JUDGMENT : DR. V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J. 1. Plaintiff before the Courts below is the appellant, and this appeal is preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) impugning the judgments of both the Courts below. Pending the appeal she died and her legal representative came on record vide order dated 27.07.2021 in C.M.P.No.13267 of 2001. Respondents herein were the defendants in O.S.No.51 of 1989 and also respondents before the first appellate Court in A.S.No.10 of 1997. 2. On 23.11.2001 a learned Judge of this Court admitted this second appeal on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Courts below could have ignored that even in the ordinary proprietary action a plaintiff need do nothing more than prove that she had an older possession through her father than that of the respondents/defendants and the law will presume from the prior possession a better title? 2. Whether the Courts below were in error in ignoring that previous possession of the father of the appellant/plaintiff is prima facie evidence of title against a wrong doer and entitle the appellant/plaintiff to succeed on proof of peaceable possession derived under Ex.A.1, unless the respondents/defendants could show a better title? 3. Whether the Courts below could have ignored the principle that evidence of possession by the father of the appellant/plaintiff and enjoyment of itself is cogent evidence of title? 4. Whether the Courts below were in error in ignoring that in the absence of clear title in the respondents/defendants, the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to succeed on the basis of her father's possession until the contrary is shown by the respondents/defendants? 5. Whether the Courts below ought not to have ignored that evidence of possession of certain specific property as shown under Ex.A.1 and Exs.A.2 to A.4 and Exs.A.7 to A.17, can be treated as evidence of possession as regard the appendage i.e., the two room tiled house of the appellant/plaintiff? 3. Sri T.S.Rayalu, the learned counsel for appellant submitted arguments. For respondents, appearance was made but thereafter none appeared to argue despite granting several adjournments. 4. For appreciating the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal and the submissions of the learned counsel, a few facts are to be noticed: Property in dispute is situated in Raparthi Village, Pithapuram Mandal of East Godavari District. This property runs from north to south. There was one Sri Kambham Ramamurthy Reddy. 4. For appreciating the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal and the submissions of the learned counsel, a few facts are to be noticed: Property in dispute is situated in Raparthi Village, Pithapuram Mandal of East Godavari District. This property runs from north to south. There was one Sri Kambham Ramamurthy Reddy. He owns landed properties and house properties. The present controversy pertains to house properties. He had executed Ex.A.1-Will dated 24.07.1971. In the same year he died and therefore, that Will had come into operation. Claiming under the said Will two legatees filed two separate suits. Sri Kambham Rampratap Reddy @ Rampratap filed O.S.No.41 of 1989 seeking permanent injunction as against four defendants. Whereas Smt. Gudla Mahalakshmamma filed O.S.No.51 of 1989 for declaration of title with a direction to the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to her and for future profits and for costs and such other reliefs. The said suit was filed against four defendants. In both the suits the defendants are the same. Both the suits were laid before learned District Munsif, Pithapuram. Common evidence was recorded. For plaintiffs, PWs.1 to 6 testified and Exs.A.1 to A.18 were marked. For defendants, DWs.1 and 2 testified and Exs.B.1 to B.6 were marked. 5. Before the trial Court, the following issues were settled: Issues in O.S.No.41 of 1989: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the permanent injunction as prayed for? 2. To what relief? Issues in O.S.No.51 of 1989: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration as prayed for? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for delivery of the vacant possession as prayed for? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for profits as prayed for? 4. To what relief? 6. Considering the evidence on both sides and arguments advanced on both sides, the learned trial Court found no merit in both the suits and dismissed both the suits. 7. Aggrieved by the trial Court judgments, plaintiffs in both the suits preferred appeals. As against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.41 of 1989, the appeal preferred was A.S.No.12 of 1997. As against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.51 of 1989 the appeal preferred was A.S.No.10 of 1997. Both the appeals were heard and disposed of by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram by a common judgment dated 26.11.1999. As against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.41 of 1989, the appeal preferred was A.S.No.12 of 1997. As against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.51 of 1989 the appeal preferred was A.S.No.10 of 1997. Both the appeals were heard and disposed of by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram by a common judgment dated 26.11.1999. The learned first appellate Court found fault with the conclusions reached by the trial Court in O.S.No.41 of 1989 and accordingly the said judgment was set aside and consequently A.S.No.12 of 1997 was allowed granting a permanent injunction in favour of Sri Kambham Rampratap Reddy @ Rampratap as against the respondents/defendants therein. However, the learned first appellate Court found no merit in the appeal preferred by Smt. Gudla Mahalakshmamma and accordingly dismissed her appeal in A.S.No.10 of 1997 and consequently, confirmed the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court in O.S.No.51 of 1989. 