Judgment : 1. This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 29/4/2008 passed in A.S.No.394 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul as reversing the judgment and decree dated 16/3/2000 passed in O.S.No.390 of 1997 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul. 2. The plaintiffs are the appellants in the above Second Appeal. 3. The suit is filed for (i). declaration that the second item of 'B' schedule property belonged to the first plaintiff and for consequential injunction; (ii). declaration that the second item of 'C' Schedule property belonged to the second plaintiff and for consequential injunction (iii). declaration that the second item of 'D' Schedule property belonged to the third plaintiff and for consequential injunction. (iv). declaration that the second item of 'E' schedule property belonged to the plaintiffs and 'F' schedule property belonged to the fourth plaintiff and for consequential injunction. 4. For an easy appreciation of facts, the geneology is shown below:- 5. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit properties originally belonged to the great grand father of the first plaintiff viz., one Muthalagar Pandithar a total extent of Ac.3.59. He had two sons Shanmugam and Maruthu Pandithar. Even during the life time of Muthalagar, the properties were partitioned and allotted to his two sons equally (1.79 ½ cents). 6. The above said Maruthu Pandithar had three sons, viz., Subba Pandithar, Palani Pandithar and Velu Pandithar and they have also equally partitioned the properties allotted to their father Maruthu Pandithar (60 : 60 : 59). The first son of Maruthu Pandithar viz., Subba Pandithar had three sons viz., Palanisamy, Muthu, Shanmugam. The said Subba Pandithar, during his life time said to have sold his 1/3rd share (0.60 cents) to one Karupavannan, by virtue of a sale deed dated 12/9/1956 under Ex.A.3. Having parted with the entire share that devolved on him, ancestrally Subba Pandithar and his three sons do not have any right on the suit properties. 7. The other sons of Marutha Pandithar viz., Palani Pandithar had two sons Kandhan and Manoharan. Palani Pandithar's wife is Meenakshi Ammal. Under Ex.A.5, the said Meenakshi Ammal had sold the property that fell to the share of Palani Pandithar to Velu Pandithar under Ex.A.5 dated 11/7/1956. Velu Pandithar is the father of the plaintiffs viz., Guruvamani, Mahalingam, Muthalagar and Murugayee. The other sons of Marutha Pandithar viz., Palani Pandithar had two sons Kandhan and Manoharan. Palani Pandithar's wife is Meenakshi Ammal. Under Ex.A.5, the said Meenakshi Ammal had sold the property that fell to the share of Palani Pandithar to Velu Pandithar under Ex.A.5 dated 11/7/1956. Velu Pandithar is the father of the plaintiffs viz., Guruvamani, Mahalingam, Muthalagar and Murugayee. By virtue of Ex.A.5 sale deed Velu Pandithar became the owner of 119 cents (60 + 59). Velu Pandithar has became the owner of 2/3rd share in S.No.526 Seelapandi Village, Dindigul Taluk. The plaintiffs had however, claimed that the other son/branch of Muthalagar viz., Shanmugam, who got 1.79 ½ acres in the partition was sold by his wife Kamatchiammal under Ex.A.6 to one Karupavannan. Therefore, the heirs of Shanmugam viz., the defendants 1 and 2 also do not get any right with regard to the disputed property. The defendants 1 and 2 are the grand sons of Shanmugam and Kamatchi Ammal through their only son Alagar Pandithar. 8. The plaintiffs further averred that their father Velu Pandithar had settled certain properties in favour of Chinnamani on 6/8/1972 under Ex.A.8, who is the plaintiffs mother. The plaintiffs also said to have partitioned among themselves under Ex.A.7 on 21/4/1994 and became entitled to the suit properties. As the defendants tried to interfere with the possession of the suit properties, the suit has been laid by the plaintiffs for declaration of their right and title as per Ex.A.7. 9. The defendants had filed a written statement specifically pleading that out of the total extent of 3.59 acres in S.No.526, 1.79 ½ cents were allotted to Shanmugam which was inherited by Azhagar Pandithar the only son of Shanmugam. The said Alagar Pandithar sold 0.72 cents alone to Subba Pandithar, by virtue of Ex.B.1 dated 30/7/1948. Therefore, the balance of the lands to an extent of Ac.1.7 ½ belonged to the first and second defendants. 10. Similarly, the other branch of Subbapandithar and Palani Pandithar are also entitled to a share in the property. The properties sold under Ex.B.1 an extent of 72 cents alone was inturn sold by Subba Pandithar to Karupavannan, by virtue of a sale deed dated 12/9/1986 under Ex.B.2. Therefore, the share of the properties of Subba Pandithar viz., an extent of 60 cents remain untouched. The properties sold under Ex.B.1 an extent of 72 cents alone was inturn sold by Subba Pandithar to Karupavannan, by virtue of a sale deed dated 12/9/1986 under Ex.B.2. Therefore, the share of the properties of Subba Pandithar viz., an extent of 60 cents remain untouched. According to the defendants, Exs.A.7 to 9 are only self serving documents and they will not bind the defendants in any way. 11. It is the further case of the defendants that after the partition among Marutha Pandithar sons, an extent of 9 cents in S.No.526 was sold to the wife of Palani viz., Meenakshiammal under Ex.A.5 to Velu Pandithar. