In a suit based on title, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish their title, and the failure to produce the document of title can result in the dismissal of the suit.

( 1 ) THE defendants have preferred this appeal against judgment and decree passed by appellate Court affirming the judgment and decree of learned trial court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration, injunction and possession.

( 2 ) ORIGINAL plaintiff is Sangram Singh whose legal representatives are respondent nos. 1 to 7. Sangram Singh filed a suit on the basis of title that he is the Bhumiswami of Survey No. 56 area 40 Bighas of Village muhasa, Tah. Pichhore. According to him, out of 40 Bighas an area 5. 16 acres is the disputed land. According to the plaintiff on 3-8-1968, the defendants by removing mound (merh) between survey Nos. 56 and 57 took possession of the disputed land, hence, present suit has been filed.

( 3 ) THE defendants by filing their written statement denied the plaint averments. It has been specifically denied by them that plaintiff is the Bhumiswami of Survey No. 56, they also pleaded that the plaintiff has not specifically pleaded the source of his title. Other averments pleaded in the plaint have also been denied. Learned trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence of the parties, decreed the suit. The appeal which was preferred, has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree, hence, this second appeal.

( 4 ) THIS second appeal was admitted on 9-7-2001 on the following substantial questions of law : (1 ). "whether the Courts below were justified in determining the title of plaintiff on the basis of Khasra entries? (2) Whether, in the absence of document of title plaintiff has established his title over the suit lands?"

( 5 ) IT has been contended by Shri Anil jain, learned counsel for the appellants that the plaintiff filed the suit on the basis of his title which was specifically denied by the defendants and therefore, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to disclose and prove his title, having failed to do so, he Cannot succeed merely on the basis of khasra entries, which are having only presumptive value and the title of the land in question of plaintiff cannot be determined on its basis. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in sukhia alias Sushma v. Gambhira, (2000) 2 MPLJ 405 and Mangilal v. Kunwar Bai, 1989 RN 65.

( 6 ) COMBATTING the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, it has been contended by Shri K. M. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/ respondents that no doubt the plaintiff did not file any document of his title but on the basis of Khasra entries, he can very well establish his title and learned Courts below did not err in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the case of R. V. E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu visweswaraswami and V. P. Temple, (2004) 13 AIC 389 : (AIR 2003 SC 4548 ).

( 7 ) AFTER having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.

( 8 ) ON going through para 2 of the plaint, it is clear like a noon day that the plaintiff has come forward on the basis of his title with specific averment that he is bhumiswami of survey No. 56, a part of which, area 5-16 acres has been encroached by the defendants and which is the land in question. In para 2 of the plaint, it has specifically been pleaded that survey No. 57 is of defendants and both survey numbers are adjoining to each other.

( 9 ) THE defendants submitted an application under Order 6, Rule 5 of CPC on 11-3-1976 that the plaintiff should disclose his source of title but that application was rejected. Earlier on 25-2-1975 the plaintiff also filed an application for production of patta i. e. document of the source of title of the plaintiff, but that application was also rejected.

( 10 ) IT be seen that the plaintiff has filed a suit on the basis of title which has been denied by the defendants and therefore, it was incumbent on him to prove his title by filing the document of his title