8. Aggrieved by the concurrent judgments of both the Courts below, Smt. Gudla Mahalakshmamma preferred this second appeal. 9. This appellant appended a schedule to her plaint in O.S.No.51 of 1989, which reads as below: "East Godavari District, Pithapuram Mandal, Raparthi Village, Mangalore tiled house and site with two rooms which is of an area of about 180 sq. feet bounded on:- Door No.1-40 western side 2 rooms out house. East :- Front yard West :- Defendants site North :- Defendants site South :- Panchayat public latrine All the constructions within the above boundaries." 10. The earnest submissions of Sri T.S.Rayulu, the learned counsel for appellant is that the learned first appellate Court having recorded its finding that Ex.A.1-Will was proved under which a bequest was made to this appellant it ought to have declared the suit in favour of the appellant but it erroneously dismissed her cause. It is further submitted that under Ex.A.6-letter dated 18.06.1988 the defendants admitted the case of the plaintiffs and both the Courts below erroneously excluded that document from consideration. Had it been considered the claim of the appellant could have been accepted. The evidence adduced before the Court below established the claim of the appellant and it has also shown that the respondents/ defendants were only trespassers having no better title and, in such case, considering the long possession held by the appellant her title should have been declared and possession should have been directed to be delivered to the appellant. 11. The evidence adduced before the Court below established the claim of the appellant and it has also shown that the respondents/ defendants were only trespassers having no better title and, in such case, considering the long possession held by the appellant her title should have been declared and possession should have been directed to be delivered to the appellant. 11. This Court has gone through the entire material placed before this Court by the appellant and the following aspects are to be stated: The evidence on record has shown that Sri Kambham Ramamurthy Reddy had house property, and it consists of two portions running from north to south. The northern portion was bequeathed to Sri Kambham Rampratap Reddy @ Rampratap who is plaintiff in O.S.No.41 of 1989. Evidence on record and finding of fact by both the Courts below disclosed that the southern portion of this structure belonged to the defendants. Apart from the above-mentioned northern portion and southern portion, there is an outhouse/shed. It is that property which is claimed by Smt. Gudla Mahalakshmamma/appellant. This part of the structure exists to the extreme south of the main house. Before the learned first appellate Court certain contentions were raised and eventually an advocate commissioner was taken out and he visited the spot and measured the properties and noted the physical features and submitted the report. Learned first appellate Court while making its decision placed reliance on the said report also. On this advocate commissioner's report either on fact or law no questions have been raised in this appeal. 12. It is undisputed that Ex.A.1-Will was held genuine and proved and necessary observations to that effect were recorded by the learned first appellate Court. It is under that Ex.A.1-Will and the other evidence the claim for injunction filed by Sri Kambham Rampratap Reddy @ Rampratap was upheld in A.S.No.12 of 1997 recording a finding that he has been in possession of that property. The learned first appellate Court reached conclusions finding that the said individual was successful in proving his possession and enjoyment of northern portion of the main structure and therefore, perpetual injunction was granted. Learned first appellate Court had also observed that under the same Ex.A.1-Will a bequest was also made in favour of this appellant. The learned first appellate Court reached conclusions finding that the said individual was successful in proving his possession and enjoyment of northern portion of the main structure and therefore, perpetual injunction was granted. Learned first appellate Court had also observed that under the same Ex.A.1-Will a bequest was also made in favour of this appellant. Having made such observation, it had to consider whether based on Ex.A.1 and other evidence the claim for title and recovery of possession was proved or not. After furnishing detailed reasons, the learned first appellate Court observed that the present appellant failed to establish either her title or her previous possession over the properties she claimed. The following findings of fact were recorded by the learned first appellate Court to reach to such conclusions. It observed that as per the plaint schedule the property claimed is an extent of 180 square feet. However, when the learned advocate commissioner visited the place and measured it, it found 480 square feet. Thus, what was claimed did not match with what was found available at the site. The submission of the learned counsel for appellant is that boundaries would prevail as against the extent and the first appellate Court failed to consider the said aspect. 