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiffs that the said Meenakshi sold the entire 60 cents in favour of Velu Pandithar is nothing but an imagination and based on which the plaintiffs have claimed 2/3 shares in the total property is absolutely false. 12. The defendants also contended that the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties for not impleading the subsequent purchasers viz., Karupa Vannan and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 13. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs Exs.P.1 to P.22 have been marked and P.Ws.1 to 3 had been examined. On the side of the defendants, Exs.D.1 to D.10 have been marked and D.Ws.1 and 2 had been examined. 14. The trial Court had decreed that the suit 'B' schedule properties belonged to the first plaintiff in entirety and for a consequential injunction. So far as the second plaintiff was concerned, the trial Court restricted the relief of declaration and injunction only to an extent of 15 cents in S.No.526/7 and 6 cents in 526/5 and for the third plaintiff, a decree for 46 cents in 'D' schedule property was granted and the fourth plaintiff was decreed with 'E' schedule property in entirety. 15. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants had filed A.S.No.394 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Dindigul. The lower Appellate Court being the final fact finding Court, on consideration of documents and evidence available found that the plaintiffs were not entitled for more than 69 cents and accordingly, reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have come up with the above appeal. 16. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were framed. “1. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have come up with the above appeal. 16. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were framed. “1. Whether the Court below is right in non suiting the plaintiffs despite production of revenue records and anterior documents? 2. Whether on the admission of the defendants, the plaintiffs are not entitled to succeed with regard to the suit property?” 17. The question that has to be seen is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief prayed for, based on Exs.A.5 to A.9. Ex.A.8 is the settlement deed dated 6/2/1962 by Velu Pandithar in favour of his wife Chinnammal and Ex.A.9 is dated 8/5/1964 a partition deed between Velu Pandithar and Palaniammal. From the geneology drawn above, it can be seen that 1.79 ½ cents that devolved to the share of Marudhu Pandithar, his 3 sons have divided them equally at 0.60 cents each. Accordingly, the plaintiffs father Velu Pandithar got 60 cents of land ancestrally. The plaintiffs have claimed that under Ex.A.5, the share that devolved on Palani Pandithar was sold by his wife Meenakshi Ammal in favour of Velu Pandithar under Ex.A.5. 18. A perusal of the same, it can be seen that 84 cents of land has been sold under the said document. Out of which in the suit survey number 526/3 only 9 cents have been sold. Therefore, under Ex.A.5, the plaintiffs father Velu Pandithar purchased only 0.09 cents. Hence Velu Pandithar should have got 60 cents by inheritance and 9 cents under Ex.A.5 totalling 69 cents in all. 19. The plaintiffs however had contended that under Ex.A.2, 0.78 cents of lands were purchased by Subba Pandithar from Alagar Pandithar which was in turn sold by Subba Pandithar under Ex.A.3. As discussed earlier, the plaintiffs father got only 60 plus 9 cents. While so, as per Exs.A.11 and A.14, the documents have been filed by them claiming to be in possession of 1 acre and 91 cents. There is no explanation forthcoming for the same from the plaintiffs. The lower Appellate Court has discussed in detail about the conveyance made in Ex.A.9 and found that Ex.A.9 is not acceptable. Therefore, the plaintiffs and their father can at the most be the owners of only 69 cents in S.No.526/3. The trial Court also had given a finding in this regard in para 18 as follows:- “LANGUAGE” 20. The lower Appellate Court has discussed in detail about the conveyance made in Ex.A.9 and found that Ex.A.9 is not acceptable. Therefore, the plaintiffs and their father can at the most be the owners of only 69 cents in S.No.526/3. The trial Court also had given a finding in this regard in para 18 as follows:- “LANGUAGE” 20. From the above discussion, it can be seen that the plaintiffs on whom the burden lies to establish their title have not substantiated their entitlement to the entire extent of property as claimed by them. Exs.A.7 and A.9 partition deeds are self serving documents and contrary to each other as the properties are overlapping. The other revenue documents cannot be source of title. Hence the questions of law are answered against the appellants. 21. So far as the non-joinder of necessary parties are concerned, the suit filed as such is not one for partition. Though there is no division by metes and bounds after the partition between Subba Pandithar, Palani Pandithar and Velu Pandithar without asking for a partition, the plaintiffs have come up with the suit for declaration of their title. When admittedly, the properties are not divided among the parties, the subsequent purchasers become the necessary party to the suit and they ought to have been added as a necessary parties. 