Judgment B. Chandra Kumar, J. 1. All these appeals are connected and dealing with one and the same dispute and therefore they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. SA No. 467 of 2004 is filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2003 passed in AS No. 112 of 2002 by the II Additional district Judge, Ranga Reddy District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2000 passed in OS No. 608 of 1992 by the Principal Senior Civil judge, Ranga Reddy District. 3. SA No. 475 of 2004 is filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2003 passed in AS No. 74 of 2002 by the II Additional district Judge, Ranga Reddy District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2000 passed in OS No. 101 of 1990 by the Principal Senior Civil judge, Ranga Reddy District. 4. SA No. 468 of 2004 is filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2003 passed in AS No. 72 of 2002 by the II Additional district Judge, Ranga Reddy District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2000 passed in OS No. 646 of 1991 by the Principal Senior Civil judge, Ranga Reddy District. 5. SA No. 469 of 2004 is filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2003 passed in AS No. 11 of 2001 by the II Additional district Judge, Ranga Reddy District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2000 passed in OS No. 208 of 1987 by the Principal Senior Civil judge, Ranga Reddy District. 6. The unsuccessful defendant namely Vaddari Jhatipat Ramloo in OS Nos. 208 of 1987 and 646 of 1991 and the plaintiff in OS Nos. 101 of 1990 and 608 of 1992 has filed the present four second appeals. 7. Joint trial was conducted and evidence was recorded in OS No. 208 of 1987. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in OS No. 208 of 1987 for the sake of convenience. The case of the plaintiff namely Srihari in OS No. 208 of 1987 is as follows. He is the absolute owner and actual possessor of the land admeasuring 0-08 gts., in Survey No. 9, situated at Moosapet village of Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The patta of the land stands in the name of the plaintiff and his paternal uncle T. Yadaiah and in partition with his uncle this land fell to the share of the plaintiff. The patta of the land stands in the name of the plaintiff and his paternal uncle T. Yadaiah and in partition with his uncle this land fell to the share of the plaintiff. It is alleged that the first defendant T. Srinivas Rao and father of the third defendant T. Sri Ramloo and one T. Narsimha Rao made an attempt to encroach the plaint schedule property, thereupon the plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction in OS No. 100 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif, West and the said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff on 21.03.1985. The further case of the plaintiff is that the defendants have no concern with the plaint schedule property and they are trying to forcibly encroach the suit schedule property by making false allegations that the suit schedule property is part of Survey No. 10 and it belongs to the second defendant. It is further alleged that on 12.04.1987, they tried to encroach the suit schedule property and the plaintiff, with great difficulty, resisted the acts of the defendants. Alleging that the cause of action arose on 12.04.1987, the plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title and injunction. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 293 of 1987 and obtained interim injunction order against the defendants. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 707 of 1998 alleging that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants occupied an area of 600 square yards on 10.01.1988 out of the suit schedule property and this 600 square yards of land is the disputed property now. It is further alleged that the defendant constructed compound wall over the compound ABCDE (as described in the plaint), but also erected a big gate. Consequently, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 707 of 1988 seeking amendment of plaint and sought further relief of recovery of possession and dismantling of the construction made by the defendant. The said I.A. was allowed ad the suit was accordingly amended. Defendants 1, 3 and 4 are set ex parte. The second defendant alone filed written statement. The specific case of the second defendant-V.J. Ramloo (hereinafter referred to as 'Ramloo') is that he is not a party to O.S. No. 100 of 1984 and therefore, the judgment and decree of that suit is not binding on him. Defendants 1, 3 and 4 are set ex parte. The second defendant alone filed written statement. The specific case of the second defendant-V.J. Ramloo (hereinafter referred to as 'Ramloo') is that he is not a party to O.S. No. 100 of 1984 and therefore, the judgment and decree of that suit is not binding on him. It is denied that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. It is also denied that the suit schedule property fell to the share of the plaintiff in partition with his uncle T. Yadaiah. It is also denied that the defendants, in spite of injunction orders in I.A. No. 293 of 1989, encroached an area of 600 square yards by force and shown in the red colour in the plan attached to the plaint. He denied the allegation that in spite of objections by the plaintiff, he constructed a compound wall and erected big gate on 10.01.1988. The specific case of the defendants is that the disputed site is in his possession and it is covered by compound wall and it was constructed by the defendants much prior to the filing of the suit to the knowledge