13. On considering the above submission, this Court finds no merit in it. As a matter of fact, it has been recorded by both the Courts below that in Ex.A.1-Will the testator did not furnish boundaries to the properties he bequeathed. There are no other documents indicating the boundaries of the property which this appellant claims. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for appellant that boundaries would prevail over extent is not based on facts and hence it must be negatived. The other observation of the learned first appellate Court is that Exs.A.2 to A.4 and A.7 to A.16 which are property tax receipts and assessment registers indicated the possession of property by the testator and thereafter by Sri Kambham Rampratap Reddy @ Rampratap who is plaintiff in the other suit which is O.S.No.41 of 1989. All those documents pertain to Door No.1-40. The property of defendants/respondents was found to be house bearing Door No.1-39. All those documents pertain to Door No.1-40. The property of defendants/respondents was found to be house bearing Door No.1-39. It observed that though Ex.A.1-Will came into effect in the year 1971 till the time the suit was filed in the year 1989 there was no mutation of entries in the relevant records and the present appellant failed to show payment of any tax and failed to show her possession in that property at any time. 14. In the memorandum of grounds urged in this appeal, it is urged, and the learned counsel submits that the above referred tax receipts must be considered for this appellant also. There is absolutely no merit in that contention. 15. Learned first appellate Court observed that in the property claimed by this appellant the southern boundary is shown as panchayat public latrines. Smt. Gudla Mahalakshmamma/ appellant deposing as PW.1 made a clear admission that the property of respondents/defendants extended upto those panchayat public latrines. It is to be once again stated here that for the main structure the northern portion belonged to the plaintiff in O.S.No.41 of 1989 and the southern portion belonged to the respondents/defendants herein. If the property of these respondents/defendants is upto the southern side panchayat public latrines then everything till that boundary belonged to defendants/respondents and in such an event, the contention of the appellant that south of respondents/defendants property the property she got under Ex.A.1-Will exists cannot be countenanced. 16. Learned first appellate Court also observed that the property claimed by this appellant is not adjoining the property claimed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.41 of 1989. Therefore, Door No.1-40 which was assessed to the property of plaintiff in O.S.No.41 of 1989 cannot be considered for the property claimed by this appellant. It made a specific remark that the property claimed by this appellant and the property claimed by plaintiff in O.S.No.41 of 1989 having in between them the property of defendants and that the property claimed by this appellant is on south of respondents/defendants property. This observation is based on facts and analysis of evidence and therefore, the same attained finality. It cannot be said that the learned first appellate Court either misread the evidence or considered any evidence which was not part of the record. It is not an observation made on any conjectures or surmises. Therefore, in this second appeal that cannot be challenged. 17. It cannot be said that the learned first appellate Court either misread the evidence or considered any evidence which was not part of the record. It is not an observation made on any conjectures or surmises. Therefore, in this second appeal that cannot be challenged. 17. There is another significant fact to be noticed is that this appellant in her suit claimed declaration of title and she claimed her title through Ex.A.1-Will. Such a claim presupposes that the testator had title over the property and only when he had title he could bequeath to the legatee. Coming to the title of the testator, the appellant as plaintiff stated that the testator had acquired title under a registered sale deed. The learned trial Court recorded a clear observation that the alleged registered sale deed or its certified copy was not adduced in evidence. During trial, in the oral evidence PW.1 and other witnesses stated that the testator got tile under an oral sale. That is a new theory. It is undisputed that the evidence has not disclosed any definite details about the oral sale. Sale of immovable property must be through a registered conveyance. Having failed to produce the alleged sale deed the claim was hinged on the oral sale. Since an oral sale stood never proved, the claim based on such oral sale could not be vested through Ex.A.1-Will. Therefore, the observation of the learned first appellate Court is that in a suit for declaration of title the plaintiff must succeed or fail on her own strength and the weakness in the case of defendant could not lead to a conclusion that the plaintiff holds the title. This Court has to state that a suit for declaration of title requires the plaintiff to establish title and weakness in the defence cannot result in declaration of title of plaintiff as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India v. