1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 658 OF 2006 Harichandra Genaba Landge, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Arangaon, Tq. Paranda, District Osmanabad Died on 29-11-88 His L.Rs. 1A. Suman Harichandra Landge, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agril,. Household, R'o. Jakhe Pimpri, Post Arangaon, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad, and others. .. Appellants Versus Vithal Genba Baraskar, Age: 72 years, Occ: Agri., R/o.Jakhe Pimpri, Tq.Paranda, District Osmanabad, Died on 4-012-99 His L.Rs. 1/1. Chhanabai w/o Vithal Baraskar, Age: 72 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Jakhe Pimpri, Tq. Paranda, Dist.Osmanabad, and Others. .. Respondents ... Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for appellants. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondents. ... CORAM : N.D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 17TH DECEMBER, 2009. 2 PER COURT : Heard Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. After hearing both the learned Counsel, Civil Application No. 12190 of 2009 filed by Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, learned Counsel for the appellant, for production of additional documents is allowed. Both the learned Counsel, during the course of hearing, referred those documents. In further course of hearing, it is pointed out that name of original defendant Harichandra Genba for the first time appearing in 1985 in place of Vithal Genba - present plaintiff. It is by Mutation Entry No. 62 but without referring to any happening of any incident or event. 3. Regular Civil Suit No. 172 of 1986 was filed in the lower Court, in the year 1986, in 3 which the said entry of title for claiming his possession and also for injunction to protect the same. Such entry of the year 1985 could be considered as only source for defendants' title and said entry without any support cannot be relied or acted upon. Stray entry cannot give any title to the claimant who relied on such entry. The defendant, who is the appellant before this Court, claimed his title as adopted son of one Genba Narayan, who is shown as original owner in the record of 1954-55. It is also not disputed by the defendant - appellant that in the year 1956, the suit field was recorded in the name of the plaintiff by oral transfer for value of Rs. 350/- also. That entry is unchallenged, as title conferred in the name of plaintiff till recently i.e. 1984. As there was abrupt change in the name of defendant i.e. impugned entry, for which the said suit was filed in the lower Court. 4. Since it is the title suit, no importance 4 is given to the entry of possession in 7/12 Extract which may go on changing as per every year cultivation and moreover, present suit is based on title. Possession follows title is a rule, unless title suit is barred by limitation. So, this was not the case before the Courts below. Although suit came to be dismissed by the trial Court which was misled on certain revenue entries and on certain observations made in the judgment. The appellate Court, however, favoured the respondent by allowing the appeal, granting decree of possession on the basis of title. In a suit for title, if there is some discrepancy then it is to be seen that who holds "better title". In a suit, when there is a dispute as regards to joint family property, source of the title is required to be traced from old record. There is no direct evidence available. Thus, case is to be weighed on the basis of whatever documents which are coming from the public office and those are placed on record. so also, the probabilities are to be 5 weighed. Concept of "better title" is also nothing but the "preponderance of probabilities". Both the parties have pleaded their case and it is found that respondent has got better title. 5. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the respondents submit that decree for possession is already executed. Considering the material on record and submissions made before this Court, I do not find any case for interfering with the findings and observations recorded by First Appellate Court. In that view of the matter, Second Appeal stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. 6. In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, nothing survives in Civil Application No.5162/2007 and same is dismissed accordingly. ( N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) sut/DEC09/sa658.06