of the plaintiff. It is further alleged that the defendant is the owner and possessor of the land in survey No. 10 of Moosapet village and that he has constructed a cinema theatre in the site raising a compound wall much prior to the filing of the suit. The allegation of the plaintiff that he tried to dig foundation on 12.03.1987 is denied. The further case of the defendant is that this disputed land is the absolute property of the defendant and he has been in possession of the same for more than the statutory period to the knowledge of the plaintiff and, therefore, even if the plaintiff had any right in the property, the same stood extinguished. It is further submitted that after filing of the suit, the plaintiff approached the defendant for settlement and on the intervention of the elders, the defendant agreed to pay some amount to the plaintiff. Accordingly, an agreement of sale was entered into on 28.07.1987 and thereby the plaintiff agreed to convey the interest in the land covered by survey No. 9 for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in pursuance of the said agreement, the defendant paid an amount of Rs. Accordingly, an agreement of sale was entered into on 28.07.1987 and thereby the plaintiff agreed to convey the interest in the land covered by survey No. 9 for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in pursuance of the said agreement, the defendant paid an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the plaintiff on 31.07.1987 which the plaintiff acknowledged. It is further alleged that the plaintiff has backed the said agreement. The defendant's further case is that the suit is fictitious and filed to extract money from the defendant. 8. The defendant filed O.S. No. 101 of 1998 against the plaintiff seeking injunction contending that the plaintiff executed an agreement of sale on 28.07.1987 agreeing to transfer the land admeasuring 4 guntas of land out of 8 guntas of land in Survey No. 9 for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in addition thereto, to provide an extent of 1200 square yards of site near goods road to the plaintiff. The defendant further pleaded that he has already paid an amount of Rs. 20,000/- on 31.07.1987 and obtained receipt from the plaintiff and that he is ready and willing to pay the balance of sale consideration and also to fetch 1200 square yards of land neat the goods road and that the plaintiff is not coming forward to perform his part of contract and thus, he filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 28.07.1987 against the plaintiff. The defendant has also averred that the plaintiff filed a suit in O.s. No. 208 of 1987 against him. It is further alleged that in spite of agreement dated 28.07.1987, the plaintiff has taken up construction work at the suit schedule property. It is further averred that the defendant has already filed O.S. No. 60 of 1990 before the District Munsif (West and South), Ranga Reddy district for perpetual injunction against the plaintiff and that in the said suit, status quo orders have been passed in favour of the defendant. It is further contended that the defendant got issued legal notice on 02.03.1990 to the defendant before filing of the suit for specific performance. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 208 of 1987 filed the written statement in this suit denying the agreement of sale dated 27.07.1987 and further contended that he never agreed to sell any portion of his land in Survey No. 9. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 208 of 1987 filed the written statement in this suit denying the agreement of sale dated 27.07.1987 and further contended that he never agreed to sell any portion of his land in Survey No. 9. It is further contended that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of 600 square yards of land and on the petition filed by the plaintiff, an advocate commissioner was appointed for demarcation of the land on 27.07.1987 and to avoid demarcation work, the defendant came with a proposal that he would pay Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash and provide 1200 square yards of land at goods road, Moosapet village, on or before 10.08.1987, but the said proposal was not acted upon. It is further contended that the defendant failed to purchase the land at goods road and the proposed vendor Golla Maisaiah already sold away the land to the third parties. 9. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 208 of 1987 filed another suit in O.S. No. 464 of 1991 seeking permanent injunction against the defendant on the same averments which he has made in O.S. No. 208 of 1987. However, it is further alleged that the defendant started digging pits over the suit schedule property on 16.11.1991. The defendant filed written statement denying the allegations made by the plaintiff and taken the same pleas which he has taken in the earlier suits filed by him. The defendant had also taken the plea that the suit is filed to start the second round of litigation and in view of the amendment made in O.S. No. 208 of 1987, the present suit has become infructuous. 10. The plaintiff filed written statement denying the averments made by the defendant. 11. The main issues framed in O.S. No. 208 of 1987 are as follows:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possession of the suit property? 2. Whether the defendant encroached an extent of 600 square yards as alleged in the plaint? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery possession of 600 square yards? 12. The main issue framed in O.S. No. 646 of 1991 is as follows:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for? 13. The main issues framed in O.S. No. 101 of 1990 are as follows:- 1. