JUDGMENT L. Manoharan, J. 1. Defendant is the appellant. Suit was for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Plaint schedule contains two items. As per the amended plaint, first item is comprised in Survey No. 31/1C having an extent of 6 cents and second item is comprised in Survey No 31/10 having an extent of 3 1/2 cents. Plaintiff alleged that properties inclusive of plaint schedule item No. 1 was obtained by Chiruthai Amma as per Ext. A1 lease deed dated 7-8-1929. After her death, her heirs entered into Ext. A2 partition deed of 1948 under which properties comprised in Ext. A1 lease deed was allotted in item Nos. 4 and 5 therein. Item No. 1 having 10 cents was allotted to the share of Narayani Amma and others, and item No. 5 having an extent of 45 cents was allotted to the share of Devaki Amma and others. Narayani Amma and others assigned item No. 4 as per Ext. A3 to the plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed that though the extent mentioned was 10 cents really it took in 15 cents and that the plaint item No. 1 six cents is out of the said 15 cents. 2. Plaintiff alleged, when the predecessor of the defendant attempted to trespass into plaint schedule item No. 1 he filed a complaint before the Tahsildar and the same was closed as per Ext. A6 proceedings on the undertaking that they would not commit trespass. Again when the attempt was made to trespass, plaintiff filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class who as per Ext. A7 order directed to seek relief by a civil suit. Accordingly, plaintiff instituted O. S.105 of 1963 for injunction, in the alternative for recovery of possession on the strength of his title. That suit was dismissed by Ext. B7 judgment. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff also was dismissed by Ext. B8 judgment. Second Appeal S. A. 305 of 1968 preferred by him too was dismissed by Ext. A-11 judgment. According to the plaintiff the dismissal of the Second Appeal was without prejudice to his right to recover possession and accordingly he instituted this suit. 3. B7 judgment. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff also was dismissed by Ext. B8 judgment. Second Appeal S. A. 305 of 1968 preferred by him too was dismissed by Ext. A-11 judgment. According to the plaintiff the dismissal of the Second Appeal was without prejudice to his right to recover possession and accordingly he instituted this suit. 3. As regards item No. 2, plaintiff claimed, the same is part of his house site, that he obtained assignment of jenm right of the same from the court auction purchaser pursuant to which he obtained Ext A-10 surrender of lease right, and while he was in possession the defendant trespassed into the property. 4. Defendant contended that plaint schedule item No. 2 is not part of the house compound of the Plaintiff, that plaintiff has no title to the said item - and that plaint schedule item No. 1 is part of item 5 in Ext. A2 partition deed allotted to Devaki Amma and others which lease right was surrendered to jenmi Devaswom as per Ext. A8 and thereafter Ext. B1 lease was obtained by Kunhikanna Kurup. His heirs assigned the right as per Ext. A9 to Kunhiraman Nambiar and later his heirs assigned it to Devaki Amma as per Ext. A9 from whom defendant obtained assignment as per Ext. B2. Defendant claimed, he is in possession of plaint schedule items 1 and 2 along with the rest of the property. He contended that the plaintiff executed Ext. B-22 assignment in 1967 assigning the 10 cents that he obtained under Ext. A3. It is the defendant's case that plaintiff was never in possession of any extent other then the said 10 cents which he alienated as per Ext. B-22. Plaintiff's claim that item No. 4 in Ext. A2 which he obtained under Ext. A3 took in 15 cents was denied. Defendant also contended that the title, if any, of the plaintiff is barred by adverse possession and that the suit is barred by res judicata by reason of the findings in Exts. B7, B8 and A-11 judgments. 5. Trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff is not successful in proving his title to the plaint schedule items. Plaintiff preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court which was allowed. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court. 6. B7, B8 and A-11 judgments. 5. Trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff is not successful in proving his title to the plaint schedule items. Plaintiff preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court which was allowed. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court. 