Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.

1. The plaintiffs sued in 1925 to recover possession of certain lands alleging that defendant 1 trespassed upon the same in 1923. The defendants denied the plaintiffs title and possession and also the trespass alleged in the plaint. The plaintiffs filed Ex. A, a patta No. 19 granted to them by the Raja of Parlakimedi in respect of the suit lands, and they also filed Exs. B to B-25, cist receipts in respect of the rent paid in respect of patta No. 19, Ex. A. Plaintiff 1 was also examined as the plaintiffs sole witness. On the side of the defendants, no documents were filed, but defendant 1 was examined as the sole witness for the defendants. The trial Court found that the plaintiffs had proved title and possession within 12 years prior to the suit, and accordingly decreed the suit in their favour. On appeal, the learned District Judge reversed the decision of the District Munsif and dismissed the suit, remarking that the patta, Ex. A, is not evidence of title, it is a mere bill for rent and on no showing can a revenue patta be considered as a title-deed.

2. After referring to an alleged admission of plaintiffs rights said to have been made by defendant