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery possession of 600 square yards? 12. The main issue framed in O.S. No. 646 of 1991 is as follows:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for? 13. The main issues framed in O.S. No. 101 of 1990 are as follows:- 1. Whether the agreement of sale dated 28.07.1987 is true, valid and binding on the defendant? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract under the suit agreement to sell? 14. The main issue framed in O.S. No. 608 of 1992 is as follows:- 1. Whether the suit for simple injunction without relief for declaration and possession is not maintainable? 15. By judgment dated 14.10.1996, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, decreed O.S. No. 101 of 1990 directing the plaintiff to execute the sale deed in respect of 0-04 guntas of land in favour of the defendant. Accordingly, O.S. No. 208 of 1987 and 646 of 1991 filed by the plaintiff are dismissed and O.S. No. 608 of 1992 and O.S. No. 101 of 1990 were decreed. Challenging the same, appeals were preferred. Then the lower appellate Court set aside the judgment of the trial Court, but however, remanded the matter for fresh disposal. An opportunity was also given to the parties to adduce further evidence. 16. After remand, P.W. 1 was recalled and further examined in chief. Exs. A.1 to A.30 were marked on his behalf. No further oral evidence was adduced and Exs. B.8 and B.9 were marked with the consent of both the parties. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, after remand, came to the conclusion that the defendants encroached 600 square yards of land in Survey No. 9 of Moosapet village and, therefore, decreed the suit in O.S. No. 208 of 1987. Similarly, the suit filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 101 of 1990 was dismissed. Mandatory injunction was issued in O.S. No. 646 of 1991 directing the defendants to remove the constructed structure in the disputed land and further held that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of 600 square yards of land. Accordingly, the suits filed by the plaintiff were decreed and suits filed by the defendants were dismissed. Mandatory injunction was issued in O.S. No. 646 of 1991 directing the defendants to remove the constructed structure in the disputed land and further held that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of 600 square yards of land. Accordingly, the suits filed by the plaintiff were decreed and suits filed by the defendants were dismissed. Then the defendants preferred appeals in A.S. No. 11 of 2001, 72 of 2002, 74 of 2002 and A.S. No. 112 of 2002 challenging the judgments in O.S. No. 208 of 1987, 646 of 1991, 101 of 1990 and 608 of 1992 respectively. 17. The lower appellate Court, by impugned common judgment dated 23.12.2003, dismissed the appeals confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Challenging the same, these appeals have been filed. 18. The main submission of Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants is that the respondents/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and that in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, heavy burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his title. The suit filed by the plaintiff cannot be decreed merely basing on the weakness of the case of the defendants. His main submission is that the plaintiff failed to prove his title. It is further submitted that except some revenue records, no other documents have been filed to prove the title of the plaintiff. It is further submitted that the plaintiff's case is that he has partitioned with his uncle T. Yadaiah and in the said partition, the suit land fell to the share of the plaintiff, but the plaintiff did not file any document to show that the land fell to his share in the said partition. His main submission is that revenue records will not prove the title. Mere an entry in the revenue records is not sufficient because the subsequent changes by way of partition or succession or acquisition by way of gift deed or bequeathing of the property by way of Will may not reflect in the revenue records. It is also his submission that only for the purpose of calculating the land revenue the revenue entries are made and this position has been clarified by the Apex Court in several decisions. It is also his submission that only for the purpose of calculating the land revenue the revenue entries are made and this position has been clarified by the Apex Court in several decisions. It is further argued that since the defendant is not a party to O.S. No. 100 of 1984, the said judgment is not binding on him. It is also his submission that the Courts below committed an error in holding that the plaintiff has proved his title merely on the ground that the defendant had entered into agreement of sale with the plaintiff. His main submission is that a person who has no title may offer to sell the same and merely because a person agreed to purchase the property believing such version, that would not give any file to the proposed vendor and if the reasoning of the Courts below on this aspect is accepted, that may lead to a situation where anybody who has no title would get automatic title without proof of his title. It is further submitted that the plaintiff himself admitted that there are no documents to prove his title. It is further argued that there is correction in the Khasra Pahani and thus, when there are corrections in the revenue records, it gives an impression that the revenue records have been