that absolutely there is no material worth acceptance placed by the plaintiff to show that he has a valid title to the suit property. That apart, Exs.A1 to A3 being revenue documents and also not standing in the name of the plaintiff as such to evidence that he has exclusive title to the same and when the so called family arrangement projected by the plaintiff has not been established by the plaintiff as above discussed, it is found that Exs.A1 to A3 would not in any manner serve any purpose to sustain his claim of title to the suit property. The suit property is described as Nilavial Kallankuthu and therefore, as rightly determined by the trial Court, the suit property is found to be not fit for cultivation. It is not the case of the plaintiff himself that he has engaged the suit property for any agricultural operation. That being the position, it is found that the kist receipts marked by the plaintiff as Exs.A8 and A9 would not in any manner advance the case of the plaintiff that he has been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. More than that, the kist receipts cannot be construed as the documents of title and therefore, the abovesaid documents would be of no purpose to uphold the plaintiff's case. That apart, when the patta in respect of the land for which the alleged kist has been paid has not been shown to be allotted to the plaintiff as such by the Government, it is found that on the basis of Exs.A8 and A9 kist receipts, we cannot uphold the plaintiff's case. Thus, it is found that none of the documents projected by the plaintiff serves his claim of title to the suit property and further, when the plaintiff claims that he has built the superstructure put up in the suit property and let out the same to the defendant, atleast there must be some material to hold that it is only the plaintiff who had put up the superstructure by way of tax receipts etc. However, there is no material placed by the plaintiff to evidence that he had put up the thatched house located in the suit property, by producing the tax receipts etc., in respect of the abovesaid superstructure. Similarly, there is no material to hold that it is only the plaintiff, who had let out to the defendant to occupy the suit property as claimed by him.
