Revenue records and irrigation permits do not confer title in a suit for declaration of title.

The Plaintiff (Respondent 1) filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding a suit property measuring 5.38 acres, claiming title through his grandfather Natesan and a subsequent oral partition.

The Defendants (Appellants) contested this, asserting title through a 1957 mortgage deed [Ex.B.1] and 1970s registered partition deeds [Ex.B.2-B.4], wherein the Plaintiff’s father had signed as a witness.

The 1st Defendant filed a counterclaim for permanent injunction.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff, relying primarily on a Patta Passbook [Ex.A.1] and a 1934 irrigation permit [Ex.A.11].

The Appellants challenged this judgment, arguing that revenue records do not confer title and the irrigation permit was an inadmissible photocopy.

1. Whether the Plaintiff proved absolute title over the suit properties through revenue records [Ex.A.1] and the irrigation permit [Ex.A.11]?

2. Whether the Trial Court erred in admitting and relying upon a photocopy of an irrigation permit [Ex.A.11] without the Plaintiff laying a foundation for secondary evidence?

3. Whether the 1st Defendant established title through registered documents [Ex.B.1 to B.4 and B.9] and the Plaintiff's father’s attestation as a witness?

Revenue records (Patta, Chitta, Adangal) are not documents of title and have no presumptive value on title, as established in Bhima Bai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import and Export Company and Union of India v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited.

Sections 64 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: primary evidence is the rule and secondary evidence is inadmissible unless the non-production of the original is accounted for, per H. Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam and Tharammel Peethambaram v. T. Ushakrishnan.

A plaintiff must succeed on the strength of their own title rather than the weakness of the defendant's case.

The Court observed that the Plaintiff relied solely on revenue records [Ex.A.1 to A.3] and a color photocopy of an irrigation permit [Ex.A.11] to prove title and held that [Ex.A.1] could not confer title as it is a fiscal document.

Regarding [Ex.A.11], the Court found it inadmissible under Section 65 of the Evidence Act because the Plaintiff failed to produce the original or lay a factual foundation for secondary evidence.

The 1st Defendant produced registered mortgage and partition deeds [Ex.B.1 to B.4] older than 30 years, which carry a presumption of genuineness; the Plaintiff’s father’s signature as a witness on these documents was a critical admission acknowledging the Defendants' predecessors’ title.

The Court concluded the Trial Court erred by placing revenue records on a "higher probative pedestal" than registered title deeds.

The High Court allowed the Appeal Suits and set aside the judgment of the III Additional District Court, Thanjavur; the Plaintiff’s suit was dismissed, and the 1st Defendant’s counterclaim was allowed, granting a permanent injunction.