JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, J. 1. Present RSA is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against consolidated judgment and decree dated 7.11.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge Shimla in Civil Appeal No. 15-S/13 of 2008/2007 title Prem Lal Bhambra Vs. Smt. Shakuntla Devi and others and civil appeal No. 58-S/13 of 2007 title Smt. Shakuntla Devi and others Vs. Sh Prem Lal whereby learned 1st Appellate Court partly allowed appeal No. 15-S/13 of 2008/2007 and dismissed appeal No. 58-S/13 of 2007. During pendency of RSA No. 160 of 2009 Smt. Shakuntla died and her name deleted from memo of parties vide interim order dated 21.12.2009 passed by HP High Court. Brief facts of the case: 2. Sh. Prem Lal Bhambra plaintiff filed civil suit for decree of Rs.15200/- (Fifteen thousand two hundred) being mesne profit @ 800/- per month and also Rs.550/- (Five hundred fifty) being cost of notice dated 14.12.2001. Plaintiff also sought additional relief of interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 24.9.2000 from the date of filing of suit till realization. Plaintiff also sought additional relief for possession of suit property. It is pleaded that plaintiff has purchased suit property from Sh Ram Dutt on dated 6.7.2000 by way of registered sale deed Ext PW1/C in consideration amount of Rs.55000/- (Fifty five thousand) and acquired title in suit property. It is further pleaded that predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff namely Sh Ram Dutt was exclusive owner of suit property. It is further pleaded that on 24.9.2000 defendants illegally opened lock of suit property and criminal complaint was also filed in police station vide FIR No. 218 of 2000. Prayer for decree as mentioned in relief clause of plaint sought. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of defendants pleaded therein that plaintiff has no locus standi to file present suit and suit is bad for non-joiner of necessary parties. It is further pleaded that suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction and plaintiff is estopped to file suit on account of his own acts, conduct, deeds, lapses, admissions and omissions. It is further pleaded that suit filed on the basis of wrong revenue entries. It is further pleaded that Ram Dutt had no right and interest in suit property. It is further pleaded that entries in revenue record in favour of Ram Dutt are illegal. It is further pleaded that suit filed on the basis of wrong revenue entries. It is further pleaded that Ram Dutt had no right and interest in suit property. It is further pleaded that entries in revenue record in favour of Ram Dutt are illegal. It is further pleaded that plaintiff had no right, title and interest in suit property. It is further pleaded that suit property was previously in exclusive ownership and possession of late Sh Prem Dutt predecessor-in-interest of defendants and after his death suit property is in ownership and possession of defendants. It is further pleaded that plaintiff did not remain in possession of suit property at any point of time. It is further pleaded that codefendant No. 1 Smt. Shakuntla Devi reconstructed the building in the year 1980-81 and electricity connection was also granted. It is further pleaded that defendants also inducted tenants in the premises. It is further pleaded that plaintiff did not acquire any right, title and interest in suit property. It is further pleaded that sale deed on behalf of Ram Dutt in favour of plaintiff is illegal and void. It is further pleaded that Ram Dutt had no saleable interest in suit property. It is further pleaded that defendants are in physical possession of suit property. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought. Plaintiff filed replication and reasserted allegations mentioned in plaint. 4. As per pleadings of parties learned Trial Court framed following issues on dated 16.11.2005. 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of amount of Rs.15200/- on account of mesne profit as alleged? …OPP. 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from 24.9.2000 till the date of filing of suit and further interest from the date of suit till the date of recovery as alleged? ....OPP 3. Whether plaintiff is lawful owner of suit property as alleged? …OPP. 4. Whether defendants are in unlawful possession of suit property as alleged? …OPP 5. Whether suit in the present form is not maintainable as alleged? …OPD. 6. Whether plaintiff is estopped to file suit on account of his own acts, deeds, conduct, lapses and admissions as alleged? …OPD. 7. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file suit as alleged? ….OPD 8. Whether suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties as alleged? ...OPD. 9. Whether suit is not properly valued for purpose of court fee as alleged? Whether plaintiff is estopped to file suit on account of his own acts, deeds, conduct, lapses and admissions as alleged? …OPD. 7. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file suit as alleged? ….OPD 8. Whether suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties as alleged? ...OPD. 9. Whether suit is not properly valued for purpose of court fee as alleged? ....OPD 10. Relief. 