A.M. Farooq, J.—This is a Plaintiff's second appeal under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff--appellant is aggrieved by the decree dated 28.7.1986 in O.S. No. 34 of 1979 on the file of the learned Civil Judge, Ramanagaram, and confirmed in appeal in Regular Appeal No. 96 of 1989, dated 1.8.1997 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Session Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and consequential injunction in respect of the suit schedule property alleging that the property belonged to his father and that it was a choultry assessed to Municipal Tax and in due course of time the choultry collapsed and small portion of it remained as a small room in a dilapidated condition. That the Municipality exempted property tax and after the death of his father the Plaintiff is having possession and enjoyment of the property. That the katha of the property was changed from 261 in 1902 to 356/31 in 1970 and the number was later changed to 634/356 which is the existing katha number. That the Defendants 1 and 2 have set title to the suit property on the ground that it is a public property belonging to the members of Balija community to which all the parties belong. That the 3rd Defendant is alleged to have colluded with the other Defendants in granting a building licence and that the Defendants 1 and 2 performed Guddali pooja. According to the Plaintiff the Defendants 1 and 2 have no right, title or interest in the suit property and hence the suit seeking declaration and perpetual injunction.

3. In their joint written statement Defendants-1 and 2 denied all the averments made by the Plaintiff and questioned the genuineness of the documents produced by the Plaintiff and also contended that; at no time the Plaintiff or his father were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. They also alleged the Plaintiff's collusion with the 3rd Defendant in creating the documents and contended that the katha of the suit property was assigned Municipal number 356/31 by cancelling the assessment levied earlier and all, with the collusion of the Municipality. It is stated that the Defendants are not claiming any individual or private right over the suit property and claimed it to be a property belonging to Andhra Balija Community to which community the Plaintiff and Defendants belong. It is stated that a Association was formed called "Andhra Balija Ramanuja Sangha" in the year 1957 and an application was submitted by the members and a meeting was held on 17.4.1957 in which the legal representative of the Plaintiff was elected as a treasurer of the Sangha. According to the Defendants the suit property was originally owned and possessed by one Sri V. Thimma Shetty S/o Vodavattada Hanuma Shetty and a choultry was constructed and made over to the Sangha to be treated as a public property.T Hat the said Thimmaiah executed his last Will dated 15.11.1921 giving directions for the upkeep of the choultry and hence the Defendants as members of the community obtained the permission to construct and performed Guddali pooja. It is stated that the community people have perfected their title even by adverse possession and that the Plaintiff has no title and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. At the time of admission of the appeal the following substantial questions of law were framed.

a) When the case of the Plaintiff is that there is no title deed, but long possession of the property evidenced by acknowledgment in public records, is the basis for the claim for title; whether the Courts below are justified in dismissing the case of the Plaintiff, on the ground that he has not produced any title deed?

b) Whether the Courts below are justified in holding that Exs.P-1 to P6 produced in the case cannot be proof of title of the Plaintiff?

c) Whether the Courts below are justified in concluding that the Plaintiff is not in possession, when there