22. So far as the mutation in the revenue record is concerned, it is a settled principle that the revenue records do not confer title. The lower Appellate Court also has found that the records viz., patta, chitta and adangal, the documents have been issued for an extent more than what the plaintiffs father Velu Pandithar is entitled. Therefore, the claim based on the revenue documents cannot be granted. This finding of the lower Appellate Court is incorrect as the plaintiffs have not independently proved how they are otherwise entitled to the properties for which the revenue records have been issued other than the extent supported by documents. 23. In this regard, the recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2014 SAR (Civil) 191 {UNION OF INDIA Vs. VASAVI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED}, wherein it has been held that the revenue records are not the documents of title and the question of interpretation of documents not being a document of title is not the question of law. 23. In this regard, the recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2014 SAR (Civil) 191 {UNION OF INDIA Vs. VASAVI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED}, wherein it has been held that the revenue records are not the documents of title and the question of interpretation of documents not being a document of title is not the question of law. Entries in the revenue records are not proof of title nor the entries in the revenue papers by any stretch of imagination can form basis of declaration of title in favour of the plaintiffs. 24. The learned counsel for the respondents also relied on (i). 1999 (III) CTC 304 (KAMMAVAR SANGAM THROUGH ITS SECRETARY R.KRISHNASAMY Vs. MANI JANAGARAJAN), wherein it is held following the Supreme Court in BALWANT SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. DAULAT SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS AND OTHERS reported in 1997 (7) SCC 137 that mutation entries will not convey or extinguish the right over the property. (ii). 2013 (2) CTC – 347 (STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & OTHERS Vs. STAR BONE MILL & FERTILISER Co), wherein in paragraph No.13, it has been held as follows:- 13. The principle enshrined in Section 110 of the Evidence Act, is based on public policy with the object of preventing persons from committing breach of peace by taking law into their own hands, however good their title over the land in question may be. It is for this purpose, that the provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Sections 154 & 158 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, were enacted. All the aforesaid provisions have the same object. The said presumption is read under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, and applies only in a case where there is either no proof, or very little proof of ownership on either side. The maxim possession follows title is applicable in cases where proof of actual possession cannot reasonably be expected, for instance, in the case of waste lands, or where nothing is known about possession one-way or another. Presumption of title as a result of possession, can arise only where facts disclose that no title vests in any party. Possession of the plaintiff is not prima facie wrongful, and title of the plaintiff is not proved. Presumption of title as a result of possession, can arise only where facts disclose that no title vests in any party. Possession of the plaintiff is not prima facie wrongful, and title of the plaintiff is not proved. It certainly does not mean that because a man has title over some land, he is unnecessarily in possession of it. It infact means, that if at any time a man with title was in possession of the said property, the law allows the presumption that such possession was in continuation of the title vested in him. A person must establish that he has continued possession of the suit property, while the other side claiming title, must make out a case of trespass/encroachment, etc. Where the apparent title is with the plaintiffs, it is incumbent upon the defendant, that in order to displace this claim of apparent title and to establish beneficial title in himself, he must establish by way of satisfactory evidence, circumstances that favour his version. Even, a Revenue Record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession. Presumption of possession and/or continuity thereof, both forward and backward, can also be raised under Section 110 of the Evidence Act.“ 25. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff could not furnish any explanation before me as to how the suit claim was made based on Exs.A.11 and A.14. Once it is found that the plaintiff had no title, the questions of granting relief on the basis of possessory title may not arise since the respondent is having better title. As against true owner or against a person having better title a person having better title a person claiming possessory title cannot get injunction. In the foregoing circumstances, the questions of law are answered against the plaintiffs/appellants and the appeal fails. 26. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment of the lower Appellate Court made in A.S.No.394 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.