JUDGMENT : Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgment and Decree, dated 20.09.2018, passed in A.S.No.13 of 2017, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Devakottai, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 20.01.2017, passed in O.S.No.12 of 2010, on the file of District Munsif Court, Devakottai. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings in the Trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. The plaintiffs have laid the suit against the defendants for the reliefs of declaration and possession. The plaintiffs trace title to the suit property based on the sale deeds, dated 29.01.1951 and 04.09.1953, said to have been executed by Somanathan Chettiar and Soosaiammal in favour of the plaintiffs' father Periakaruppan Chettiar and it is stated that after the demise of the plaintiffs' father Periakaruppan Chettiar, his wife Kaveri Achi had inherited the possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the sisters of the plaintiffs had relinquished their rights over the suit property and it is also stated that one portion of the suit property had been acquired for the welfare of Adi Dravidars and accordingly, it is stated that the suit property has been in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and on the other hand, the plaintiffs on coming to know that the defendants 5 to 8, without any authority, had also included their names in the Patta as joint patta-holders in respect of the suit property and accordingly, thereby, attempted to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property, it is stated that they had been necessitated to lay the suit for the appropriate reliefs. 4. The defendants inter alia resisted the plaintiffs' suit firmly challenging the genuineness of the title deeds projected by the plaintiffs, namely, the sale deeds, dated 29.01.1951 and 04.09.1953, executed by Somanathan Chettiar and Soosaiammal in favour of the plaintiffs' father Periakaruppan Chettiar and contended that they have rights over the suit property and accordingly, their names had also been recorded as the joint patta-holders and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to obtain the reliefs as prayed for. 5. In support of the plaintiffs' case, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A15 were marked and on the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B15 were marked. In addition to that, Exs.C1 to C4 and Exs.X1 to X8 were marked. 6. 5. In support of the plaintiffs' case, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A15 were marked and on the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B15 were marked. In addition to that, Exs.C1 to C4 and Exs.X1 to X8 were marked. 6. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the Courts below were pleased to dismiss the plaintiffs' suit. Aggrieved over the same, the present second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs. 7. The plaintiffs claim title to the suit property based on the sale deeds, dated 29.01.1951 and 04.09.1953, marked as Exs.A1 and A3. It is stated that by way of the abovesaid sale deeds, Somanathan Chettiar and Soosaiammal had conveyed separate portions of the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs' father Periakaruppan Chettiar and after the demise of Periakaruppan Chettiar, his wife Kaveri Achi had inherited the title to the suit property. Further, it is stated that following the relinquishment of the interest over the suit property by the sisters of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs had acquired title to the suit property. The defendants have strongly challenged the truth and validity of the sale deeds marked as Exs.A1 and A3. The plaintiffs, having laid the suit for the relief of declaration based on Exs.A1 and A3 in particular, should establish the authenticity of the abovesaid documents. As determined by the Courts below, even as per the admission made by P.W.1 examined on behalf of the plaintiffs, it is found that the plaintiffs have not placed any material to show that Somanathan Chettiar and Soosaiammal had title to the suit property and in such view of the matter, merely because Exs.A1 and A3 had been executed by them, it could not be inferred that they had conveyed a valid title by way of the abovesaid transactions in favour of the plaintiffs' father. Furthermore, on a perusal of Exs.A1 and A3, they are found to be consisting of several items of properties and P.W.1 examined on behalf of the plaintiffs is unable to depose as to whether the suit property, in particular, forms part of the abovesaid sale transactions. Furthermore, on a perusal of Exs.A1 and A3, they are found to be consisting of several items of properties and P.W.1 examined on behalf of the plaintiffs is unable to depose as to whether the suit property, in particular, forms part of the abovesaid sale transactions. As could be seen from the evidence adduced by P.W.1, he does not know whether the suit property had been included in the abovesaid transactions and he is unaware of the survey numbers and boundaries of the suit property and in such view of the matter, when Exs.A1 and A3 do not describe the suit property with reference to the extent, survey number etc. as well as the boundaries in a clear manner, merely on the production of Exs.A1 and A3, we cannot conclude that the plaintiffs' father had acquired a valid title to the suit property from the abovesaid Somanathan Chettiar and Soosaiammal. In the light of the above position, when the plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish their title to the suit property, as rightly determined by the Courts below, the revenue records projected following Exs.A1 and A3 would not have any legal sanctity at all and as rightly determined by the Courts below, the mere marking of the revenue records, would not confer title on the plaintiffs as putforth by them. 8. In the light of the above position, as rightly determined by the Courts below, when the plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish their claim of title to the suit property as well as the exclusive possession of the same, the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to point out the weakness of the defence version. In such view of the matter, as rightly determined by the Courts below, the plaintiffs having failed to establish their title to the suit property and on the other hand, seem to have been prosecuting the matter only on the basis of the revenue documents, which cannot be treated as equivalent to the title deeds as such, accordingly, it is found that the Courts below, on a proper appreciation of the materials placed on record by the respective parties, both factually as well as legally, rightly determined that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish their title to the suit property as putforth and thereby, dismissed their suit. The First Appellate Court has also rightly not entertained the attempt of the plaintiffs to place additional documents in support of their case, without any basis and accordingly, it is found that, in all, no interference is called for in the Judgments and Decrees of the Courts below in dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. No substantial question of law is found to be involved in this second appeal. 9. Resultantly, the second appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.