Revenue records cannot establish title where antecedent ownership remains unproved.

The suit concerned 70/71 cents in Survey No.293/3, Ulagankathan Village, forming part of a total extent of 2 acres 75 cents. The plaintiff claimed that the entire survey number originally belonged jointly to his father, Annamalai, and Velayutham; that Velayutham’s eastern share was purchased by Annamalai in 1924; and that the entire property subsequently devolved upon and was allotted to the plaintiff in a 1971 partition. The plaintiff alleged that Velayutham’s heirs had unlawfully sold the suit property to the defendant in 1985 and sought declaration of title, recovery of possession and mesne profits

The defendant contended that Velayutham was the original owner of the entire survey number, that only the eastern 1 acre 38 cents had been sold to the plaintiff’s father, and that the western portion remained with Velayutham’s family. He claimed title and possession under the 1985 sale deed executed by Velayutham’s legal heirs

The Trial Court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had established title to the entire 2 acres 75 cents. The First Appellate Court reversed that decree, finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove title to the western portion and that the extent stated in the partition deed was not merely a typographical error

The plaintiff thereafter preferred the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

Whether the First Appellate Court was legally justified in disregarding Exhibits A.44 to A.47, allegedly contrary to Sections 13 and 40 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

Whether the plaintiff’s title could be established through the title deeds, pattas, chittas, adangal extracts and kist receipts marked as Exhibits A.1 to A.48?

Whether the First Appellate Court erred in holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish entitlement to a declaration of title by overlooking the title documents on record?

The Court applied Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which interference in a second appeal is confined to substantial questions of law.

It considered Sections 13 and 40 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, concerning the relevance of facts showing rights, customs or transactions and the relevance of judgments, orders or decrees in specified circumstances

The Court applied the settled principle that revenue records, including pattas and adangal extracts, do not by themselves confer title, and that a plaintiff seeking declaration and recovery of possession must prove his title through legally acceptable evidence

The Court also applied the civil standard of proof, namely preponderance of probabilities, in assessing the rival chains of title

The Court held that Exhibits A.1 to A.4 established the plaintiff’s family title only to the eastern 1 acre 38 cents, which had originally been sold by Velayutham to Annamalai and later reacquired by Annamalai and the plaintiff’s brother

However, the plaintiff produced no satisfactory title document proving that the western 1 acre 37 cents had belonged to his father or family; the plaintiff himself admitted that no such title document existed

The 1971 partition deed did not support the plaintiff’s claim to the entire survey number. It described the plaintiff’s allotment as 2 acres 5 cents, contained boundaries referring to Venkatachalam’s property on the west, and recorded a theervai proportionate to 2 acres 5 cents rather than 2 acres 75 cents. These circumstances contradicted the assertion that the omitted 70 cents resulted from a typographical error

The boundary descriptions in the plaintiff’s own documents indicated that Sivamalai, Velayutham’s daughter and one of the defendant’s vendors, retained property in the western portion

The pattas and adangal extracts relied on by the plaintiff were insufficient because conflicting pattas existed for the same property and revenue entries could not independently establish title

The earlier suits and decrees marked as Exhibits A.44 to A.47 did not bind the defendant, who was not a party to those proceedings and whose property was distinct; consequently, their exclusion did not violate Sections 13 or 40 of the Evidence Act

Conversely, the defendant’s documents, including the pre-1980 adangal and the 1926 settlement deed, supported the probability that Velayutham originally owned the entire survey number and that the western portion subsequently remained with his family

It held that the plaintiff failed to prove title to the western portion, including the suit property, and that the First Appellate Court correctly rejected the plaintiff’s reliance on the revenue records, partition deed and earlier proceedings

The second appeal was dismissed, the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court were confirmed, there was no order as to costs, and the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition was closed