Revenue records are not documents of title and do not confer property interest. Insufficient evidence, including the lack of contemporary documents and property tax receipts, may lead to the failure of a claim for ownership and possession.

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The plaintiff in this Suit seeks declaration that he is a joint owner and in settled possession of a plot measuring 1184.4 sq. yds.; he also seeks cancellation of documents dated 18.03.1970, favoring the second defendant and a General Power of Attorney dated 24.03.1988 stating that they do not pertain to his property. An injunction consequential to the declaration, to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession is also sought.

.2. The plaintiff contends that the suit property measures 1184.4 sq. yards and is a part of a plot admeasuring 1814.4 sq. yds, situated in Khasra No. 263/134 and 264/134, Village Zamrudpur, New Delhi. The plaintiff relies upon a coloured map annexed to the suit. It is alleged that some portions of the said plot are encroachments to the extent of 630 sq. yards, which are shown in black colour. It is submitted that the suit property is not a regular sized one, and is enclosed by several plots of varying sizes. According to the plaintiff, the site is enclosed by boundary wall with a few grown trees with hutments. The plaintiff claims to be the joint owner with his other family members and who are all in settled possession of the land. The plaintiff traces ownership of the plot, by stating that originally the plot measured 7 bighas, reflected in khewat jamabandhi No. 49-48 and khatoni No. 117 of village Zamrudpur. The plaintiff says that his ancestors were in occupation and cultivation of the land. The last mutation reflects the name of legal heirs of Smt. Laxmi Devi. It is submitted that the plaintiff is her eldest son and his two married sisters have authorized him to file the Suit.

3. The plaintiff alleges that in the evening of 23.5.2005, some persons, who later on transpired to be fourth and sixth defendants threatened the guard at the location (of the suit property) seeking entry into the plot claiming themselves to be the owners of the property. The plaintiff states that when his son reached the site none of the persons or the said individuals could be traced. It is alleged that the said defendants again went to the plot and stated that they were its owners, relying upon the sale deed dated 18.3.1970 and sale agreement, power of attorney, Will etc. dated 24.3.1988. It is submitted that copies of such documents were furnished to the plaintiff.

4. The plaintiff alleges that neither he nor anyone connected with the land or in occupation of it or having any manner of interest in it had executed the said documents relied on by the defendants; according to him, the Suit property is not described as 133/3 of Khasra No. 21 and does not measure 600 sq. yds., as described in the documents furnished by the defendants. The plaintiff alleges that the so-called documents dated 18.3.1970 do not reveal the dimension of the plot. It is submitted that the defendants action amount to threat of interference with the plaintiffs ownership and possession of the land; consequently, the plaintiff seeks declaration and consequential relief of injunction, as also cancellation of the said documents.

5. The summons in the Suit were issued on 10.06.2005, returnable on 23.8.2005. The Court also directed the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of possession of the suit property. The defendants could not be served through the normal process; accordingly, the Court permitted substituted service through publication in the newspaper "Punjab Kesari" on 8.3.2006 as well as in English Newspaper "The Tribune" on 20.3.2006. The returnable date indicated in the publication was 3.4.2006. The defendants did not choose to appear in the proceedings and were accordingly set down ex parte by the Court on 7.7.2006. The plaintiff thereafter proceeded to lead evidence in support of the claim, in the suit.

.6. The plaintiffs son Shri Lalit Aggarwal (also a legal representative, since the original plaintiff expired by then) deposed by way of an affidavit dated 1.3.2007. He tendered th