6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the contention of the plaintiff that he has got title to the plaint schedule item No. 1 is barred by res judicata by reason of the finding in Exts. B7, B8 and A-11 judgments. He also contended that the lower appellate court did not enter any definite finding as regards title, and that the view of the lower appellate court that the case of the plaintiff is more probable and acceptable, in the circumstance in neither a sufficient finding nor is correct. The learned counsel contended, both item 4 in Ext. A2 and the property comprised in Ext A3 since take in only 10 cents and the plaintiff having assigned 10 cents under Ext. B - 22, he has no right to claim plaint item No. 1 as part of the property that he obtained under Ext. A3. 7. The lower appellate court after narrating the conflicting contentions states : "On a careful consideration of the entire evidence on records and the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the case of the appellant that he has got title to both the plots A and B is more probable and acceptable than the contentions of the respondent that he has title to and possession of plots A and B being portions of the property purchased by him as per Exhibit B2, since the preponderance of probabilities in this case is in favour of the appellant. Hence I find that the appellant is entitled to recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties on the strength of his title". Being a suit for possession on the strength of title, the question that would arise for determination is whether the plaintiff has got title to the property. Plaintiff claimed title to plaint item No. 1 on the basis that Ext. A3 took in 15 cents. It is the case of the plaintiff that though 10 cents alone was included in Stem No. 4 Ext. A2 really it took in 15 cents. Plaintiff claimed title to plaint item No. 1 on the basis that Ext. A3 took in 15 cents. It is the case of the plaintiff that though 10 cents alone was included in Stem No. 4 Ext. A2 really it took in 15 cents. On the other hand, defendant who took Ext, B2 assignment from the assignees of Devaki Amma and others who got item No. 5 in Ext. A2 would claim that plaint schedule item No. 1 is part of item No. 5 in Ext. A2. Plaintiff would point out that, though item No.5 in Ext. A2 took in only 35 cents when Devaki Amma and others executed Ext. A8. they inflated the area and mentioned 43 cents. This, according to the plaintiffs, was with an object to take forcible possession of the property in his possession. The further case of the plaintiff is that Exts. B1 and A9 assignees were only the nominees of Devaki Amma, and that thought Ext. B1 and A9 assignments were created, Devaki Amma continued to be in possession. This according to the plaintiff these documents were created with the object of taking forcible possession of the property in his possession. Defendant maintained, he is in possession of the property that he obtained under Ext. B2 and that the said property was in the possession of his predecessors; he denied the trespass alleged by the plaintiff. 8. In a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title plaintiff cannot maintain his case by merely showing the defendant does not have title. In the decision in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos & another v. The Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & others (1954 KLT 355) the Supreme Court held that, in a suit for ejectment it is more important for the plaintiff to establish his title than to destroy the defendant's title, for a mere destruction of the defendant's title in the absence of establishment of plaintiff's own title would carry the plaintiff nowhere. To the same effect is the decision in Velu Pillai Padakalingam v. Paramanandam Yesudasan ( 1953 KLT 587 ). Therefore, the main question for consideration certainly should be whether the plaintiff has got title. Plaintiff can recover possession only on the strength of his title-he cannot succeed by pricking holes in the defendant's case. To the same effect is the decision in Velu Pillai Padakalingam v. Paramanandam Yesudasan ( 1953 KLT 587 ). Therefore, the main question for consideration certainly should be whether the plaintiff has got title. Plaintiff can recover possession only on the strength of his title-he cannot succeed by pricking holes in the defendant's case. Of course, in appreciating the plaintiff's evidence as regards title, the defence claim of title could also be relevant. But, merely because the defendant has no title to the property - from that alone, it need not automatically follow that the plaintiff has got title to the property. 