manipulated. It is further submitted that as far as remaining part of the land excluding 600 square yards of land is concerned, the defendant is not disputing the title of the plaintiff and that shops have been constructed in the remaining part of the land adjacent to the disputed land. It is further submitted that the documents filed by the plaintiff including municipal tax receipts only pertain to the undisputed portion of the land and shops therein. It is further argued that a reading of entire material gives an impression that the land in dispute i.e., 600 square yards has been in possession of the defendant since long time and that the defendant had already constructed a compound wall much prior to the starting of litigation between the parties. It is further argued that the plaintiff, on the basis of the alleged measurements taken by the surveyor, started contending that 600 square yards of land is in survey No. 9 and then started claiming right over the said property. It is further argued that the plaintiff, on the basis of the alleged measurements taken by the surveyor, started contending that 600 square yards of land is in survey No. 9 and then started claiming right over the said property. It is further argued that the Courts below have treated the agreement as an admission by the defendant under Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act and by stretch of no imagination, such admission would confer title to the plaintiff. It is argued that even if the suit filed by the defendant for specific performance is dismissed, the plaintiff's suit for declaration cannot be decreed. It is also argued that the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence that the plaintiff and his father gave contradictory versions, i.e., according to the plaintiff, the disputed site is a vacant site whereas according to the father of the plaintiff, he had already constructed mulgies on the disputed site. It is further argued that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the plaintiff has title to the property, admittedly, the plaintiff has executed the agreement of sale in Ex. A.1 dated 28.07.1987 agreeing to sell 0-04 guntas of land and the plaintiff admitted that he had received an amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the defendant. It is further submitted that on filing of the suit for specific performance, the defendant had deposed the remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and this shows the bona fides of the defendants. It is also argued that the defendant had entered into the agreement of sale with one Yadaiah to purchase 1200 square yards of land at Goods Road, Moosapet and thus the defendant was already ready and willing to perform his part of contract. It is further argued that the trial Court, without any basis, came to the conclusion that the defendant has failed to fulfil his part of agreement. It is further argued that it is the defendant who got issued the legal notice requesting the plaintiff to receive the remaining balance of sale consideration amount and to execute the sale deed. It is further argued that the plaintiff admitted that he has not issued any notice cancelling the agreement of sale. It is further argued that it is the defendant who got issued the legal notice requesting the plaintiff to receive the remaining balance of sale consideration amount and to execute the sale deed. It is further argued that the plaintiff admitted that he has not issued any notice cancelling the agreement of sale. It is further argued that mere delay is not a ground to dismiss the suit for specific performance and the conduct of the parties and all the circumstances ought to have taken into consideration by the Courts below. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgments in the cases between Vijay Kumar Talwar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 673, Sammita Sri Natraj Vs. Kilaru Rangaiah and others, 2012 (5) ALT 116 , Union of India and others Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others, (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 269 and Sri Chunilal V. Mehta and sons Ltd., Vs. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314 (1). 19. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that when there is a categorical finding by both the Courts below, the High Court should not interfere on fact findings. It is also argued that the plaintiff has filed Khasra Pahanis and it is a crucial document and it proves the title of the plaintiff. It is also argued that the defendants never disputed the title of the plaintiff and when there is no serious dispute to the title of the plaintiff, there is no need to conduct a roaring enquiry into the matter. It is also argued that admittedly, the defendant had no right in survey No. 9 and he is an adjacent owner in survey No. 10 and he has admitted that the plaintiff is the owner of the land in Survey No. 9 and accordingly, he entered into the agreement with the plaintiff to purchase four guntas of land. It is further alleged that the trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the defendant did not purchase 1200 square yards of land and thus failed to fulfil his part of contract. It is further argued that the defendant had never taken a plea of adverse possession and when there is no evidence, there is no need to consider such contention. It is further argued that the defendant had never taken a plea of adverse possession and when there is no evidence, there is no need to consider such contention. Learned senior counsel further submitted that where there is no serious dispute to the title, a declaratory