12.2 It is true that the plaintiff has not produced any title document. According to him, the suit property is his ancestral property and his right to the property is through his continuous enjoyment only. It is true that whenever a cloud is cast on the title, the plaintiff should file a suit for declaration and not for bare injunction. But the person who sets up a counter claim on the suit property ought to have produced prima facie evidence to show that there is a likelihood of title in his favour. Only in such case, it can be considered that a cloud is cast on the title of the plaintiff and hence he has to file a suit for declaration. But in the case in hand, the appellant/6th defendant who claimed right over an undivided 15 1/3 cents by way of inheritance from his mother has stated that his mother derived title from her father. According to him, his great grand-father was the original owner of the entire suit property. But to substantiate such a claim, the 6th defendant has not produced any title document or any other document to show that the suit property was owned and it was in the enjoyment of his ancestors. In fact, on the objections made by the deceased first defendant/plaintiff, his name was deleted from Chitta through the proceedings dated 12.12.1997 and 6th defendant did not challenge the same. Excepting 6th defendant, the rest of the defendants did not challenge the judgement of the Lower Courts. Since the appellant/6th defendant himself has not produced any prima facie document to substantiate his claim over the suit property, he can be viewed only as a stranger only.
