The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of original sale deeds in tracing title to a property and the authority of revenue officials in issuing and cancelling pattas.

Second Appeal Nos. 795 and 796 of 2005 are directed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No. 55 of 2002 and A.S. No. 54 of 2002 respectively dated 24.11.2004 on the file of Subordinate Court, Dharmapuri, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 278 of 1998 and O.S. No. 290 of 1998 dated 07.06.2002 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri.

2. The second appeals have been admitted on the following substantial question of law.

"a. Whether the lower appellate court's judgment reversing the judgment of the trial court, in a suit for declaration for title, for non filing of patta, non filing of original documents though certified copies of registered documents have been filed is legal?"

3. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail.

4. O.S. No. 278 of 1998 has been laid for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction. O.S. No. 290 of 1998 has been laid for the relief of permanent injunction.

5. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

6. The plaintiffs trace their title to the suit property based on Exs.A1 to A3 sale deeds. Briefly stated, according to the plaintiffs, the suit property had been acquired by Nanjan from Nallappa Naidu and others by way of a sale deed dated 31.03.1967 and the said document has been marked as Ex.A2. Further, it is stated that Perumal had acquired the suit property from Nanjan by way of a sale deed dated 17.12.1967 and the said document has been marked as Ex.A1. Further according to the plaintiffs' case, the plaintiffs' mother had purchased the suit property from Perumal and others by way of a sale deed dated 13.12.1971, which document has come to be marked as Ex.A3. Exs.A2 and A3 are the certified copies of the sale deeds and Ex.A1 is the original sale deed. Accordingly, it is stated by the plaintiffs that the suit property have been in their possession and enjoyment from the days of their predecessors in title as abovestated and it is contended that the plaintiffs had obtained patta in respect of the suit property and enjoying the same and accordingly as the defendants had attempted to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property, it is stated that the plaintiffs had been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.

7. Resisting the plaintiffs' case, the defendants would only project the patta marked as Ex.B1, which has come to be issued under the updating registry scheme and other than Ex.B1 patta, there is no other acceptable and reliable document placed by the defendants to trace their title to the suit property.

8. As rightly determined by the trial court, patta cannot be construed as a document of title and in such view of the matter, the patta marked as Ex.B1, relied upon by the defendants, cannot be the sole basis for upholding the defendants claim of title to the suit property.

9. As above seen, Plaintiffs have traced title from their predecessors in interest right from 1967 onwards and accordingly claimed to be in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. But the defendants seems to have obtained the patta in their favour i.e. in the name of the temple, under the updating registry scheme and accordingly challenging the same, i.e., that the patta could not be issued in favour of the defendants in respect of the property acquired by the plaintiffs as above detailed and claiming that the suit property is in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs, it is seen that necessary representation had been given by the plaintiffs to the revenue authorities, which document has come to be marked as Ex.A4. Accordingly it is seen that following the same, the Tahsildhar had issued a notice to one and all including the plaintiffs and the defendants to put forth their claims of ownership in respect of the suit property and this could be seen from the