5. Learned Trial Court decided issues No. 1 to 4 in affirmative and learned Trial Court decided issues No. 5 to 9 in negative. Learned Trial Court passed decree of possession in favour of plaintiff qua suit property and learned Trial Court also passed decree for recovery of Rs. 15200/- (Fifteen thousand two hundred) in favour of plaintiff and against defendants with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 24.9.2000 till date of filing of suit and future interest at the rate of Rs.6% per annum from date of filing suit till realization. 6. Feeling aggrieved against judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court two appeals filed i.e. Civil Appeal No. 15-S/13 of 2008/2007 title Prem Lal Bhambra Vs. Smt. Shakuntala Devi and others and Civil Appeal No. 58- S/13 of 2007 title Smt. Shakuntla Devi and others Vs. Prem Lal Bhambra. Learned 1st Appellate Court disposed of both appeals simultaneously vide same judgment. Learned 1st Appellate Court dismissed appeal filed by Smt. Shakuntla Devi and others and partly allowed appeal filed by Prem Lal Bhambra. Learned first Appellate Court decreed the suit of plaintiff for recovery of Rs.51200/- (Fifty one thousand two hundred) with direction to pay court fee within period of fortnight from the date of relief. Learned first Appellate Court further directed that if plaintiff would not pay court fee within fortnight then decree for recovery of Rs.51200/- (Fifty one thousand two hundred) would be deemed to be declined. 7. Feeling aggrieved against judgment passed by learned first Appellate Court Smt. Shakuntla and others filed present RSA. Following substantial questions of law framed by Hon’ble High Court of HP on dated 5.5.2010 in RSA No. 160 of 2009. 1. Whether Civil Suit No. 93 of 1999 title Ram Dutt Vs. 7. Feeling aggrieved against judgment passed by learned first Appellate Court Smt. Shakuntla and others filed present RSA. Following substantial questions of law framed by Hon’ble High Court of HP on dated 5.5.2010 in RSA No. 160 of 2009. 1. Whether Civil Suit No. 93 of 1999 title Ram Dutt Vs. Shakuntla and others for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative for the decree of mandatory injunction to restore possession in question having been dismissed on 14.12.2000 on account of non prosecution of suit and as per material on record application filed for restoration on behalf of Ram Dutt on 21.2.2001 also dismissed therefore present suit for recovery of possession and recovery of mesne profits is not maintainable? 2. Whether earlier suit No. 93 of 1999 having been dismissed for want of prosecution therefore subsequent suit with respect to same property and between the same parties bearing No. 48/1 of 2002 was not maintainable? 3. Whether respondent did not acquire any title in suit property on the basis of revenue entries in the absence of source of title of seller? 8. Court heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of parties and also perused entire record carefully. 9. Findings upon point No. 1 of substantial question of law with reasons. 10. Oral evidence adduced by parties. 10.1. PW1 Prem Lal has stated that he has purchased suit property on dated 6.7.2000 by way of registered sale deed. He has stated that two stories building is situated over suit property and shed is also situated over suit property. He has stated that mutation was also sanctioned qua suit property in his favour. He has stated that possession of building and shed was also handed over to him in the presence of defendants qua suit property after execution of sale deed. He has stated that defendants did not object when possession of suit property was delivered to him by vendor after execution of sale deed. He has stated that on dated 24.9.2000 defendants opened lock of suit property and forcibly entered into rooms of building. He has stated that thereafter FIR was lodged in police station Boileauganj. He has stated that defendants told before police officials that they would compromise the matter. He has stated that defendants did not compromise the matter. He has stated that thereafter he has given notice to defendants. He has stated that thereafter FIR was lodged in police station Boileauganj. He has stated that defendants told before police officials that they would compromise the matter. He has stated that defendants did not compromise the matter. He has stated that thereafter he has given notice to defendants. He has stated that possession of suit property be delivered to him along with mesne profit. He has stated that copy of jamabandi is Ext PW1/A and Ext PW1/B and copy of sale deed is Ext PW1/C. He has denied suggestion that Smt. Shakuntla Devi reconstructed building over suit property. He has denied suggestion that defendants are in settled possession of suit property since 1981. He has denied suggestion that defendants have inducted tenants in suit property. He has denied suggestion that vendor Ram Dutt did not remain in possession of suit property. He has denied