9. Since both the parties claim title to the property under Ext A2, the identity of the property allotted to the respective sharers under whom they claim would be of importance. A commission was issued to measure the property and to prepare a plan. He filed Exts. C 1 plan and C 2 report. Ext. C2 report states that, plot B in Ext. C1 is plaint schedule item No.1 which on measurement was discovered to have 5 cents that the same is comprised in R. S. No.31/1C of Pattiam amsom, Kizhakke Kadirur desom; and that plaint item No. 2 is plot A in Ext. C2 comprised in Survey No.31/1C. In Ext. C2 Commissioner states that when Ext. A3 property was identified as per the description of its boundaries, he found the same took in only the E and E1 plots which measure 10 cents, Ext. C2 is positive that plot B in Ext. C2 which according to the plaintiff is plaint schedule item No.1 is not taken in by Ext. A3 whereas plaintiff claimed plots B, E and El are taken in by item No.4 of Ext A2 which was assigned under Ext. A3. The property comprised in Ext. A1 are plots A, B, C, D, D1, E and E1 in Ext. C2. According to the defendant Ext, B2 assignment in his favour took in A, B, C, D, and D1 plots in Ext. C2. The report says that, under Ext.B-22, though only 9 cents was purported to be alienated, alienee, Bhaskaran is in possession of 10 cents. Thus Exts. Cl and C2 prove whatever the plaintiff obtained under Ext. A3 was assigned by him as per Ext. B 22. No objection was filed by the plaintiff to the commissioner's report and plan. C2. The report says that, under Ext.B-22, though only 9 cents was purported to be alienated, alienee, Bhaskaran is in possession of 10 cents. Thus Exts. Cl and C2 prove whatever the plaintiff obtained under Ext. A3 was assigned by him as per Ext. B 22. No objection was filed by the plaintiff to the commissioner's report and plan. The description of the property in Ext. B-22 suggesting there is balance area left with the plaintiff cannot advance his case as Ext. B-22 was executed after the institution of Ext. B-11 suit and Ext. B7 judgment rendered in that suit. Thus from the said evidence and circumstance it is clear, neither the plaintiff nor his predecessor obtained title to plaint schedule item No.1. 10. When such is the situation simply showing that Devaki Amma had inflated the area when she executed Ext. A8 surrender cannot help the plaintiff. As has already noted, simply showing that the defendant has no title cannot clothe the plaintiff with title which he otherwise does not have. It should be noted that Ext. B1 was executed by jenmi Devaswom consequent upon Ext. A8 surrender. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that Exts. B1 and A9 are fictitious documents and Devaki Amma continued to be in possession. According to the learned counsel revenue was being paid by Devaki Amma even after Ext. A8 surrender. As has noted, now the defendant is in possession of item Nos. 1 and 2 is admitted. Possessory title is such that the person in possession is entitled to be in such possession until he is dispossessed by a person who has a better title. Since plaintiff is not successful in proving his title to plaint schedule item No. 1 identified as plot B in Ext. C1 plan he is not entitled to recover the same. 11. I may In this connection advert to yet another contention of the learned counsel for the appellant based on Exts. B7, B8 and A11. According to him by reason of the findings in the said judgments plaintiff is barred by res judicata in claiming title to plaint item No. 1. Learned counsel contended that even though Ext. A-11 Judgment said, the S. A. is dismissed subject to the observations therein, the same would operate as res judicata. B7, B8 and A11. According to him by reason of the findings in the said judgments plaintiff is barred by res judicata in claiming title to plaint item No. 1. Learned counsel contended that even though Ext. A-11 Judgment said, the S. A. is dismissed subject to the observations therein, the same would operate as res judicata. Learned counsel relied on the decisions in Fateh Singh v. Jagganath (AIR 1925 Privy Council 55)and Ganesh v. Baidyanath (AIR 1958 Patna 270) in support of his contention. The prior suit O. S.105 of 1963 was with respect to plaint, item No. 1 and the same was for permanent injunction, in the alternative for recovery. The suit was dismissed by Ext. B7 judgment and the appeal also was dismissed by Ext. B8 judgment. Ext. A11 is the judgment in S.A. the S. A. too was dismissed. Ext. A-11 would show that, the appeal was dismissed holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to Injunction prayed for as it was found that the plaintiff had no possession. In Ext. A-11 it is stated: "In short, the suit, in so far as the injunction relief claimed, is dismissed by me and in so far as it relates to recovery of possession counsel play that no adjudication need be made here about subsisting title and that he may be allowed to seek his remedy separately. The appeal, is, therefore, dismissed with costs subject to the observations made above." The crucial point to be noted is, the above judgment also states: "At the same time, in the state of unsatisfactory disposal of the question of title the finding against the plaintiff regarding title is vacated the question left open for future adjudication it becomes necessary". 