possession since evidently as for sometime, the plaintiff is said to be in Karnataka State and due to the relationship and confidence in themselves, cist might have been paid by the first defendant. But Ex-B.14 and Ex-B.16 shows the name of PW1. In the absence of any material document about the possession, these documents cannot be given any credence. Reliance is sought to be placed on Exs-B.44 to B.47 as if there was settlement of account with regard to the rents payable by the first defendant. The existence of these documents was not mentioned in the written statement and they were not filed along with the written statement. PW.1 was not confronted with these documents. In fact, these documents were not filed when the first defendant was initially examined. It was only on a later date when DW.1 was recalled. Therefore, the Court below has rightly rejected these documents. Even, if the plaintiff has not proved the letter said to have been executed by Sunkavalli Virraju under Exs.A.13 to A.17 about the cultivation, still it is the first defendant that has failed to prove the possession as a tenant. Even, if it is to be accepted that the alleged forcible possession or dispossession alleged by the plaintiff in 1984 is a falsity, the evidence of DW.1 clearly goes to show that Ex-B.1 chit relates to the other land transactions and not to the rent for schedule property. Even if Ex-B.1 and Ex-B.2
