JUDGMENT : Prakash Shrivastava, J. 1. By this second appeal, under section 100 of the CPC, the defendant no.1 has challenged the reversal judgment of the First Appellate Court. 2. The trial Court by the judgment dated 21.12.2009 had dismissed the Civil Suit No.3-A/2007 filed by the respondent No.1 to 5 (plaintiffs) seeking the decree of declaration of title and mensne profit and the First Appellate Court by the judgment dated 14.12.2010 by allowing the Appeal has reversed the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit. 3. The respondents no.1 to 5 had filed the suit with the plea that the suit house No.151 in Ward No.8 was in two parts and Raghunath was the owner of Chasma 1% changed number Ward No.9 building no.219 area 71X11 feet. Raghunath had died on 23.9.1994 and the respondents no.1 to 5 had continued in possession of the suit house as owner thereof being the legal heirs of Raghunath. The respondents no.1 to 5 had gone out of the village for earning their livelihood and the house was also damaged, taking advantage of it, the appellant had taken possession of it about 11/2 years prior to filing of the suit and when the respondents no.1 to 5 inquired from the Municipality they came to know that the appellant had got the house mutated in his name. Hence, after serving of notice the respondents no.1 to 5 had filed the suit for declaration of title, possession and mesne profit. 4. The appellant by filing the written statement took the plea that the suit house originally belonged to Fatya S/o Nandiya and that Fatya was the brother of grandmother of the appellant and maternal uncle of Panji i.e. father of the appellant. It was further pleaded that Panji and Raghunath i.e. father of the respondents no.2 to 5 were real brothers to whom half-half portion of the house was given by Fatya about 50 years back. After the death of Panji about 30 years back, his wife Tejalbai had continued in possession of the suit house and thereafter the appellant had come in possession. It is further pleaded that half portion of the house received by Raghunath was sold by him to Chagan S/o Baliya and therefore the respondents no. 1 to 5 have no right on the suit house. 5. It is further pleaded that half portion of the house received by Raghunath was sold by him to Chagan S/o Baliya and therefore the respondents no. 1 to 5 have no right on the suit house. 5. The trial Court after permitting the parties to lead evidence and appreciating the same found that the respondents no.1 to 5 could not prove that they are the owners of the suit house. They also could not prove that the mutation of the suit house was done by the respondent no.6 in favour of the appellant without following the due process of law. The right to claim the decree of possession also could not be proved by the respondents no. 1 to 5, hence, the suit was dismissed. 6. The first appellate Court by the judgment under appeal while reversing the judgment of the trial Court has decreed the suit by holding the respondents no. 1 to 5 to be the owners of the suit house and further holding that they are entitled to receive possession of the suit house from the appellant and also awarding mensne profit @ of Rs. 500/- per month from the date of judgment in appeal. 7. This Court by order dated 3.4.2013 had admitted the appeal on following substantial question of law. "(i)Whether, learned First Appellate Court erred in substantial error of law in decreeing the suit of plaintiff-respondent no.1 which is based upon title when no document of title is on record and is proved? (ii) When Ranchod and Panji were real brothers, whether it can be said that suit house is in exclusive ownership of plaintiff's father Raghunath when the case of defendant appellant is that the suit property is ancestral? (iii) Whether, merely on the basis of entry of the name of plaintiff in the Municipal record the title would confer on plaintiff's father? (iv) When document of title is not on record and it is not proved that Raghunath was sole owner of the suit property, whether suit for injunction could be decreed specifically when the defendant is claiming to be the co-owner?" 8. These question of law are being answered as under:- So far as the first and third questions of law are concerned a perusal of the plaint reveals that the respondents no.1 to 5 had prayed for a decree of title and on that basis the possession was claimed. These question of law are being answered as under:- So far as the first and third questions of law are concerned a perusal of the plaint reveals that the respondents no.1 to 5 had prayed for a decree of title and on that basis the possession was claimed. The record reflects that no title document either in favour of Raghunath or in their own favour has been filed by the respondents no.1 to 5. Trial Court which had the advantage judging the demeanour of the witnesses has duly appreciated the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record while dismissing the suit. The Trial Court has found that the respondents no.1 to 5 did not file any title document. Though they took the plea that they had deposited the Municipal Tax and the Electricity connection was also in the name of Raghunath but they did not produce any documentary evidence to support the same. 9. The trial Court has taken note of admission of the plaintiff's witness Rakesh that Panchi and Raghunath were real brothers and the suit house was in two parts and in the back portion the appellant was residing. After appreciating the evidence the trial Court found that the appellant was also residing in the suit house. The evidence of the plaintiff's witness Dayaram was disbelieved. The trial Court had also duly considered Exhibit P-1 and Exhibit P-2, the receipts relating to payment of safaikar and rightly found that such receipts are not title documents. Since neither respondents no.1 to 5 nor the appellant could prove their title, therefore, the suit was dismissed. 10. The first Appellate Court while reversing the judgment of the trial Court has not taken into account the detailed reasons which were assigned by the Trial Court nor did it refer to any relevant document on the basis of which respondents no.1 to 5 can be held to be entitled to the suit house. The first Appellate Court without appreciating that the onus was on the respondents no.1 to 5, being plaintiffs, to establish the plea taken in the plaint and without considering that the said onus was not discharged by respondents no. 1 to 5 by producing any document of title of the suit property, erroneously proceeded to hold them to be the title holder. 1 to 5 by producing any document of title of the suit property, erroneously proceeded to hold them to be the title holder. The first appellate Court also failed to appreciate the settled legal position that mutation does not confer title. Hence, finding of first appellate Court that respondents no. 1 to 5 are title holders of the suit land cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. Hence, the question no.1 and 3 are decided in favour of the appellant. 11. So far as the question no.2 is concerned undisputedly Raghunath and Panji are the real brothers. There is no evidence that suit house was purchased by Raghunath or it was his exclusive property. Therefore, on account of the failure of the respondents no.1 to 5 to produce any cogent material or clear documentary evidence, their plea in relation to declaration of exclusive title could not have been accepted by the Court below. Hence, question no.2 is answered in favour of the appellant. 12. So far as question no.4 is concerned since the suit filed by the respondents no.1 to 5 is not a suit for injunction but a suit for declaration possession and cancellation of mutation in the name of the appellant; therefore, this question relating to grant of injunction appears to have been wrongly formulated which does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. In view of the above the appeal is allowed, judgment of the First Appellate Court is set aside and judgment of trial Court is restored.