suit cannot be dismissed. It is further argued that if at all the plaintiff has no title, the defendants would not have entered into agreement of sale to purchase the property from the plaintiff. It is further submitted that the defendant, having verified the records, agreed to purchase the property from the plaintiff. It is further argued that once it is held that the plaintiff has title and the defendant had encroached into the land of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled for relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession. Learned senior counsel had also referred to the notice issued by the defendant, wherein, he offered to pay the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- but there is no whisper regarding 1200 sq. yards of land near goods shed. It is vehemently argued that when the defendant did not make any offer in the said legal notice by expressing his willingness to give 1200 square yards of land at goods shed to the plaintiff as per the agreement, it is clear that, the defendant was not ready and willing to perform his part of agreement. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel had placed reliance on the judgments in the cases between Bathina Chennamma Vs. Bathina Venkata Subbaiah, (2011) 4 ALT 415 , The Joint Collector, The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division and the Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. Syed Ahmed Hasan, S/o. Syed Homd. Ismail, Syed Nurui Hasan S/o. Vicarul Hasan and Smt. Zehra Medhi, W/o. S.T.H. Mehdi Decided on 11.04.2011 in W.A. No. 1770 of 2001 by A.P. High Court. 20. In reply, Sri Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the plaintiff is seeking the relief of declaration of title, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his title and the Courts below have failed to examine this important aspect. 21. 20. In reply, Sri Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the plaintiff is seeking the relief of declaration of title, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his title and the Courts below have failed to examine this important aspect. 21. The substantial questions of law that arise in these appeals are (1) whether the plaintiff has to prove his title in a suit for declaration of title irrespective of the fact that the defendant had entered into agreement with the plaintiff to purchase the said property; (2) Whether the finding of the Court below that since the defendant had agreed to purchase the property, the same amounts to admission of title by the defendant is correct and valid; and (3) Whether the findings of the Court below that the defendant failed to perform his part of contract is correct. 22. In a suit for declaration the plaintiff has to stand or fall on his own case. He has to plead how he acquired title to the property. When a person is claiming title to a property by virtue of partition he must mention as to who are the other sharers of the property and when the partition took place and adduce evidence to show that the particular disputed property has been allotted to him. When a person claims title to the property by virtue of any other instrument such as gift, Will etc., he must file document to show that the donor or the testator as the case may be had title to the property. Merely because the defendant had entered into an agreement of sale that cannot be treated as sufficient evidence or an admission to declare the title of the plaintiff. There may be several instances where the property originally may belong to the Government or to any Trust or Wakf Board and there may not be any person to actively resist the claims of a person who had grabbed or occupied a Government land he may claim that he is the owner of that property and by referring the adjacent survey number of a private land he may propose to sell the Government land or a piece of land on which he has no title or which was never allotted to him in the partition. Of course the intending purchaser has to verify the title of his vendor but when he is misled and when certain documents have been shown purporting to be the documents of the land in dispute then the innocent purchaser may be cheated. There may be occasions where the original vendor having executed GPA may subsequently cancel the same and which may not reflect in the encumbrance certificate. There may be instances where a testator after executing the Will may subsequently cancel the same. If a proposal is made to alienate the property on the basis of the earlier Will or a GPA which has subsequently cancelled the innocent purchasers may be cheated. Therefore, there may be many instances where a person even after making some reasonable enquiry may not know the truth or may not detect the cheating and enter into an agreement of sale with a person who has no title or ultimately it may be proved that such proposed vendor had no title to the property. Therefore, it is crystal clear to my mind that merely because a person has entered into an agreement of sale or filed a suit for specific performance or paid some amount towards advance to the vendor, these circumstances themselves are not sufficient to declare the title of proposed vendor. Therefore, the findings of the Courts below appears to be perverse. 