12. It is the finding that operates as res judicata. If the finding that the plaintiff has no title was confirmed by Ext. A-11 and the appeal was dismissed, in spite of the said observation the said finding could have operated as res judicata. But the finding of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court as regards the title rendered against the plaintiff was vacated and was left open. When such is the situation, it is clear neither Exts. A7 and A8 nor Ext. A-11 can operate as res judicata. But the finding of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court as regards the title rendered against the plaintiff was vacated and was left open. When such is the situation, it is clear neither Exts. A7 and A8 nor Ext. A-11 can operate as res judicata. The decisions in Fateh Singh's case (AIR 1925 P. C. 55) and Ganesh's case (AIR 1958 Patna 270) are distinguishable on facts, 13. Now coming to plaint schedule item No. 2, plaintiff's case is that the same is part of his house site and that consequent upon his taking assignment of the right of the auction purchaser who bought the jenm right, he obtained Ext. A-10 surrender from the lessee wherein plaint schedule item No. 2 Is included in the third thak. As to the claim that he took assignment of the jenm right, no document is produced. Originally plaint schedule item No. 2 was described to comprise in Survey No. 61/3. Later, after the filing of the commission report, plaintiff amended the Survey Number of Item No. 2 as Survey No. 31/10. (It could be a mistake for Survey No. 31/1C). Plaintiff's residential property is comprised in Survey No. 61/3 and he claimed plaint item No. 2 as part of it. Unless the plaintiff shows, really Survey No. 61/3 is a mistake for Survey No. 311C he cannot succeed as plaint schedule item No. 2 is identified by the Commissioner to comprise in Survey No. 31/C. 14. The features of the property and the other relevant factors would show that this could never have been part of thak No. 3 of Ext. A-10. As per Ext A-10, according to the plaintiff, he got the property comprised in Survey No. 61/3. It is, on the said basis that he claimed recovery of item No. 2. Incidentally it has to be noted, item No. 2 was not the subject matter of Ext. B7 suit. The Commissioner in Ext. C2 report said that the property described Survey No. 31/1C is in Pattiam amsom, Kizhakke Kadirur desom whereas Survey No. 61/3 is comprised in Kadirur amsom, desom, Survey No. 61/3 belonged, to Chalakkal Devaswom whereas Survey No. 31/1C belonged to Kadirur Devaswom. 15. Ext. C2 states, plaint schedule item No. 2 is plot A in Ext. C1. Ext. C2 report said that the property described Survey No. 31/1C is in Pattiam amsom, Kizhakke Kadirur desom whereas Survey No. 61/3 is comprised in Kadirur amsom, desom, Survey No. 61/3 belonged, to Chalakkal Devaswom whereas Survey No. 31/1C belonged to Kadirur Devaswom. 15. Ext. C2 states, plaint schedule item No. 2 is plot A in Ext. C1. Ext. C2 further states that there is no specific boundary to separate plots A and B. Adding to that it is also mentioned that the property in the possession of the plaintiff is situated 8 feet higher than the plot A. The said features show that plot A which corresponds to plaint item No. 2 is not part of the property comprised in Ext. A - 10. Plaintiff miserably failed to prove that the plaint schedule item No. 2 is taken in by Ext. A-10 or the executant of Ext. A-10 was competent to deal with the said property. Thus the plaintiff is not successful in proving that he has got title to item No. 2. 16. In view of the finding that the plaintiff has no title to the plaint schedule items 1 and 2 it is not necessary, in the circumstance, to consider whether defendant has perfected title by prescription. The appellant is entitled to succeed and the appeal has to be allowed. In the result, the appeal is allowed, judgment of the lower appellate court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored. In the circumstance of the case, there will be no order as to costs.