Judgment : 1. This second appeal is filed by the original plaintiff who sued for injunction to protect his possession in the suit property. There has been concurrent findings of possession of the plaintiff. In this Second Appeal the appellants/original defendants contend that title of the plaintiff is perversely considered. 2. Three substantial questions of law have been framed as follows: (a) Whether the finding of the Courts below that the Respondents had title to the Suit property was perverse for reasons that the title based on documents produced by Respondents at Exh.PW1 E Colly (Sale Deed and Deed of Declaration) was at variance with the pleadings? (b) Whether the finding that the Appellants had not proved their title to the property "Panas" listed at Item No.3 in the Inventory Proceeding was vitiated as it was based on an erroneous legal concept that allotment in Inventory Proceedings is not a document of title? (c) Whether the finding of possession in favour of the Appellants, based on entries in the revenue records was vitiated as the said entries were not based on any title? 3. The plaintiff sued for injunction in respect of the property “Panas Katumban” in village Sal bearing survey no. 192/26. This, therefore, is the suit property. The plaintiff averred that it consists of house, store house and certain surrounding trees. It is the plaintiff's claim that he was the exclusive owner in possession and enjoyment of it since the last more than 50 years through his deceased father. This averment in paragraph 4 of the plaint is material. The plaintiff claims not only ownership, but also possession. The possession and ownership were claimed through his deceased father. This possession and ownership were claimed for 50 years. 4. The defendant in his written statement stated that property “Panas Katumban” consisted of 23 survey numbers of which survey no. 192/26 was only a part. However, it is only that part of “Panas Katumban” which the plaintiff claims. Hence only that part of “Panas Katumban” is the suit property. The plaintiff has prayed for injunction only in respect of that part of “Panas Katumban.” 5. The defendant also stated in his written statement that though “Panas Katumban” was legally common and undivided, the possession thereof is exercised as regards the different parts separately by different co-owners for generations together. The plaintiff has prayed for injunction only in respect of that part of “Panas Katumban.” 5. The defendant also stated in his written statement that though “Panas Katumban” was legally common and undivided, the possession thereof is exercised as regards the different parts separately by different co-owners for generations together. He also stated that the plaintiff and other co-owners have their exclusive houses in “Panas Katumban.” 6. The plaintiff's co-ownership right was therefore admitted. The plaintiff's separate exclusive possession in the plaintiff's house in “Panas Katumban” was also admitted. It is only this property in respect of which the plaintiff has claimed relief. 7. It may be mentioned that based upon the pleadings in paragraph 4 of the plaint and paragraph 1 of the Written statement, a Judgment on admission itself could have been passed. Nevertheless, the Courts below have recorded extensive evidence. The essential evidence is with regard to the possession. Possession follows title. Hence, if the plaintiff claims to be the owner, he would be taken to be in possession. The defendant admits that the plaintiff is co-owner and states that he is in possession of his own house. The Courts below have recorded the finding of fact of exclusive possession of the plaintiff in the suit property for many years. 8. This Court cannot interfere with such findings. 9. There is no question of law with regard to the findings and none has been framed. 10. The defendant's contention that the plaintiff claimed through inheritance in the plaint and produced the deed of sale at Exh. PW1/D and deed of declaration at Exh. PW1/E which is at variance with the pleadings. The aforesaid pleadings show that the document of title is not at variance with what is mentioned at paragraph 4 of the plaint. The plaintiff has pleaded ownership. The averments in the plaint may go no further. The plaintiff has to prove his averments relating to his ownership by aforesaid documents. The documents constitute the evidence of the plaintiff. The documents are, therefore, not at variance. The findings of the Courts below with regard to the title is, therefore, not upon evidence which is at variance with the pleadings. The substantial question of law at point no.(a) is answered in the negative. 11. The appellants are the defendants. They do not need to prove their title though they sought to prove their title through inventory proceedings. The findings of the Courts below with regard to the title is, therefore, not upon evidence which is at variance with the pleadings. The substantial question of law at point no.(a) is answered in the negative. 11. The appellants are the defendants. They do not need to prove their title though they sought to prove their title through inventory proceedings. The inventory proceeding shows 1/9th of the property to which defendants can claim title. The inventory proceeding also shows the plaintiffs' title similarly. It does not matter whether the appellants prove their title or not. It is only for the plaintiff to prove his title. Hence, substantial question of law at point (b) is inconsequential and need not be answered. 12. The fact of possession is based upon oral evidence. The admission of the defendant and the documentary evidence is inter alia, contained in the revenue record. Revenue records are not documents of title. However, they would evidence possession. The finding of possession based upon the entries in the revenue record is correct. Hence, the substantial question of law at point (c) is answered in the negative. 13. In the result, the Second Appeal fails and is dismissed.