M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS second appeal is by the defendant. ( 2 ) IN a suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for declaration of title and possession of the suit schedule property, the trial court, in original suit No. 176 of 1980, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The plaint allegations were that the plaintiff, his father and grand-father were the owners of the suit schedule property and that some five years prior to the filing of the suit, plaintiff had put the defendant in possesion who was his nephew because the nephew had no other place to stay at that point of time. Thereafter, when he asked the defendant to vacate, he denied plaintiffs and refused to give possession. Therefore, he approached the court for declaration, of title and for possession of the suit schedule property. ( 3 ) THE defendant, by his written statement, resisted the suit inter alia contending that the suit-house value was not Rs. 1,000/-, actually it was worth Rs. 11,000/-; it was false to say he was a licencee since five years; that the open site to the south of the suit-house was formerly having a house which had fallen; that the plaintiff was staying in his garden-land where there was a farm-house; the relationship of plaintiff and defendant was true; it was false to say that in view of the close relationship, the plaintiff permitted and did not insist in writing any document and allowed him to stay on leave and licence basis; that the suit-property belonged to the grand-father of the defendant that after his death it devolved on his father and after his death it devolved on him. At that time, defendant being agricultural coolie, was not knowing anything of the worldly matter. He stated that the plaintiff got some false entries made in his name, and that does not convey any title to the plaintiff. He was staying in the suit house after the death of bis father; that his grandfather was staying in the suit-house until his death; there was no right, title and interest of the plaintiff in the suit-house. ( 4 ) ON such pleadings, the following issues were framed. (1)whether plaintiff proves that he is owner of the suit-property? (2) whether plaintiff further proves that he allowed the defendant to occupy the suit- house on leave and licence basis about 5 years back? ( 4 ) ON such pleadings, the following issues were framed. (1)whether plaintiff proves that he is owner of the suit-property? (2) whether plaintiff further proves that he allowed the defendant to occupy the suit- house on leave and licence basis about 5 years back? (3) whether the defendant proves that he,his father and his grand-father have been residing in the suit-house as owners? (4) whether plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit-house? (5)whether plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits? An additional issue also came to be framed in regard to suit valuation. I do not think this court need go into that additional issue at this stage as it is not disputed that valuation was in order. ( 5 ) THE learned munsiff came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to establish his title. Therefore, he answered issues 1 and 2 against the plaintiff. He held in favour of the defendant on issue No. 3 stating that he had proved his title. ( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the decision in the suit, the plaintiff presented the appeal in the court of the principal civil judge, bijapur in r. a. no, 8484 of 1986. ( 7 ) AFTER hearing the arguments on both the sides, the learned civil judge formulated the following points for consideration of which points 1 and 3 may be stated and they are as follows: (1) whether the plaintiff proves his title to the suit-property? (2) whether the defendant proves his title to the suit-property? He dealt with points 1 and 3 together and his finding on point No. 1 is on account of the result of the finding on the other issue. The evidence on the side of the plaintiff was his own testimony and that of P. W. 2 who had known the family. By way of documentary evidence, he produced the khata extract from the village property register relating to property owned by the defendant as well as by the plaintiff. He also produced receipt for payment of house-tax for the year 1980. As against this, besides the self-serving testimony of defendant and his two witnesses, there was not a scrap of paper produced by the defendant to establish his assertions in the written statement, despite issue No. 3 framed by the trial court. It was this aspect which was found fault with by the lower appellate court. As against this, besides the self-serving testimony of defendant and his two witnesses, there was not a scrap of paper produced by the defendant to establish his assertions in the written statement, despite issue No. 3 framed by the trial court. It was this aspect which was found fault with by the lower appellate court. ( 8 ) IN discussing the evidence on record, the lower appellate court was pursuaded to take a view that identity of the suit-property was not in dispute as the description given by the plaintiff was admitted by the defendant. The clinching part of the evidence was, defendant, in his oral evidence on oath, had stated that he owned only one property in that village, whereas the documentary evidence was that there were two properties- one in the name of the plaintiff and another in the name of the defendant each one having a separate property number assigned by the village authorities. It was in that circumstance and in the light of the oral evidence, he came to the conclusion, plaintiff had established his title and the munsiff was wrong in confering - title on the defendant without any evidence. ( 9 ) NO substantial question of law as such has been raised by the appellant. But the sum and substance of the contention before the court by Mr. Ashok r. Kalyan shetty, learned counsel for the defendant, is that in the light of the decided cases, the lower appellate court could not have granted the relief prayed for by the plaintiff by declaration of title based only on khatha extract in the village property register. He has relied upon a number of decisions to which 1 need not refer as that proposition in law cannot be disputed. Extracts of khatha are not instruments of title or documents of title. But if there is other evidence, indicating title in a particular person, those could be evidence - which will be taken as relevant and supporting - the contention raised by the party relying upon such a document. It is true that plaintiff or anyone else who makes an assertion must stand - or fail by such assertion on the basis of evidence produced by him in support of that assertion. It is true that plaintiff or anyone else who makes an assertion must stand - or fail by such assertion on the basis of evidence produced by him in support of that assertion. In this case, the cumulative effect of the evidence has been considered by the lower appellate court and finding has been recorded infavour of the plaintiff. Nowhere in the course of the judgment, has the appellate- court said that the extracts produced by the plaintiff for the year 1976-77 and tax-receipt for the year 1980 constitute his title- deeds or instruments of title or documents of title. He has merely relied upon the cumulative effect of the evidence on the plaintiffs side supported by the total absence of any effort on the part of the defendant to discharge the burden cast on him by the courts below. It is in the light of that, lower appellate court has come to the conclusion that the munsiff was in error in declaring the title of the defendant though he had not discharged the burden cast on him. I do not see, there is any ground for interference in these circumstances notwithstanding the fact that a catena of decisions were cited in support of the proposition that the documents referred to by him are not documents of title with which none may have any dispute. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. Therefore, this second appeal is rejected. --- *** --- .