23. Now it has to be seen whether the plaintiff has proved his title. As discussed above, burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his title. The plaintiff cannot take advantage of the weakness in the case of the defendant. There must be cogent evidence which inspire confidence of the Court to declare the title of a party. It is immaterial even if there are certain oral admissions made by a party. The views of a person may depend upon several circumstances. A person may be made to believe that the plaintiff has title to the property under the premise he may even admit the title of a party. Even that is not sufficient. There may be an occasion where there may be collusion between the parties to grab the Government property or the land belonging to any other Institution. A person may be made to believe that the plaintiff has title to the property under the premise he may even admit the title of a party. Even that is not sufficient. There may be an occasion where there may be collusion between the parties to grab the Government property or the land belonging to any other Institution. Merely on the ground that the defendant has accepted the title of the plaintiff, if the declaration is granted the unscrupulous parties taking advantage of such declaration and the decree passed by the Civil Court may prevail upon the revenue officials or Mandal Officials and get their names mutated in the official records, though they have no right in the property. Thus, it appears on admission by opposite party or an agreement of sale signed by a vendee is not sufficient to declare the title of the vendor. In a suit for declaration the plaintiff has to let in sufficient evidence particularly documentary evidence to establish his title. Merely because of weakness in the case of defendant or on mere oral admissions by the defendant, the title of the plaintiff cannot be declared. Therefore, the Courts have to be vigilant and careful while passing a decree of declaration. 24. In this case we are concerned with 600 sq. yards of land only. The plaintiff's case is that it is in Sy. No. 9. The contesting defendant in this case hereinafter will be referred as defendant. The defendant's case is two fold. One of his version is that the disputed site is in Sy. No. 10 and not in Sy. No. 9 and another version is that the disputed site has been in his possession since more than statutory period and therefore he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. Admittedly, Sy. Nos. 9 and 10 are the adjacent to one another. Even according to plaint schedule Sy. No. 10 is towards west and south of Sy. No. 9. The plaintiff has filed documents pertaining to Sy. No. 9. Though village map is filed, but there is no specific map showing these two survey numbers and the Canal between these two lands. The plaintiff's case is that he filed IA No. 293 of 1987 and obtained injunction order against the defendant on 10.01.1988. During the pendency of said order the defendant encroached 600 sq. No. 9. Though village map is filed, but there is no specific map showing these two survey numbers and the Canal between these two lands. The plaintiff's case is that he filed IA No. 293 of 1987 and obtained injunction order against the defendant on 10.01.1988. During the pendency of said order the defendant encroached 600 sq. yards of land by force and constructed a wall at points A, B, C, D and E. 25. Thus, his case is that the defendant encroached the land after January 1988. 26. Now it has to be seen what is the evidence of the plaintiff with regard to 600 sq. yards of land. The plaintiff is examined as PW. 1. According to him he filed a petition for appointment of commissioner to survey the property and fix the boundaries and the said petition was allowed and the Commissioner surveyed the suit property and it was found that an extent of 600 sq. yards is owned by him. His further case is that defendant No. 2 has objected. The petitioner filed Ex. A4. Ex. A4 is the panchanama said to have been prepared by the Surveyor. It is dated 26.02.1984. No other panchanama or the Commissioner's report is filed. So, this document shows that the land was surveyed in the year 1984. According to the plaintiff at the time of survey he has learnt that 600 sq. yards of land is owned by him. This gives an impression that 600 sq. yards of land which was in the possession of the defendant on measurement was found to be the land of the plaintiff. But, according to the plaint averments after filing of IA No. 293 of 1987 the defendant encroached 600 sq. yards of land. Thus, there is material contradiction in the case of the plaintiff as to the date on which the defendant encroached 600 sq. yards of land. The plaint schedule property is shown as Sy. No. 9, extent 0-08 gts., bounded by East: National Highway Hyderabad to Bombay, West: Sy. No. 10, North: Sy. No. 8 and South: Sy. No. 10. Of course the agreement of sale is with regard to 0-04 gts., of land out of 0-08 gts., in Sy. No. 9 with the following boundaries; North: Portion of land in Sy. No. 9 belonging to Yella Rao, South: Compound Wall/beyond Sy. No. 10, North: Sy. No. 8 and South: Sy. No. 10. Of course the agreement of sale is with regard to 0-04 gts., of land out of 0-08 gts., in Sy. No. 9 with the following boundaries; North: Portion of land in Sy. No. 9 belonging to Yella Rao, South: Compound Wall/beyond Sy. No. 10 of plaintiff, East: National High Way No. 9, West: Compound Wall/beyond land in Sy. No. 10 of plaintiff. The entire 0-08 gts., of land is shown as open land. The suit was filed on 22.04.1987. So as on 22.04.1987 the entire 0-08 gts., of land is described as vacant land. But PW. 1 deposed that the total extent of suit property is 968 sq. yards and there are four or five shops in the suit property and his father constructed shops in an extent of 268 sq.yards about 30 years ago. 27. The plaintiff was examined on 09.10.1995. Thus, according to him his father constructed four or five mulgies in 1965. But, admittedly, in the plaint schedule the entire land is shown as vacant land. The father of the plaintiff is examined as PW. 3. According to him, he constructed 9 mulgies in the suit land and gifted 5 mulgies to his brother's son and 4 mulgies and open land were given to his son i.e., plaintiff. He further deposed that he constructed 9 mulgies about 7 or 8 years ago. He was examined in 1996. Thus, according to PW. 3 the mulgies were constructed in 1987 or 1988. These mulgies appear to be not in 600 sq.yards of disputed site. But description of entire property i.e., 0-08 guntas is not correct. 