In a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title, the plaintiff must establish their own title rather than solely attacking the defendant's title.

L. Manoharan, J.

1. Defendant is the appellant. Suit was for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Plaint schedule contains two items. As per the amended plaint, first item is comprised in Survey No. 31/1C having an extent of 6 cents and second item is comprised in Survey No 31/10 having an extent of 3 1/2 cents. Plaintiff alleged that properties inclusive of plaint schedule item No. 1 was obtained by Chiruthai Amma as per Ext. A1 lease deed dated 7-8-1929. After her death, her heirs entered into Ext. A2 partition deed of 1948 under which properties comprised in Ext. A1 lease deed was allotted in item Nos. 4 and 5 therein. Item No. 1 having 10 cents was allotted to the share of Narayani Amma and others, and item No. 5 having an extent of 45 cents was allotted to the share of Devaki Amma and others. Narayani Amma and others assigned item No. 4 as per Ext. A3 to the plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed that though the extent mentioned was 10 cents really it took in 15 cents and that the plaint item No. 1 six cents is out of the said 15 cents.

2. Plaintiff alleged, when the predecessor of the defendant attempted to trespass into plaint schedule item No. 1 he filed a complaint before the Tahsildar and the same was closed as per Ext. A6 proceedings on the undertaking that they would not commit trespass. Again when the attempt was made to trespass, plaintiff filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class who as per Ext. A7 order directed to seek relief by a civil suit. Accordingly, plaintiff instituted O. S.105 of 1963 for injunction, in the alternative for recovery of possession on the strength of his title. That suit was dismissed by Ext. B7 judgment. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff also was dismissed by Ext. B8 judgment. Second Appeal S. A. 305 of 1968 preferred by him too was dismissed by Ext. A-11 judgment. According to the plaintiff the dismissal of the Second Appeal was without prejudice to his right to recover possession and accordingly he instituted this suit.

3. As regards item No. 2, plaintiff claimed, the same is part of his house site, that he obtained assignment of jenm right of the same from the court auction purchaser pursuant to which he obtained Ext A-10 surrender of lease right, and while he was in possession the defendant trespassed into the property.

4. Defendant contended that plaint schedule item No. 2 is not part of the house compound of the Plaintiff, that plaintiff has no title to the said item - and that plaint schedule item No. 1 is part of item 5 in Ext. A2 partition deed allotted to Devaki Amma and others which lease right was surrendered to jenmi Devaswom as per Ext. A8 and thereafter Ext. B1 lease was obtained by Kunhikanna Kurup. His heirs assigned the right as per Ext. A9 to Kunhiraman Nambiar and later his heirs assigned it to Devaki Amma as per Ext. A9 from whom defendant obtained assignment as per Ext. B2. Defendant claimed, he is in possession of plaint schedule items 1 and 2 along with the rest of the property. He contended that the plaintiff executed Ext. B-22 assignment in 1967 assigning the 10 cents that he obtained under Ext. A3. It is the defendant's case that plaintiff was never in possession of any extent other then the said 10 cents which he alienated as per Ext. B-22. Plaintiff's claim that item No. 4 in Ext. A2 which he obtained under Ext. A3 took in 15 cents was denied. Defendant also contended that the title, if any, of the plaintiff is barred by adverse possession and that the suit is barred by res judicata by reason of the findings in Exts. B7, B8 and A-11 judgments.

5. Trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff is not successful in proving his title to the plaint schedule items. Plaintiff preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court which was allowed. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court.

6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the contention of the plaintiff t