A patta is not evidence of title, but evidence of possession. The weight due to a patta depends on the circumstances of each case.

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 1, the learned District Judge stated that the plaintiffs had entirely failed to prove their title to the suit lands, and accordingly reversed the District Munsifs decision. The plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal.

3. No doubt the onus of proof in this case is on the plaintiffs. The learned District Judge referred to Ex. A as a "mere bill for rent" and observed that on no showing can a revenue patta be considered as a title-deed." Whether a patta should be considered as a mere bill or whether more weight should be given to it in any particular case would depend largely upon the circumstances on which a patta was issued. The remarks of Bhashyam Ayyangar, J., in Secy. of State v. Kasturi Reddi [1903] 26 Mad.268 at p. 272, show that pattas issued by Government in respect of ryotwari lands are mainly intended to give information of the amount of revenue payable and the instalments by which it is to be paid. The observations of that learned Judge have been followed in Muthuveeravandayan v. Secy. of State [1906] 29 Mad. 461 at p. 467, Secy. of State v. Raghavachariar A.I.R.1924 Mad.913 and Secy. of State v. Janaki Tammayya Pantulu A.I.R.1925 Mad.859. The observations were made with reference to pattas issued in pursuance of orders passed in darkhast proceedings regarding lands at the disposal of the Government, the said orders being subject to appeal to higher revenue authorities as prescribed by rules framed by the Government.

4. The learned Judge pointed out that if a valid order was passed by a duly authorized agent of the Government granting lands at the disposal of Government to a particular person, then that order, or the final order duly passed by the proper appellate authority, would confer title on the person in whose favour the same was passed; and in such cases delivery of possession or even the actual issue of a patta would not be necessary to complete title in that person. Similarly, if a patta be issued in pursuance of an order thus passed by an officer, the said patta could not be said to confer title on the pattadar by the mere fact of the patta having been issued, if the order in pursuance of which the patta was issued, be subsequently reversed by the proper appellate authority. Where however no orders of the Government or of any officer are available (a case not likely to arise ordinarily), a patta granted by the Government in the usual course with reference to lands at its disposal would nevertheless be indicative of the right of the pattadar to the land, if there be no other conditions in the patta or in the surrounding circumstances to indicate the contrary. As observed by Subramania Ayyar and Davies, J.J., in Pullanapally Sankaran Nambudri v. Vittil Thalakat Muhamod [1905]28 Mad.505, the pattadar would be "entitled to hold the