28. Be that as it may, we are mainly concerned with regard to 600 sq. yards of land. PW. 1 during his cross-examination deposed that he got 0-08 gts., of land in Sy. No. 9. He further deposed that there is channel in between Sy. Nos. 9 and 10. The said channel passes between Sy. Nos. 9 and 10. The said channel is not in existence and it is diverted towards his land. Now the defendant is in possession of 650 sq. yards of land beyond channel. He further deposed that there are two pillars connected the said survey numbers with a compound wall with a gate. The said channel passes between Sy. Nos. 9 and 10. The said channel is not in existence and it is diverted towards his land. Now the defendant is in possession of 650 sq. yards of land beyond channel. He further deposed that there are two pillars connected the said survey numbers with a compound wall with a gate. East there is a compound wall between the land possessed by him and the defendant extending the same to western side. Initially he denied the suggestion that the land possessed by the defendant is covered by compound wall. Again he deposed that the land in occupation of the defendant is covered by the compound wall and the defendant alone constructed the said compound wall. In the absence of evidence showing the demarcation of Sy. Nos. 9 and 10 and the evidence of Surveyor to the effect that 600 sq. yards of disputed land beyond Channel falls in Sy. No. 9, the plaintiff cannot claim title to the disputed site of 600 sq. yards. Of course much value need not be given to the oral evidence in such a situation but plaintiff himself deposed that there is a channel in between Sy. Nos. 9 and 10 and said channel passes in between Sy. Nos. 9 and 10 and the defendant is now in possession of 650 sq. yards of land beyond channel. Thus, now the land claimed by the plaintiff is beyond the channel. Therefore, it becomes obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to prove by leading cogent evidence that the land beyond channel is a part of Sy. No. 9 and that he is the owner of the said land. Absolutely there is no evidence on this aspect. 29. Though there is no much dispute with regard to claim of the plaintiff that he is the owner of Sy. No. 9, but what is to be seen is whether the plaintiff had adduced any satisfactory evidence. When we look into the documents filed by the plaintiff it is clear that except one Kasra Pahani no other documents have been filed to establish the title of the plaintiff. Ex. A1 is only an agreement of sale between the plaintiff and the defendant. Ex. A2 is also an agreement of sale. Ex. A3 is the certificate showing that House No. 4-126 stands in the name of the plaintiff. Ex. Ex. A1 is only an agreement of sale between the plaintiff and the defendant. Ex. A2 is also an agreement of sale. Ex. A3 is the certificate showing that House No. 4-126 stands in the name of the plaintiff. Ex. A4 is the panchanama conducted by the Surveyor to the effect that he has measured Sy. No. 9 and fixed the boundaries. Ex. A5 is the touch map attached to Ex. A4. Ex. A6 is the notice issued by the Inspector of Police to the defendant asking him not to make any constructions in the disputed site. Ex. A7 and A8 are the land revenue receipts showing the payment of land revenue by the plaintiff to Survey No. 9. Ex. A9 is the injunction order obtained by the plaintiff in IA No. 390 of 1984 in OS No. 100 of 1984. The contesting defendant's case is that he is not a party to the said suit. Ex. A10 is the copy of order in IA No. 583 of 1984 giving police assistance to the plaintiff. Ex. A11 is the decree in OS No. 100 of 1984. Ex. A12 is the Kasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, wherein the name of pattadar is written as Mohd. Gouse. Ex. A13 is the village map showing the survey numbers. 30. It appears that in Ex. A12 Kasra Pahani the name of pattadar is written as Mohd. Gouse, but the same was struck off and name of T. Narsaiah father of plaintiff is written. It appears Patwari hadput his initial (Patwari is the person who makes entries in pahanies and submit to Tahsil office). The entries in the Kasra Pahani are treated as important entries as far as Telangana area is concerned. They are generally reliable. But in this case, there is a correction in the Kasra Pahani. The Patwari has struck off the name of the original owner and written the name of the father of the plaintiff. There is nothing on record to show that by what authority Patwari made corrections in the Kasra Pahani. For making corrections in the Kasra Pahani there should be an order of the Tahsildar or any other competent revenue officials higher than the Tahsildar. There is nothing on record to show that Patwari was authorized to make any corrections in the Kasra Pahani. For making corrections in the Kasra Pahani there should be an order of the Tahsildar or any other competent revenue officials higher than the Tahsildar. There is nothing on record to show that Patwari was authorized to make any corrections in the Kasra Pahani. Moreover except