As per case facts, the appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over properties, claiming them as ancestral. They asserted possession, cultivation, and presented cist receipts ... and passbooks, linking their family name 'Matam' to ancestral ownership. The 2nd defendant, Veera Brahmam Matam, claimed absolute ownership, alleging plaintiffs were encroachers with fabricated documents. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding plaintiffs failed to prove title, and the property belonged to the 2nd defendant. The question arose whether the trial court committed an error in dismissing the suit for declaration of right and title. Finally, the High Court held that plaintiffs must prove title with cogent evidence, not on defendant's weakness. Mutation entries or cist receipts don't confer title. 'Possession follows title' applies only if possession is lawful and the contesting party lacks title. The 'Matam' surname similarity wasn't enough. Plaintiffs failed to establish title, and the appeal was dismissed.