In a suit for declaration of title, the burden of proof rests entirely on the plaintiff. Revenue records such as an 'A' register are not documents of title and cannot independently establish ownership where title is disputed and the plaintiff’s lineage is not proven.

JUDGMENT :

P. VELMURUGAN, J.

The appellants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff, have filed this second appeal aggrieved by the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to one Ammaniammal, wife of Venkatachala Naidu, who is the maternal grand mother of the plaintiff. Ammaniammal had two daughters, namely, Rajammal and Pappammal. Rajammal died issueless. Pappammal died leaving the plaintiff as her sole heir and thereafter the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. However, with the connivance of the then village officials, the defendants appear to have caused the sub-division of the schedule property into 5 sub divisions as 406/1A to 406/1E and managed to get mutation of records in their names, although they have absolutely no right, title or interest in the schedule property and they are strangers to the original holder, Ammaniammal. The plaintiff came to know of it only when he got certified copies of the village cultivation account from the Tahsildar for Fasli 1384 to 1389. However, the persons cultivating the lands are shown as the plaintiff. The plaintiff had leased the scheduled property to one Govindasami Gounder, Son of Chinnakolandai Gounder of Arunagiripettai, H/o Vallandaramam Village for cultivation and when he ploughed the land on 15.06.1987, the defendants illegally obstructed him. The plaintiff’s tenant Govindasami Gounder caused the issue of notice to the defendants on 27.06.1987. The defendants sent a reply on 04.07.1987 denying the title of the plaintiff and setting up title upon themselves. The defendants are in illegal possession of the schedule property from 15.06.1987 when they trespassed into the suit property and took forcible possession. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and for possession. Since the defendants are in unlawful possession of the schedule property, they are bound to account for mesne profits from the date of filing of the suit till the date of delivery of possession.

3. The defendants filed a written statement stating that the plaintiff had no title to the property and not entitled for possession and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed in limine. The suit property originally bearing S.No.406/1 belonged to Chinnakuppayya Naidu. He was the absolute owner of the same and he was in absolute enjoyment and undisturbed possession. On the death of Chinnakuppayya Naidu, the suit property was inherited by his three sons, namely, Venkatadri Naidu, Govindarajulu Naidu and Lakshmayya Naidu. The three sons were in absolute enjoyment and undisturbed possession of the suit property. S.No.406/1 was sub divided as 406/1A to 406/1E long ago. The three sons of Chinnakuppayya Naidu were in continuous, open and uninterrupted possession of the suit properties for more than the statutory period and had also perfected their title by adverse possession also. Patta was granted in their names and they alone were paying the kists to the suit property on their behalf. The sons of Chinnakuppayya Naidu and the other heirs had also mortgaged the properties to Vellore Co-op. Land Mortgage Deed Bank by a registered mortgage deed as early as on 24.03.1962. Therefore, neither Ammaniammal nor her daughters or the plaintiff have got any right over the suit property and they were not in possession of the suit property at any time. On the death of Venkatadri Naidu, his wife Pappammal and his daughter Jayammal, the lst defendant became entitled to the share of Venkatadri Naidu. Papammal had also executed a registered will dated 15.09.1972 bequeathing her property to her only daughter Jayammal, the 1^st defendant. On the death of Lakshmayya Naidu, his share of property was devolved on his 3 sons, Kuppu Rao, Srinivasan/3^rd defendant and Sriramulu. Guthi Govindarajulu Naidu was in possession and enjoyment of the property as its absolute owner. Therefore, it is clear that