M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THESE 3 appeals are filed by the 3 vendees who were the plaintiffs in the trial Court in O. S. Nos. 380, 381 and 382/1978 on the file of the munsiff at Maddur, Mandya District. The said suits came to be disposed of by a common order by the trial Court as all the 3 plaintiffs claimed identical reliefs and claimed their title from the same vendor namely defendant No. 4 in all the suits. The learned trial Judge in his common judgment dated 16-9-1983 has referred to the pleadings in O. S. No. 382/1978 for the purposes of facts. According to the averments therein, the plaintiffs claim that they purchased the land by sale deeds dated 18-11-1974 from the 4th defendant. But on 18-5-1975 they were dispossessed by defendants 1, 2 and 3 who trespassed into their land which had been put in their possession by vendor-4th defendant. ( 2 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 who filed the written statement pleaded that the plaint allegations were false; that the sale deed was a concocted one; that they have been in possession of the suit schedule lands since 1936; that defendant No. 4 who had earlier claimed title to the suit schedule lands had lost his suit as far back as in the year 1945 by, i Judgment of the erstwhile High Court of mysore in R. S. A. No. 9/1944-45 and they have been in continuous possession of the lands since 1936. The suit was barred by principles of res judicata as the earlier suit filed by the vcndor- defendant No. 4 was between the defendants and thei father and as such it was barred by the principles of res judicata. They have contended alteratively that having been in continuous possession hostile to the true owner if any, since 1936, they had perfected their tide to the suit schedule lands by adverse possession. ( 3 ) IT is unnecessary to refer to other aspects of Ik pleadings. The trial Court despite coming to the conclusion that the suit was hit by the principles of res judicata, nevertheless, decreed the suit on the basis of the entries in the revenue records. On appeal, the lower Appellate Court las reversed the findings of the trial Court and ferefore the present second appeal. The trial Court despite coming to the conclusion that the suit was hit by the principles of res judicata, nevertheless, decreed the suit on the basis of the entries in the revenue records. On appeal, the lower Appellate Court las reversed the findings of the trial Court and ferefore the present second appeal. ( 4 ) THOUGH several questions have been raised is substantial questions of law which arise for consideration in the second appeal, in my view the only two questions that arise for my con- dieration are:- (1) Whether the tower Appellate court was correct in coming to the conclusion that the suit land was barred by the principles of judicate as the matter had been concluded between tween defendants 1,2 and 3 as against the claim of defendant No. 4, the vendor of the plaintiffs? (2) Even if the suit was not barred by the principles of res judicata, whether the defendants 1,2 and 3 had perfected their title by adverse possestion? ( 5 ) I have carefully heard the arguments addressed by the learned counsel Sri S. Siddaiah for the Appellants in the 3 appeals. He does not deny the correctness of the result of the earlier proceedings in Court which resulted in the title of defendant No. 4ranga Rao to the suit schedule lands being denied. He however conleaded that despite the decision of the High court in R. S A. No. 9/1944-45, he had re-entered possession and therefore, he was in a position to convey valid title to the plaintiffs. Beyond the receipt Ex. P-1 the sale deed, there is no other document produced by the plaintiffs. They have essentially relied upon the entries in the revenue records which show Ranga Rao's name for some period of time as the owner of the property. Those records are the Index of Lands and the pahani extracts for a number of years which have been market in evidence by the plaintiffs and receipts for payment of land revenue. These documents are not documents of title except perhaps for the purpose of creating a mortgage by deposit of title deeds and no more. Even that is subject to the Banks accepting them as documents of title. ( 6 ) IF the learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that the suits were hit by the principles of res judicata, he should have stopped there and not investigated further. Even that is subject to the Banks accepting them as documents of title. ( 6 ) IF the learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that the suits were hit by the principles of res judicata, he should have stopped there and not investigated further. Unless there was clear finding and cogent evidence led by defendant no. 4 the vendor as to how he acquired title that was denied to him by the erstwhile High court of Mysore. In the absence of such evidence, the plaintiffs could not make out a case in their favour at all. Some how the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the defendants 1 to 3 were dispossessed. When their own witness admitted that under the suit sale deed, no possession was actually handedover. It is in this view of the matter, the trial Court committed an error. If there is no cogent evidence on which re-entry of defendant No. 4 to prove lawful possession and title by any proceedings known to law, this Court cannot interfere with the findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court on questions of facts. This Court certainly may not interfere in such circumstances. As the lower Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were never in possession, question of their dispossession as pleaded by them would not arise. ( 7 ) IN the result, I do not see any merit in these appeals and they are dismissed at the stage of admission but after notice to the respondents. --- *** --- .