Kasra Pahani there is no other document showing the title of the plaintiff. According to PW. 3 he purchased the land from Gouse Miya under a private sale deed. Admittedly, the sale deed is not filed. PW. 3 says patta is mutated in his name in the revenue records. He further says that he has gifted 5 mulgies out of 9 mulgies to his brother's son and 4 mulgies and 600 sq. yards of land to his son the plaintiff. Admittedly, there is no document to prove the said partition. He himself admitted that there are no documents to show that he has gifted 5 mulgies to his brother's son and 4 mulgies and open land to the plaintiff. The plaintiff as PW. 1 deposed that he is the owner of the suit property and originally it was owned by his father and that he got the suit property under a partition. Admittedly, no such partition deed has been filed. It is his further case that in the plaint averments the plaintiff claimed that the patta of the suit land stands in his name and also in the name of his paternal uncle T. Yadaiah and that he got the property in the partition with his uncle. His father's case is that he gifted 4 mulgies and open land to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's original averment is that he got the property in the partition with his paternal uncle T. Yadaiah. Thus, there is no consistency in the version of the plaintiff and his father. Even if it is considered that their versions are not conflicting, there is no documentary evidence to show that there was a partition between the plaintiff and his paternal uncle T. Yadaiah. 31. After remand the plaintiff got marked some more documents. Ex. A15 is the copy of decree in OS No. 32 of 1978 between the plaintiff and Gopal Goud. Admittedly, the defendant is not a party to the said suit. Ex. A16 shows that the plaintiff was permitted to take electric supply for 5 HP and he made some amount towards voluntary contribution to the Electricity Department. Ex. A15 is the copy of decree in OS No. 32 of 1978 between the plaintiff and Gopal Goud. Admittedly, the defendant is not a party to the said suit. Ex. A16 shows that the plaintiff was permitted to take electric supply for 5 HP and he made some amount towards voluntary contribution to the Electricity Department. So, Exs. A17 and A18 are the payments showing the electricity bills. Exs. A17 to A20 are electricity receipts, Exs. A21 to A28 are municipal and Grampanchayat receipts and ex. A29 is the sanctioned plan and ex. A30 is the permission. These documents pertain to the constructions made by the plaintiff to the existing House No. 5-116. These documents do not prove the title of the plaintiff over the disputed site of 600 sq. yards. 32. I have also considered the other documents filed by the defendants and Exs. X1 and X2. Though in the legal notice issued by the defendant or in the agreement executed between the plaintiff and defendant the defendant seems to have admitted the title of the plaintiff. But as discussed in the earlier paras, such admissions made by the defendant are not sufficient to prove the title of the plaintiff. 33. When the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his title, it is clear that the findings of the Courts below on this issue are perverse. Therefore, in view of the substantial question of law raised by the appellant in SA No. 469 and 468 of 2004, arising out of OS No. 208 of 1987 and 646 of 1991, the appeals are to be allowed. Consequently the suits filed by the plaintiff in OS No. 208 of 1987 and 646 of 1991 for declaration of title and recovery of possession and injunction are liable to be dismissed. 34. Though the defendant appears to be in possession of 600 sq. yards of land since the title is in serious dispute the defendant cannot get injunction order unless the cloud with regard to title is removed. Therefore, SA Nos. 467 and 475 of 2004 are liable to be dismissed. 35. The defendant filed OS No. 101 of 1990 for specific performance basing on the agreement of sale dated 28.07.1987. The plaintiff admitted in his evidence that he received advance of Rs. 20,000/-. The defendant claims that he has also deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- in the Court. Therefore, SA Nos. 467 and 475 of 2004 are liable to be dismissed. 35. The defendant filed OS No. 101 of 1990 for specific performance basing on the agreement of sale dated 28.07.1987. The plaintiff admitted in his evidence that he received advance of Rs. 20,000/-. The defendant claims that he has also deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- in the Court. However, there is no satisfactory evidence to say that the defendant was ready to transfer 1200 sq. yards of site at goods shed. It appears that the defendant did not offer to give 1200 sq. yards of site at goods shed in his legal notice. However, since the plaintiff has not proved his title, he cannot be directed to execute the sale deed in respect of 600sq. yards of land i.e., disputed site. In the circumstances, the suit for specific performance has to be dismissed. If the defendant has not received back the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- deposited by him, he is permitted to take back the said amount. 36. Accordingly, SA Nos. 468 and 469 of 2004 are allowed and SA Nos. 467 and 475 of 2004 are dismissed. Consequently the suits filed by the plaintiff in OS No. 208 of 1987 and 646 of 1991 for declaration of title and recovery of possession and perpetual injunction and the suits filed by the defendants in OS No. 101 of 1990 and 608 of 1992 are dismissed. 37. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this second appeal shall stand closed.