In property disputes, the burden of proof initially lies with the claimant, but can shift to the defendant if the claimant establishes a strong probability of ownership.

JUDGMENT :

C. Pratheep Kumar, J.

The 1^st defendant in OS 23/2016 on the file of the Sub Court, Alappuzha is the appellant. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial court.).

2. The plaintiffs 1 to 6 filed the above suit for declaration and injunction. The 1^st plaintiff is the father of the 2^nd plaintiff, 3^rd plaintiff is the wife of the 2^nd plaintiff, 4^th plaintiff is the brother-in-law of the 2^nd plaintiff and 5^th plaintiff is the mother of the 6^th plaintiff. As per the plaint averments, the plaint schedule property consists of three items. Out of which, item No.1 consisting of 1.16 Ares of property belonged to plaintiffs 1 to 3 was obtained by them as per sale deed No.2168/2016 from the 6^th plaintiff on 10.6.2016. Plaint schedule item No.2 consisting of 1.85 Ares of property also belonged to plaintiffs 1 to 3 which they obtained as per sale deed No.2167/2016 from the 5^th plaintiff. Plaint schedule item No.3 consisting of 37 Sq.Metres of property belonged to the 4^th plaintiff which he obtained as per sale deed No.2119/2016 from the 5^th plaintiff. According to the plaintiffs, the 1^st defendant is a tenant in the shop room situated in plaint schedule item No.3. According to them, the 1^st defendant has no right over the plaint schedule property except that he is a tenant in plaint schedule item No.3. While so, the 2^nd defendant executed gift deed No.2002/2016 on 1.6.2016 of SRO, Alappuzha in favour of the 1^st defendant. The property mentioned in the above gift deed is plaint schedule item Nos.1 to 3. In fact, the 2^nd defendant has absolutely no right or title over the properties covered by the gift deed. It was in the above context that the plaintiffs filed the suit for a declaration that the plaint schedule properties belong to them and also that gift deed No.2002/2016 of SRO Alappuzha is not binding on the plaintiffs and the plaint schedule properties. They also sought for an injunction restraining the defendants from creating any encumbrance or alienating the property covered by the above gift deed.

3. The defendants filed written statement contending that the plaintiffs have no title over the plaint schedule properties. According to them, plaint schedule item Nos.1 to 3 properties are portions of the property obtained by the grandfather of the 2^nd defendant by name Veeramony Ayyan. According to them, Muthu Ayyan Andi Ayyan originally had 77 cents of property comprised in Survey No.814/20/1, 814/20/2 and 814/21. Out of which, Muthu Ayyan Andi Ayyan sold two cents and the remaining 75 cents was sold to Veeramony Ayyan, the grandfather of the 2^nd defendant, as per sale deed No. 3448 of 1088 ME. After the death of Veeramony Ayyan the property devolved upon the 2^nd defendant and his father Ramasubramanyam and after the death of Ramasubramanyam, the entire 75 cents of property devolved upon the 2^nd defendant. According to the defendants, Muthu Ayyan Andi Ayyan never assigned any property covered by the above survey numbers in favour of the predecessors of the plaintiffs.