Grant of Patta and payment of kist not conclusive proof of title and possession.

There two appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by the Courts below in two suits filed by the same plaintiff, the appellant herein, against the defendants in each of the suits, seeking a declaration of title and injunction in respect of the properties covered by those suits. The property involved in O.S. No. 22 of 1966, out of which S.A. No. 1469 of 1969, arises in 94 cents in survey No. 335/1 and the property involved in O.S. No. 180 of 1966 out of which S.A.No. 1470 of 1960, arises is 5.47 acres, the western half of survey No. 333 measuring 10.94 acres. The plaintiff’s case is that the suit properties and the adjoining properties belonged to him ancestrally, that in any event, he has prescribed title to those properties by adverse possession, and that the defendants have no manner of right or interest in the same but they have chosen to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the same.

2. The defendants in both the suits contended that the suit properties do not belong to the plaintiff, that they are the owners of the respective suit properties, that the plaintiff has never been in possession of the same, and that the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the suits.

3. The trial Court held that the plaintiff has neither title nor possession. It therefore dismissed both the suits. Aggrieved against the decision of the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred appeals to the lower appellate Court, and it also agreed with the view taken by the trial Court. Hence the present second appeals by the plaintiff in the two suits.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant in both the second appeals contended that the Courts below have not given due weight to the documents Exhibits A-1 to A-8 and A-20, produced by the plaintiff to establish, his title and that the plaintiff’s title should have been upheld on the basis of those documents. The learned Counsel also contends that the findings of the Courts below on the question of possession is also vitiated for many reasons and that, in any event, even if the plaintiff has not established his title to the suit properties, he should have been granted the relief of injunction. On the face of the said contentions, the points that arise for consideration in both the appeals are (1) whether the plaintiff has established his title to the properties covered by both the suits; and (2) whether the plaintiff has been in possession of the properties on the date of the suits so as to entitle him to seek an order of injunction against the defendants.

5. Out of the documents filed by the plaintiff to establish his title, Exhibits A-1 to A-4 are lease deeds of the years 1900, 1906, 1910 and 1913 respectively executed in favour of the plaintiff’s predecessors-in-title by Pallikoodathan alias Periakaruppa Nadar and his heirs Raman Nadar and others. The plaintiff seeks to rely on these documents in support of his plea that the said lands have been leased out to defendant’s forefathers by the plaintiff’s predecessors-in-title. But it is seen that the boundary recitals in the above documents do not indicate with any certainty that the suit properties are covered thereunder. The boundary recitals in these documents cover a large tract of land including 60 acres of nanja lands and a large extent of punja lands as well as tank and tank bed lands. This is also clear from the Commissioner’s plan Exhibit C-5 prepared after local inspection of the locality which locates various boundaries mentioned in Exhibits A-1 to A-4. The Courts below have concurrently held that the lease deeds Exhibits A-1 to A-4 which refer to palmyrah tope of a limited extent of 5.47 acres cannot be correlated to the specific extent claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. The learned Counsel for the appellant concedes that with reference to the boundaries shown in Exhibits A-1 to A-4 it is not possible to say that the suit property claimed in survey No. 333 is the identical one which is covered by the above