JUDGMENT 1. - This first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 5.4.91 passed by Additional District Judge No.7, Jaipur City in Civil Suit No. 35/88 whereby the suit of the plaintiff -appellant for possession has been rejected by the trial court. 2. The short facts of the case leading to filing of this appeal are that plaintiff appellant instituted a suit with the averments that plot No. 146 (New No. 23) in Govind Nagar Extension Scheme was allotted to him on 8.5.80 by Sri Govind Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Amer Road, Jaipur. The appellant deposited Rs. 4,500/- towards allotment price and transfer fee has also deposited. Possession of the plot has also been handed over to him on the same day. Earlier the Plot No. 146 was allotted to Prem Lata Jain who has surrendered plot and thereafter plot has been allotted to the appellant plaintiff. The appellant got one Kothri constructed in the plot and on intervening night of 15.5.80 and 16.5.80, respondent No.1 has forcibly dispossessed him hence suit for possession has been filed. The respondent has filed written statement with the contention that he is in possession of the property from more than 12 years and he has purchased the property from Manmohan and further contention was raised that earlier a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act has been filed which was dismissed, hence the suit is barred by res judicata. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed:- " 1- vk;k oknh okni= ds iSjk uEcj&1 esa of.kZr Hkw[k.M dk Lokeh gSA 2- vk;k mijksDr Hkw[k.M ij izfroknhx.k us igys fnukad 15 o 16 ebZ] 1980 dh e/; jk=h dks o blds ckn 30-6-80 dks uktk;t dCtk dj fy;kA 3- vk;k/kkjk 11 lh-ih-lh- ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj ;g okn i= izLrqr ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA 4- vk;k bl Hkw[k.M ij izfroknhx.k la[;k 1 o 2 dk dCtk okni= ykus ds 12 o"kZ iwoZ ls gSA vxj gka] rks bldk okn ij D;k izHkko gSA 5- vk;k okn ewY; 40]000@& :i;s gS vkSj bl dkj.k oknh us U;k; 'kqYd de fn;k gSA 6- vuqrks"kA " The plaintiff appellant examined PW/1 Swatantra Kumar, PW/2 Om Prakash Sharma, PW/3 Satyanarain Gupta and PW/4 Jaganath and exhibited Ex. 1 to 9 in support of his case whereas defendant examined DW/1 Motya Bai, DW/2 Nathulal and DW/3 Raju Devi in rebuttal. After hearing the contention of both the parties, the suit has been dismissed, hence this appeal. 4. The contention of the appellant is that admittedly appellant is the owner of the property and issue No.1 has been decided in his favour in spite of this suit for possession has been dismissed. Earlier the suit was dismissed only on the ground that plaintiff could not prove the dispossession of intervening night of 15-16.5.80 but at that time also, the court has found that defendant is in possession since 1978-79 and no plea of adverse possession has been brought on record, hence when the appellant is the owner of the property, he can bring the suit for possession against the trespasser and court below has erred in dismissing the suit on the basis of finding on issue No.4 which is in relation to possession only. There was no need to examine Prem Lata Jain as Prem Lata Jain has surrendered the plot in favour of Samiti and thereafter Samiti has allotted the plot to the appellant, hence the suit be decreed.Per contra, the contention of the respondents is that earlier suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act has been dismissed, hence the suit is barred by res judicata. Issue No.1 has been decided against the defendants respondents on conjectures and surmises. Admittedly, the Samiti has purchased the plot from Manmohan vide Ex.8 sale deed in 1975 whereas patta has been issued to Premlata Jain in 1973 and consequently the present appellant has not acquired any title and the respondents are in possession of the property in their own rights hence suit has rightly been dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused judgment and decree under appeal as well as the original record of the case. 6. As regards Issue No.1, the contention of the appellant is that issue has been decided against him rightly. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused judgment and decree under appeal as well as the original record of the case. 6. As regards Issue No.1, the contention of the appellant is that issue has been decided against him rightly. When he is owner of the property, the decree for possession should have been passed against him whereas the contention of the respondents is that issue No.1 has not rightly been decided and he raised cross-objection and also relied upon The East India Hotels Ltd. v. Smt. Mahendra Kumari, Since deceased, through her LR Jitendra & Anr., 2008 (3) WLC (Raj.) 570 and his contention is that without filing objections, the respondents can address the court on all issues including those decided against him and in view of the above, the contention of the respondent is that issue No.1 has been erroneously decided against him. As regards issue No.1, the contention of plaintiff appellant Swatantra Kumar is that plot has been earlier sold to Premlata thereafter Premlata Jain filed an application Ex.10 before the Committee to transfer the plot in the name of the plaintiff. Copy of the original allotment Ex.11 has also been submitted along with the application. The appellant has paid money vide receipt (Ex.1) and thereafter allotment has been made in his favour vide Ex.2 on 8.5.80 and on the same day, possession has been handed over to him. No rebuttal to these documents has been submitted