In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must succeed solely on the strength of his own title and cannot rely on the weakness of the defendant’s case. Mutation entries, pattadar passbooks, adangals and cist receipts do not constitute proof of title. Where title is claimed as ancestral, the plaintiff must establish title of his predecessors by cogent documentary evidence. The presumption under Section 110 of the Evidence Act (Section 113 BSA) that possession follows title is rebuttable and applies only where possession is lawful and no apparent title exists in another. Where revenue records show the property standing in the name of an endowment institution, declaration of title cannot be granted in favour of private individuals without proof of a better title.

advocatemmmohan

Declaration of title — Burden of proof — Plaintiff must succeed on own title —
In a suit for declaration of title, the burden always lies on the plaintiff to establish title by adducing cogent evidence, and the weakness, if any, of the defendant’s case cannot be a ground to grant relief.
(Paras 21–23, 24–25, 54(i))

Declaration of title — Ancestral property — Proof of predecessors’ title —
Where the claim is that the suit property is ancestral, the plaintiff must prove title of his ancestors by acceptable documentary evidence. Mere assertion of lineage or surname is insufficient.
(Paras 26–27, 30–33, 54(ii), 54(vi))

Revenue records — Pattadar passbooks — Mutation entries — Cist receipts —
Entries in revenue records, pattadar passbooks, adangals and cist receipts are not documents of title and do not confer ownership. They only raise, at best, a presumption for fiscal purposes.
(Paras 27, 32–33, 48–53, 54(iii))

Possession follows title — Section 110 Evidence Act / Section 113 BSA — Scope —
The presumption that possession follows title is rebuttable and arises only when possession is prima facie lawful and where no title vests in any party. It cannot be invoked where the property stands recorded in the name of another with apparent title.
(Paras 38–47, 54(iv), 54(v))

Possession alone — Insufficient for declaration —
Even if possession is assumed, a suit for declaration of title cannot be decreed unless possession is shown to have originated from title and continued lawfully.
(Paras 47–48, 54(iv))

Endowment property — Revenue records in name of institution —
Where revenue records show the property standing in the name of an endowment institution, declaration of title cannot be granted in favour of private parties in the absence of proof of a better title.
(Paras 28, 31–33, 47–48, 54(v))

Pleadings — Admissions — Pleading of “ignorance” —
Pleading ignorance regarding issuance of pattadar passbooks or loans does not amount to admission of title or possession when the written statement, read as a whole, contains specific denial of ownership.
(Paras 34–36)

First Appeal — Scope of interference —
Where the Trial Court has properly appreciated oral and documentary evidence and applied settled principles governing declaratory suits, no interference is warranted in appeal.
(Paras 27, 31–33, 54(viii))

---

ANALYSIS (PARA-WISE SYNTHESIS)

1. Burden of proof (Paras 21–25):
   The Division Bench reaffirmed the settled principle that in declaratory suits, the plaintiff must independently establish title. Failure of the defendant to prove title does not advance the plaintiff’s case.

2. Nature of plaintiffs’ claim (Paras 26–27, 30–33):
   Plaintiffs claimed ancestral title traced to Matam Veera Brahmam Swamy. The Court found that no registered document, revenue adangal, or title deed was produced to establish title in the alleged ancestors.

3. Revenue documents relied upon (Paras 27, 32–33, 48–53):
   The Court held that pattadar passbooks, cist receipts and mutation entries relied upon by the plaintiffs are not documents of title and cannot form the basis for declaration.

4. Endowment’s apparent title (Paras 28, 31–33):
   Revenue records (Exs.X7 & X8 and related exhibits) showed the property standing in the name of the Endowment. Plaintiffs failed to rebut this by any superior title.

5. Admissions argument rejected (Paras 34–36):
   The plaintiffs’ reliance on alleged admissions in the written statement was rejected. The Court held that the pleadings must be read as a whole and no admission of title or possession could be inferred.

6. Presumption of possession (Paras 38–47):
   The Court exhaustively examined Section 110 of the Evidence Act (now Section 113 BSA) and held that the presumption “possession follows title” is limited, rebuttable, and inapplicable where apparent title vests in another.

7. Effect on relief claimed (Paras 47–48, 54):
   As plaintiffs failed to establish title in themselves or their ancestors, the suit for declaration necessarily failed irrespective of alleged possession.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must succeed solely on the strength of his own title and cannot rely on the weakness of the defendant’s case.

2. Mutation entries, pattadar passbooks, adangals and cist receipts do not constitute proof of title.

3. Where title is claimed as ancestral, the plaintiff must establish title of his predecessors by cogent documentary evidence.

4. The presumption under Section 110 of the Evidence Act (Section 113 BSA) that possession follows title is rebuttable and applies only where possession is lawful and no apparent title exists in another.

5. Where revenue records show the property standing in the name of an endowment institution, declaration of title cannot be granted in favour of private individuals without proof of a better title.