suggestion that electricity meter installed by defendants is situated in building. He has denied suggestion that plaintiff has no legal right to file present suit. 10.2. PW2 Harminder Singh has stated that he retired on 31.3.2006 from accountant general office as senior audit officer. He has stated that plaintiff Prem Lal purchased suit property from Ram Dutt by way of registered sale deed. He has stated that possession of building and land was given to plaintiff by vendor. He has stated that plaintiff Prem Lal locked building in the presence of defendants. He has stated that defendants congratulated plaintiff. He has stated that on 24.9.2000 plaintiff told by way of telephone to him that Smt. Shakuntla Devi and others have illegally took possession of building and locked the building. He has denied suggestion that he deposed false in Court at the instance of plaintiff. 10.3. PW3 Shyam Lal Sharma has stated that Ram Dutt was his father-in-law. He has stated that he was general attorney of his father-in-law. He has stated that he alienated suit property vide sale deed Ext PW1/C in consideration amount of Rs.55000/- (Fifty five thousand). He has stated that suit property was in possession of Ram Dutt. He has stated that sale deed Ext PW1/C was executed on dated 6.7.2000. He has stated that after sale deed possession of suit property was given to plaintiff and plaintiff locked the suit property. He has stated that thereafter defendants illegally entered into suit property and matter was also reported in police station. He has stated that sale deed Ext PW1/C was executed on dated 6.7.2000. He has stated that after sale deed possession of suit property was given to plaintiff and plaintiff locked the suit property. He has stated that thereafter defendants illegally entered into suit property and matter was also reported in police station. He has stated that defendants told before police officials that they would compromise the matter. He has stated that mutation was also sanctioned in favour of plaintiff relating to suit property. He has admitted that Ram Dutt and Prem Dutt were real brothers. He has denied suggestion that Prem Dutt was in settled possession of suit property. He has denied suggestion that after death of Pam Dutt defendants came in settled possession of suit property. He has denied suggestion that Ram Dutt vendor has no legal right to alienate suit property in favour of plaintiff. 10.4. DW1 Harish Kumar has stated that defendants are known to him. He has stated that defendants have inducted tenants in suit property. He has stated that defendants are in settled possession of suit property. He has stated that plaintiff did not remain in possession of suit property. He has denied suggestion that he is deposing in favour of defendants in order to acquire votes. He has denied suggestion that suit property remained in settled possession of plaintiff. 10.5. DW2 Shishu Pal has stated that he is residing in the residence of Smt. Shakuntla Devi. He has stated that building is two storeys building. He has stated that he is tenant and paying rent to the tune of Rs.50/- per month. He has stated that he is tenant for the last 24/25 years. He has stated that earlier his father was tenant and after his death he is residing as tenant in the suit property. He has stated that plaintiff Prem Lal is not known to him. He has stated that plaintiff did not meet him. He has stated that plaintiff did not demand rent from him. He has stated that disputed property remained in settled possession of Smt. Shakuntla Devi. He has stated that he is posted as Clerk in directorate of education. He has stated that his father was also posted in education department. He has stated that his father died in the month of January 1996. He has stated that Ram Dutt is not known to him. He has stated that he is posted as Clerk in directorate of education. He has stated that his father was also posted in education department. He has stated that his father died in the month of January 1996. He has stated that Ram Dutt is not known to him. He has denied suggestion that Ram Dutt was in possession of suit property. He has denied suggestion that after death of Ram Dutt plaintiff remained in settled possession of suit property. He has denied suggestion that he did not remain as tenant in suit property. 10.6. DW3 Joginder junior assistant record room Shimla has stated that be has brought summoned record. He has stated that document Ext DW3/A is correct as per original record. He has stated that civil suit No. 93/1 of 1999 title Sh. Ram Dutt Vs Smt. Shakuntla Devi was decided on 14.12.2000. He has stated that Sh Ram Dutt filed suit against Smt. Shakuntla, Khem Chand and Ashok Kumar. He has stated that copy Ext PW3/B is correct as per original record. 