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Limited, (2014) 2 SCC 269 . Therefore, the observation of the first appellate Court is in accordance with law and therefore cannot be disturbed. 18. The submissions of the learned counsel for appellant and the grounds urged in the memorandum are to the effect that what was held good for the other plaintiff in O.S.No.41 of 1989 has to be applied to the present appellant also. There is no merit in it. 18. The submissions of the learned counsel for appellant and the grounds urged in the memorandum are to the effect that what was held good for the other plaintiff in O.S.No.41 of 1989 has to be applied to the present appellant also. There is no merit in it. One marked difference to be noticed is O.S.No.41 of 1989 is a suit for permanent injunction which was based on possession. As the oral and documentary evidence produced before the Courts below proved such possession, permanent injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.41 of 1989. The case of the appellant does not stand on the same footing. Her claim here is for declaration of title. Since she failed in establishing her title, both the Courts below, on facts and evidence and as per law, declined to grant the relief. 19. The evidence on record and concurrent observations of both the Courts below on facts showed that this appellant failed to prove her possession as well as possession of her predecessors in interest concerning the property which she claimed in the plaint schedule. Therefore, claiming the relief based on prior possession to be considered as a better title does not arise on facts. 20. Another contention raised in this appeal is about admission of title of plaintiff/appellant by the respondents/defendants. This contention is based on Ex.A.6. It is a letter dated 18.06.1988 whereunder defendants admitted the case of the plaintiffs in both the suits. Both the Courts below refused to act upon it though for different reasons. Learned trial Court stated that as per the evidence on both sides this letter was given by defendants to the police when they were called upon to the police station at the behest of the plaintiffs in the two suits. The learned trial Court called them as confessions and stated that confessions made to police could not be considered in evidence. Learned first appellate Court did not agree with such reasons. However, the learned first appellate Court stated that in terms of Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act adverse admissions could be proved. However, they must be free and voluntary. What was given in favour of plaintiffs in the police station could not be said to be given voluntarily. Learned first appellate Court did not agree with such reasons. However, the learned first appellate Court stated that in terms of Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act adverse admissions could be proved. However, they must be free and voluntary. What was given in favour of plaintiffs in the police station could not be said to be given voluntarily. Moreover, the observations of the first appellate Court are that there was nothing to find that the defendants had full information of facts and legal rights when they made such admissions in their Ex.A.6-letter. It was for those reasons both the Courts below refused to act upon Ex.A.6. In the present appeal the learned counsel for appellant questions the validity of these findings. This Court finds no merit in this contention of the appellant. In a suit for declaration of title plaintiff must establish her title. On admissions of the adversary, title over immovable properties cannot be declared. That being the basic principle of law the contention of the appellant has no merit. 21. The substantial questions of law formulated are on the premise that the executant of Ex.A.1-Will being the alleged predecessor in title proof of his possession enured to the benefit of this appellant and therefore, based on previous possession of the predecessor in title the title of this appellant be declared. In this regard, it has to be stated that the declaration was sought in the plaint claiming title. Declaration was not sought based on possession of predecessors in title. Thus, on facts and based on the pleaded case the substantial questions formulated do not arise at all. Moreover, the material on record shows that this appellant failed to prove possession of the predecessors in title over the plaint schedule property. The judgment of the Court below is right on facts and law and does not require any interference. Therefore, all the questions are answered against the appellant. 22. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.