Title to land must be proved by the plaintiff's own evidence; ancient patta and revenue records supported possession here.

In a suit for declaration of title and possession, the plaintiff must prove his own title and entitlement to possession; on the record, the respondents failed to produce the original patta and their revenue entries were found unreliable, while the appellants' continuous possession was supported. The 1929 patta in favour of the appellants' predecessor was treated as an ancient document carrying a presumption of genuineness, and the contrary claim of a later grant was rejected for lack of proof. An order of the Tahsildar was also rightly admitted as additional evidence because it had a direct bearing on the main issue. The lower appellate decree was set aside and dismissal of the suit restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondents had established title and possession over the suit lands so as to sustain the decree for declaration and possession; (ii) whether the patta granted in favour of the appellants' predecessor in 1929 was valid and effective; (iii) whether the order of the Tahsildar dated 28.07.1971 could be received as additional evidence in appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the respondents had established title and possession over the suit lands so as to sustain the decree for declaration and possession.

Analysis: In a suit for declaration of title, the burden lay on the plaintiffs to prove their own title and entitlement to possession. The respondents did not produce the original patta relied upon by them, and the revenue entries in their favour were found to be unreliable when tested against the remaining record. The evidence, including the revenue records and the Commissioner's order, supported the appellants' case that the respondents' predecessors had abandoned the lands and that the appellants and their predecessor were in continuous possession.

Conclusion: The respondents failed to prove their title and possession; the finding was against the respondents.

Issue (ii): Whether the patta granted in favour of the appellants' predecessor in 1929 was valid and effective.

Analysis: The patta in favour of Gaya Din was treated as an ancient document and, being more than thirty years old, attracted the statutory presumption of genuineness. The evidence showed that the patta had been issued by the competent authority under the relevant revenue regime then in force. The contrary theory that the patta was granted in 1954 was rejected as unsupported. The Commissioner's order and the revenue materials also corroborated the appellants' case, and the respondents did not rebut the presumption or prove forgery or invalidity.

Conclusion: The patta was valid and effective; the finding was in favour of the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether the order of the Tahsildar dated 28.07.1971 could be received as additional evidence in appeal.

Analysis: Additional evidence may be received in appeal where it is necessary to enable the court to pronounce judgment or where it has a direct and important bearing on the main issue. The order of the Tahsildar was directly referred to in the Commissioner's order already on record and had a material bearing on the dispute. On that basis, it was admitted as additional evidence, while the other proposed documents were not received.

Conclusion: The order of the Tahsildar dated 28.07.1971 was rightly received as additional evidence; the finding was in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The decree passed by the lower appellate court could not stand because the respondents had not established their title, whereas the appellants' predecessor's patta and possession were proved by the record. The suit was dismissed and the trial court's dismissal was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title, and an ancient patta supported by revenue records and contemporaneous official orders is entitled to the statutory presumption of genuineness unless effectively rebutted.

---