11-Mar-2026

    Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna RaoView PDF

  8. 11-Mar-2026

    Admission

    Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao

  9. 25-Feb-2026

    Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna RaoView PDF

  10. 14-Oct-2025

    Admission

    Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao

  11. 10-Oct-2025

    Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna RaoView PDF

  12. 10-Oct-2025

    Admission

    Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao

  13. 18-Sep-2025

    Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna RaoView PDF

  14. 09-Jul-2025

    Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna RaoView PDF

  15. 09-Jul-2025

    Admission

    Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao

  16. 03-Jul-2025

    Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna RaoView PDF

  17. 04-Nov-2024

    For Admission (Sa Matters)

    K Sreenivasa Reddy

  18. 28-Oct-2024

    K Sreenivasa ReddyView PDF

  19. 18-Oct-2024

    For Admission (Fresh Matters)

    K Sreenivasa Reddy

  20. 20-Sep-2024

    K Sreenivasa ReddyView PDF

  21. 20-Sep-2024

    K Sreenivasa ReddyView PDF

  22. 20-Sep-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  23. 04-Sep-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. SA/559/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the plaintiff's second appeal seeking declaration of title over a property purchased in 2015 for Rs. 25,15,000 from defendants 1-7. The court upheld the concurrent findings of lower courts, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish valid title because his vendors had no legal right to sell the property—their father had already transferred it to defendant 8 through a registered sale deed in 1994 as manager of the ancestral Hindu Joint Family property. The principle "Nemo dat quod non habet" (no one can transfer better title than they possess) applied, and the subsequent sale 26 years later without disclosure constituted fraud rendering the plaintiff's acquisition invalid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case