clearly admitted that it is only the first defendant, who is in the possession and enjoyment of the superstructure right from 1968 onwards. The above being the evidence of P.W.1, it is thus noted that other than marking of Ex.A1 sale deed, the plaintiff' has not established as to how his parents had acquired a valid title to the suit property. When according to the plaintiff, he has the parent title deed with him, nothing prevented the plaintiff from causing the production of the same to establish his valid claim of title to the suit property from his parents as averred in the plaint. No reason has been assigned by the plaintiff for not producing the parent title deed. When according to the plaintiff, it is only the defendant who had been occupying the superstructure available in the suit property right from 1968 onwards and when the plaintiff is unable to come out with the clear case as to whether the superstructure available in the suit property had been put up by his parents and when there is no document worth acceptance on the part of the plaintiff that his parents had at any point of time occupied the suit property and enjoyed the same as the owners there of, prior to Ex.A1 sale deed and when the plaintiff pleads total ignorance as to when the superstructure was put up in the suit property and when it got dilapidated etc., in such view of the matter, the case of the plaintiff that he has acquired a valid title to the suit property by virtue of Ex.A1 sale deed cannot at all be believed and accepted in any manner. Therefore, the plaintiff having failed to establish his claim of title to the suit property in accordance with law, on that basis alone, in my considered opinion, the plaintiff has to be non-suited. 14. The plaintiff would claim that he had been enjoying the suit property by paying tax receipts etc., to the Panchayath. The tax receipts projected by the plaintiff have been marked as Ex.A2 series. Considering the evidence of P.W.1, the plaintiff during the course of cross examination, when he has clearly admitted that most of the tax receipts in Ex.A2 series do not contain the door number and does not point out that the same relate to the suit property and when he is unable to explain for what purpose the tax mentioned in Ex.2 series had been collected, all put together, as rightly contended by the defendant's counsel, no safe reliance could be based/placed on Ex.A2 tax receipts, to conclude that the plaintiff is having a valid title to the suit property and been in the possession and enjoyment of the same as claimed by him. The plaintiff has marked the encumbrance certificates as Ex.A5, A12 and A13. When the plaintiff has clearly admitted that the abovesaid encumbrance certificates show nothing to indicate as to how his father had acquired the suit property, hence the abovesaid encumbrance certificates would not be of any use to sustain that the plaintiff's father had a valid title to the suit property and that the sale deed marked as Ex.A1 is a valid instrument conveying title to the suit property as claimed by the