by the respondents and appellant has rightly relied upon Md. Mohammad Ali (dead) by LRs v. Jagadish Kalita & ors., (2004) 1 SCC 271 wherein it has been held that in a suit for declaration of title to the property, the plaintiff has only to prove his title and not his possession and when defendant raised plea of adverse possession it is upon him to prove the same. Here in the present case, the case of the plaintiff appellant is simplicitor for possession of the property and declaration of his title rightfully claimed by Ex.1 and 2 coupled with the evidence of Swatantra Kumar. The court below has rightly held that the appellant is the owner of the property. Here in the present case, the case of the plaintiff appellant is simplicitor for possession of the property and declaration of his title rightfully claimed by Ex.1 and 2 coupled with the evidence of Swatantra Kumar. The court below has rightly held that the appellant is the owner of the property. PW/2 Om Prakash Sharma is the cashier of the Samiti who has also stated that money has been deposited in the Samiti and Satya Narain Gupta (PW/3) is the Manager of the Samiti who has also testified the facts that property has been allotted to the appellant and receipt has been issued by him which bears his signatures as 'A to B'. He has also testified the fact that Prem Lata Jain has submitted an application Ex. 10 for transfer of the plot along with Ex.11 allotment letter has also been submitted and thereafter property has been allotted to the plaintiff appellant. No rebuttal of the above evidence has been submitted, hence the court below has rightly held that the appellant is the owner of the property. 7. The issue No.4 is other relevant issue in which the contention of the respondent Motya Bai is that he is in possession of the property from last more than 12 years and other witnesses DW/2 Nathulal and DW/3 Raju Devi have also supported the same contention that Motya is in possession of the property from last couple of years but no specific date has been mentioned and no documentary evidence has been submitted to show that the respondents are in settled possession of the property and apart from it in Para 6 of the written statement, the respondents have not pleaded ownership by adverse possession but they came with a case that they are the owner of the property but admittedly no documentary evidence has been submitted to support his title. It has been stated that an agreement to sell has been entered between original owner Manmohan and the respondent but no document has been submitted, hence the respondents have utterly failed to show that they are the owners of the property and plea of adverse possession has not been taken by them and appellant has rightly relied upon Saroop Singh v. Banto & ors., (2005) 8 SCC 330 where it has been held that where plaintiff has proved his title, the onus to prove the acquisition by adverse possession is on the defendant and admittedly, in the present case, the respondent have not proved that they are the owner of the property by adverse possession. 8. Much has been said about Ex. 9, voter list and court below has held that it does not bear the signatures, hence could not be relied upon. Ex. 9 is voter list public document and does not require formal proof and reliance has been placed on Naladhar Mahapatra & Anr. v. Seva Dibya & ors., AIR 1991 Orissa 166 . Ex.9 is the document of 1979 in which the address of the respondent has been shown as Govind Nagar but not in the present plot. The other documents which have been submitted by the respondents are Ex. A/2 notice of Nayab Tehsildar and judgment of the same is also submitted but the highest case of the respondents could be that they are living in the property from 1976 and admittedly suit has been filed in 1984 hence no question of adverse possession arises in favour of the respondents and apart from it, when the respondents have not pleaded that they have acquired the ownership of the property by way of adverse possession, this plea was not available to the respondents. 9. As regards limitation, the appellant has relied upon Nirakar Das v. Gourhari Das & ors., AIR 1995 Orissa 270 wherein it has been held that the starting point for limitation would be on the date on which the permissive possession has become hostile. Here in the present case, pleading has been submitted by the respondents that they are in possession of the property as title holder. Here in the present case, pleading has been submitted by the respondents that they are in possession of the property as title holder. Apart from it, in the earlier judgment Ex.5 which has been passed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the highest finding of the court below was that respondents are in possession since 1976-77 and in that case also no claim for adverse possession is made out. Ration card and letter Ex. A/6 also cannot prove the ownership of the respondents, hence simplicitor possession over the property could not give any right, title or interest to the respondents in the property specially when appellant has clearly proved his title. The court below has erroneously held that the appellant is not entitled for decree for possession and in view of the above, findings of the court below are liable to be set aside.Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 5.4.91 passed by Additional District Judge No.7, Jaipur City in Civil Suit No. 35/88 is quashed and set aside. The suit is decreed for declaration and possession of the disputed property.Decree be drawn accordingly.Appeal allowed. *******