10.7. DW4 Piaray Lal has stated that he is tenant and residing in Shakuntla Niwas. He has stated that building is comprised of two stories and he is residing in upper storey of the building. He has stated that he is paying rent to the tune of Rs.50/- per month. He has stated that he is tenant for the last 18/19 years. He has stated that defendants are owners of the building. He has stated that plaintiff is not known to him. He has stated that plaintiff did not demand rent from him. He has stated that he is not familiar with plaintiff. He has stated that he is mason by profession. He has stated that he does not know that quarrel took place between plaintiff and defendants. He has denied suggestion that he deposed false in Court at the instance of defendants. 10.8. DW5 Khem Chand has stated that two stories building is situated over suit property. He has stated that tenants have been inducted in the building. He has stated that he produced documents Ext DW5/A and Ext DW5/B. He has stated that electricity meter also installed in favour of his mother. He has stated that plaintiff tried to cut electricity connection. He has stated that defendants are in settled possession of suit property. He has stated that tenants have been inducted in the building. He has stated that he produced documents Ext DW5/A and Ext DW5/B. He has stated that electricity meter also installed in favour of his mother. He has stated that plaintiff tried to cut electricity connection. He has stated that defendants are in settled possession of suit property. He has stated that plaintiff did not remain in possession of suit property. He has stated that suit property is joint and no partition took place. He has stated that revenue entries relating to ownership are wrong. He has stated that defendants did not open lock forcibly at any point of time. He has stated that his father was in government service in HP Secretariat. He has stated that his father died in the year 1980. He has denied suggestion that four biswas of land was allotted to his father and eighteen biswas of land was allotted to Sh Ram Dutt in revenue records. He has stated that he is also posted in HP secretariat. He has admitted that sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff was not challenged in any civil court of law. He has admitted that FIR was filed by plaintiff. He has denied suggestion that defendants forcibly opened the locks of suit property and inducted tenants in illegal manner. He has denied suggestion that defendants have illegally occupied suit property. He has denied suggestion that defendants are legally liable to pay use and occupation charges qua suit property. 11. Following documentaries evidence adduced by parties. (1) Ext PW1/A copy of jamabandi for the year 2002-2003 qua suit property wherein Prem Lal son of Sh Gopal Dass plaintiff has been shown as owner of suit property qua khasra No. 1089 and 1095. In possession column possession of tenants recorded qua suit property and annual rent recorded Rs.2800/-. (2) Ext PW1/B is the copy of jamabandi for the year 1997-98 qua suit property wherein in the ownership column name of Ram Dutt son of Sh Goverdhan has been recorded qua suit property and in possession column possession of tenants recorded and annual rent recorded as Rs.2800/-. In remarks column there is entry that suit property has been sold to plaintiff and mutation No. 347 has been attested on 10.7.2000 in favour of plaintiff qua suit property. In remarks column there is entry that suit property has been sold to plaintiff and mutation No. 347 has been attested on 10.7.2000 in favour of plaintiff qua suit property. (3) Ext PW1/C is the registered sale deed dated 6.7.2000 wherein suit property alienated in consideration amount of Rs.55000/- (Fifty five thousand) by Sh Ram Dutt through general attorney Sh Shyam Lal in favour of plaintiff. (4) Ext PW1/E is reply of notice dated 20.12.2001 given by defendants. (5) Ext DX is copy of judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 107-1 of 2000 decided on 19.4.2006 title Prem Lal Vs. Shakuntla Devi and others. (6) Ext.DX1 is the statement of Prem Lal in criminal case. (7) Ext DX2 is the report of field kanungo. (8) Ext DW3/A is copy of judgment announced in Criminal Case No. 76/2 of 2001 title State of HP Vs. Ashok Kumar and others. (9) Ext DW3/B is the copy of order dated 14.12.2007 passed in civil suit titled Ram Dutt Vs. Smt. Shakuntla Devi wherein civil suit was dismissed on 14.12.2007 for non prosecution. (10) Ext DW5/A is the copy of judgment announced in Criminal Case No. 44/2 of 2004 title State Vs. Smt. Shakuntla and others. (11) Ext DW5/B is copy of order announced in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 74-S/74 of 2000, title Prem Lal Vs. Smt. Shakuntla Devi and others. (12) Ext DW5/C is bill issued by electricity department in favour of Smt. Shakuntla Devi. (13) Ext DW5/D is legal notice given by Smt. Shakuntla Devi to executive engineer HPSEB. (14) Ext DW5/E is postal receipt. (15) Ext DW5/F is registered notice given by Smt. Shakuntla to executive engineer. (16) Mark X is the copy of judgment announced in criminal case No. 76/2 of 2001 title State of HP Vs. Ashok Kumar and others. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that Civil Suit No. 93 of 1999 title Ram Dutt Vs. Shakuntla Devi and others were dismissed on 14.12.2000 on account of non prosecution and present suit by subsequent vendee namely Prem Lal for possession and recovery of mesne profit is not maintainable is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that plaintiff Prem Lal was not party in Civil Suit No. 93 of 1999 title Ram Dutt Vs. Shakuntla Devi. It is proved on record that plaintiff Prem Lal was not party in Civil Suit No. 93 of 1999 title Ram Dutt Vs. Shakuntla Devi. It is held that order passed in civil suit No. 93 of 1999 dated 14.12.2000 is order in personam and not order in rem. It is well settled law that subsequent suit on basis of subsequent different cause of action and different title can be filed. It is held that cause of action and title in civil suit No. 93 of 1999 and cause of action and title in civil suit No. 48-1 of 2002 are distinct. Hence concept of resjudicata will not apply. See AIR 1993 SC 1756 title Inacio Martins Vs. Narayan Hari Naik and others. Point No. 1 of substantial question of law is decided against appellants. Findings upon point No. 2 of substantial question of law with reasons. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that earlier suit No. 93 of 1999 was dismissed for want of prosecution and subsequent suit with respect to same property bearing No. 48/1 of 2002 is not maintainable is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that in earlier suit No. 93 of 1999 Sh Prem Lal was not party. It is held that earlier civil suit No. 93 of 1999 was not decided on merits. It is held that present civil suit No. 48/1 of 2002 is filed on the basis of separate cause of action. It is held that in order to attract the provision of section 11 CPC the following ingredients should be established. (1) Decision should be based upon merits. (2) Party should be same (3) Cause of action should be same. It is held that in former suit and in present suit parties are different and cause of action is also distinct. Hence it is held that civil suit No. 48/1 of 2002 is maintainable. Principle of resjudicata is based upon finality to judicial decision. It is based upon concept that once res is judicata it would not be adjudged again. Primarily it applies when there are prior litigation and present litigation relating to same cause of action and title. See AIR 1976 SC 1645 title Lonankutty Vs. Thomman and another. See AIR 1960 SC 941 title Satyadhyan Ghosal Vs. Deorajin Debi and another. It is based upon concept that once res is judicata it would not be adjudged again. Primarily it applies when there are prior litigation and present litigation relating to same cause of action and title. See AIR 1976 SC 1645 title Lonankutty Vs. Thomman and another. See AIR 1960 SC 941 title Satyadhyan Ghosal Vs. Deorajin Debi and another. Hence substantial question of law No. 2 is decided against appellants. Findings upon point No. 3 of substantial question of law with reasons. 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that Ram Dutt did not acquire any title in suit property on the basis of revenue entries and he was not legally entitled to alienate suit property in favour of plaintiff and on this ground appeal be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused copy of jamabandi Ext PW1/A for the year 2002-2003 and copy of jamabandi Ext PW1/B for the year 1997-98 placed on record. As per jamabandi Ext PW1/A Prem Lal plaintiff has been recorded in ownership column of suit property and in possession column possession of tenants have been recorded. Court has also carefully perused jamabandi Ext PW1/B for the year 1997-98 placed on record relating to suit property. In ownership column name of Ram Dutt son of Goverdhan has been recorded and in possession column there is entry relating to tenants. In the remarks column it has been specifically recorded that vide mutation No. 347 dated 10.7.2000 the suit property has been alienated in favour of plaintiff Prem Lal. The name of appellants did not figure in ownership column as well as in possession column of revenue entry prepared by public servants in discharge of their official duties. Jamabandi Ext PW1/A and Ext PW1/B have been prepared by public servants in discharge of their official duties and are relevant fact under section 35 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. Defendants did not examine any revenue officials in order to rebut revenue entry Ext PW1/A and Ext PW1/B placed on record. It was held in case reported in AIR 2011 SC 1691 titled Murugam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu that public document can be safely relied when public documents are admissible under Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. Defendants did not examine any revenue officials in order to rebut revenue entry Ext PW1/A and Ext PW1/B placed on record. It was held in case reported in AIR 2011 SC 1691 titled Murugam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu that public document can be safely relied when public documents are admissible under Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. Appellants did not examine any revenue officials who have prepared aforesaid documents in discharge of their public official duties in order to rebut the revenue entries. Hence it is held that revenue entries recorded in jamabandi