A plaintiff asserting title to property must provide clear evidence of both their own title and that of their vendor; failure to do so results in dismissal of claims.

JUDGMENT

1. The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff, who has challenged the concurrent judgments of the both Courts, wherein the plaintiff's suit seeking relief of declaration of title and for consequential relief of injunction is rejected by both the Courts.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts leading to the case are as under; The plaintiff has instituted the present suit in O.S.No.2219/2006 claiming title over the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is vacant site bearing Khaneshmari No.39/3. The plaintiff asserts that he is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. Plaintiff claimed that he has purchased the suit property from one Byrappa @ Gopala under the registered sale deed dtd. 11/2/1985. The plaintiff has further pleaded that his vendor while selling the suit property wrongly mentioned the property as Khaneshmari No.40 instead of showing Khaneshmari No.39/3. The plaintiff claimed that the said error was rectified after the death of his vendor - Byrappa @ Gopala. The plaintiff's vendor's widow namely Lakshmamma has executed a Rectification Deed after filing of the suit by the defendants for injunction in O.S.No.52/1999. The plaintiff claimed that the registered Rectification Deed was executed by the widow on 19/12/2000. The plaintiff has further alleged that defendant No.3, without having any semblance of right, title and possession over the suit schedule property, has managed to mutate his name in respect of the suit schedule property in collusion with defendant No.1.

4. In response to summons, defendant No.3 tendered appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint.

5. The plaintiff and defendants to substantiate their respective claims have placed reliance on the title document. The plaintiff's sale deed is marked as Ex.P.1, while defendant No.3's sale deed is marked as Ex.D.18. To counter the claim of defendant No.3, the plaintiff has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in a bare suit for injunction filed by defendant No.3. The judgment rendered in R.A.No.97/2003 arising out of the suit filed in O.S.No.52/1999 is produced by the plaintiff, which is marked as Ex.P.3.

6. The Trial Court having assessed the oral and documentary evidence and pleadings of the parties answered issue Nos.1 to 4 in the negative. The Trial Court referring to the title deed produced by the plaintiff held that the plaintiff has failed to substantiate the right and title of his vendor Byrappa @ Gopala. Referring to the property records, the Trial Court has recorded a categorical finding that suit property was admittedly standing in the name of one C.Shombaiah and there are absolutely no records indicating that Byrappa was the owner of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court taking cognizance of the admissions elicited in the crossexamination of the plaintiff that he has no documents to substantiate his vendor's title, proceeded to dismiss the suit.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in R.A.No.5011/2013. The Appellate Court being a final fact finding authority has independently assessed the entire materials on record. The Appellate Court while examining the title deeds held that the property claimed by the plaintiff measures 25x30 feet, while the defendant No.3 claimed that he has purchased the present suit property from one Sombaiah under registered sale deed dtd. 16/11/1998 and the measurement is shown as 30x50 feet. The Appellate Court further found that P.W.1 has admitted that he has no title document to prove the ownership of his vendor. He has further admitted that he did not verify the title of his vendor while purchasing the property bearing Khaneshumari No.40 and he also admits that he has not verified whether his vendor had a saleable interest. On these set of grounds, the Appellat