decision of this court passed in Second Appeal No.220 of 2015 dated 17.09.2018 (Panneer v. Anjalai & others). In the light of the above position, when there is no other material placed by the plaintiff evidencing his claim of title to the suit property and when the patta document cannot be construed as a document of title as such and even assuming for the sake of arguments that the suit property being the village natham, the Government may also not have the authority to issue the patta and on the other hand, when there is no other material evidencing the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff or his ancestors and as above discussed, the other documents projected by the plaintiff do not serve the case of the plaintiff and the only document relied upon by the plaintiff, being the thoraya patta marked as Ex.A1, and when the thoraya patta cannot be the basis for upholding the plaintiff's claim of title to the suit property and when the plaintiff has failed to establish as to whether he had been granted the regular patta following Ex.A1 thoraya patta, in such view of the matter, the plaintiff's claim of title to the suit property falls to the ground. Equally, the documents Exs.X1 to X3 also would not, in any manner, serve the case of the plaintiff. Exs.X1 to X3 would only go to depict the issuance of thoraya patta in favour of the plaintiff as marked under Ex.A1. When there is no material placed that a regular patta had been issued in favour of the plaintiff upholding his claim of title to the suit property as described in the plaint, the courts below are found to have erred in upholding the plaintiff's claim of title to the suit property based on the thoraya patta.