Ext PW1/A for the year 2002-2003 and jamabandi Ext PW1/B for the year 1997-98 qua suit property prepared by revenue official are relevant fact. It is held that appellants did not rebut relevant fact by way of examination of revenue officials who have prepared revenue entries. Even defendants did not file any suit for declaration that revenue entries are contrary to factual position as required under section 46 of HP Land Revenue Act 1954. Even defendants did not file any civil suit for declaration under Specific Relief Act 1963 that sale deed Ext PW1/C dated 6.7.2000 in favour of plaintiff qua suit property is null and void. Even co-defendant Khem Chand has admitted when he appeared in witness box that sale deed dated 6.7.2000 executed in favour of plaintiff qua suit property was not challenged by defendants by way of declaratory suit in civil court. It is well settled law that fact admitted need not to be proved as per section 58 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. Defendants did not prove their title in suit property in accordance with law. It is held that plaintiff is legally entitle for relief of possession and mesne profit upon suit property on the basis of title i.e. sale deed dated 6.7.2000 Ext PW1/C placed on record. 15. Sale deed Ext PW1/C is proved as per testimonies of PW3 Shyam Lal who has executed sale deed as general attorney qua suit property in favour of plaintiff. Sale deed Ext PW1/C is registered under section 57 of Registration Act 1908 and same is admissible under section 57 (5) of Registration Act 1908. 16. Even executor of sale deed Ext PW1/C did not deny execution of sale deed but admit execution of sale deed Ext PW1/C when he appeared in witness box in civil suit No. 48-1 of 2002. 16. Even executor of sale deed Ext PW1/C did not deny execution of sale deed but admit execution of sale deed Ext PW1/C when he appeared in witness box in civil suit No. 48-1 of 2002. It is held that sale deed Ext PW1/C is proved under section 68 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. It is well settled law that title passes in immovable property when sale deed is registered under Registration Act 1908. See AIR 1961 SC 1747 title Ram Saran Lall and others Vs. Domini Kuer and others. 17. Oral testimonies of DW1 to DW5 did not prove title of defendants over suit property. Oral testimonies of DW1 to DW5 simply proved possession of defendants over suit property. Even documents filed by defendants did not prove title of defendants over suit property. Documents filed by defendants simply proved possession of defendants over suit property. Electricity bill is not sufficient to prove title in immovable property. Electricity bill simply proved possession in immovable property. Judgments of criminal courts placed on record are also not helpful to defendants to prove civil title in suit property. It is well settled law that criminal courts cannot decide civil rights of parties. Even judgment and decree passed by learned civil Judge (Senior division) Court No. II Shimla in Civil Suit No. 107-1 of 2000 title Prem Lal Vs. Shakuntla Devi are also not helpful to defendants because cause of action and title of civil suit No. 107-1 of 2000 and civil suit No. 48/1 of 2002 are distinct. It is well settled law that suit for possession and mesne profit can be filed on the basis of title. It is held that judgment and decree passed by learned 1st Appellate Court are based upon oral and documentaries evidence placed on record. It is held that defendants did not prove their title over suit property in accordance with law. Plea of defendants that they are owner of suit property is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). In view above stated facts it is held that judgment and decree passed by learned first Appellate Court are not perverse. It is held that judgment and decree passed by learned first Appellate Court are based upon proved oral as well as documentaries evidence. Point No. 3 of substantial quest b ion of law is decided against appellants. Relief. 18. In view above stated facts it is held that judgment and decree passed by learned first Appellate Court are not perverse. It is held that judgment and decree passed by learned first Appellate Court are based upon proved oral as well as documentaries evidence. Point No. 3 of substantial quest b ion of law is decided against appellants. Relief. 18. In view of above findings RSA is dismissed. Copy of jamabandi Ext PW1/A for the year 2002-2003 relating to suit property, copy of jamabandi Ext PW1/B for the year 1997-98 relating to suit property and copy of sale deed Ext PW1/C dated 6.7.2000 relating to suit property will form part and parcel of decree. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Learned Registrar Judicial will prepare decree sheet as required under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in accordance with law forthwith. File of learned Trial Court and file of learned 1st Appellate Court be sent back forthwith along with certify copy of judgment and decree sheet. RSA No. 160 of 2009 is disposed of. Pending applications if any also disposed of.