M. B. VISHWANATH, J. ( 1 ) THIS second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the C. P. C. ( 2 ) THE appellants are the defendants. The respondent is the plaintiff. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit in O. S. No. 21/1982 before the Munsiff, Savanur, for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property bearing TPC No. 588 situated in W. No. III of Bankapur village. ( 4 ) THE trial Court granted the decree for permanent injunction, but dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration. ( 5 ) THE defendants appealed against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in R. A. No. 11/1989 before the Civil Judge, Haveri. The plaintiff filed cross appeal. ( 6 ) THE appellate Court by its common judgment dated 20-12-1990 dismissed the defendants' appeal and allowed the plaintiff's cross appeal. In other words, the appellate Court confirmed the decree for permanent injunction passed by the trial Court and granted the decree for declaration also. ( 7 ) THE present second appeal has been filed by the defendants. ( 8 ) THE plaintiff's case is that the suit property belonged to the joint family of the plaintiff and others and at a family partition, it fell to the share of the plaintiff's elder uncle's son Veerappa Panchappanavar. Mutation was entered after partition in the name of said Veerappa Panchappanavar and he was in possession since partition. ( 9 ) SAID Veerappa Panchappanavar surrendered the suit property in favour of the plaintiff along with another property bearing T. P. C. No. 359/b and he (Veerappa Panchappanavar) gave a Varadi as per Ex. P-1 dated 4-3-78 to the Town Panchayath. The Town Panchayath Committee passed a resolution and mutated and entered the name of the plaintiff in the panchayath records. ( 10 ) THE case of the defendants is that they have purchased the suit property under registered sale deed dated 27-3-1958 (Ex. D-4) from three persons - Parvatavva, Rudrappa and Guru-shanthappa. The measurements of the suit property given in the plaint are admitted by the defendants. It is the case of the defendants that since Ex. D-4 dated 27-3-1958 they have been in continuous and actual physical possession of the suit property. Alternatively, the defendants have claimed adverse possession. ( 11 ) AS I have already stated, the trial Court granted the decree for injunction only. It is the case of the defendants that since Ex. D-4 dated 27-3-1958 they have been in continuous and actual physical possession of the suit property. Alternatively, the defendants have claimed adverse possession. ( 11 ) AS I have already stated, the trial Court granted the decree for injunction only. The appellate Court allowed the cross appeal and granted the decree for permanent injunction as also declaration. The defendants have appealed to this Court. ( 12 ) AT the time of admission this Court has framed the following substantial question of law for determination by this Court :"whether the I Appellate Court could have allowed cross-objections of the respondent herein declaring his title to the suit property depending only on the entries in the khata register and ignoring the registered sale deed in favour of the appellant ?" ( 13 ) IT looks that at the pleadings stage there was some dispute regarding the identity of the property. It is clear from the judgments of the Courts below and other material on record and also the arguments advanced in this Court, there is no longer any dispute regarding the identity of the property. ( 14 ) SO far as plaintiff's possession of the suit property is concerned, both the Courts below, on the basis of the records and the evidence, have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit property and accordingly they granted decree for permanent injunction. ( 15 ) WE are concerned only with regard to the decree for declaration granted by the first appellate Court by allowing the cross appeal of the plaintiff. ( 16 ) THE plaintiff has produced the applica- tion (Varadi-Ex. P-1) given by Veerappa Panchappanavar to the Panchayath surrendering the property in favour of the plaintiff, the order of the Panchayath to mutate the name in favour of the plaintiff (Ex. P-2), Panchayath extracts of the suit property (Exs. P-3 to P-6), tax receipts (Exs. P-7 to P-13) and other documents. ( 17 ) THE learned Munsiff held that admittedly there was no registered document showing that the property was released or surrendered by Veerappa Panchappanavar in favour of the plaintiff. He has correctly held that title in respect of immovable property cannot be conveyed in favour of another person without a properly stamped registered document as contemplated under the Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act. He has correctly held that title in respect of immovable property cannot be conveyed in favour of another person without a properly stamped registered document as contemplated under the Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act. ( 18 ) IT has been laid down in AIR 1928 Bom 269 (Dhondi Khandu Choudhari v. Appa Raghuji Choudhari) that record of rights by itself would not vest the property in the person in whose favour it is made. This Court has laid down in (1966) 1 Mysore LJ 772 (Hazarat Asraruddin Durga v. Hussein Khan Saheb) that a patta cannot be considered as a title deed. This Court has laid down in (1975) 2 Kant LJ 468 : (AIR 1976 Kant 75) (Church of Our Lady of Immaculate Conception v. State of Mysore) that the entries in the Municipal Registers describing the plaintiff as owner liable to pay the municipal tax and showing that the tax had been paid were not evidence of title. The learned Munsiff rightly relied on these authorities to hold that declaration cannot be granted to the plaintiff in the absence of title deeds. ( 19 ) THE learned first appellate Judge has considered the above documents as title deeds, particularly the revenue extracts (mutation) Exs. P-3 to P-6 to grant the relief of declaration to the plaintiff. ( 20 ) IT has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in ILR (1998) Kant 707 : ( AIR 1997 SC 2719 ) (Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh), relying on the earlier decision reported in (1996) 6 SCC 223 (227) : ( AIR 1996 SC 2823 ) para 7, that mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue. ( 21 ) THE approach of the learned first Judge is thoroughly illegal. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he has perfected the title to the suit property by adverse possession. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue. ( 21 ) THE approach of the learned first Judge is thoroughly illegal. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he has perfected the title to the suit property by adverse possession. ( 22 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff relied on stray sentences in the 'law of Adverse Possession' by Krishnaswami (10th Edition 1983), in the preface to the fifth edition, where it is stated that possession is nine points of law and adverse possession which can cause extinction of an existing title or create a new one acquires great importance. In the instant case, as I have already stated, the plaintiff has not claimed title on the ground of adverse possession. The sentences relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff have no relevance to the facts of this Court. ( 23 ) I am of the opinion that the judgment of the learned first appellate Judge in granting the decree for declaration also is illegal and perverse. ( 24 ) ACCORDINGLY the appeal is allowed in so far as it relates to the grant of declaration passed by the first appellate Judge. The judgment and decree passed by the Court of first instance is restored. The appeal is allowed in part as stated herein. Orderer accordingly. --- *** --- .