In title suits, plaintiffs must prove ownership and property identity through their own evidence, not by exploiting the defendant's weaknesses.

JUDGMENT :

Sathish Ninan, J.

The suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, and other reliefs were dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiff is in appeal.

2. The plaint consists of two schedules; the plaint A schedule is an extent of 4.374 cents with a building thereon, and the plaint B schedule is an extent of 31.638 cents. The plaint B schedule surrounds the plaint A schedule. According to the plaintiff, the properties belonged to the plaintiff and his father-in-law, Sri.Mathew, under Exts.A1 and A2 Sale Deeds of the year 2003 and 2005 respectively. Subsequently, the said Mathew conveyed his rights over the property to the plaintiff under Ext.A3 Sale Deed of the year 2008.

3. It is the plaintiff's case that the building situated in the plaint A schedule was leased out to the 1^st defendant by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff in the year 1989. Defendants 2 to 4 are the wife and the children of the 1^st defendant. The plaintiff was unsuccessful in a rent control proceeding initiated against the 1^st defendant for eviction, on the defence plea of being in possession of 30 cents of property including the building described in the plaint A schedule, under an agreement for sale with the predecessor of the plaintiff in the year 1974.

4. Though subsequently the 1^st defendant had filed a suit against the plaintiff as O.S.No.139 of 2009 for specific performance of the alleged agreement for sale, the suit was dismissed for default in the year 2011. It is thereafter that the present suit has been filed in the year 2015, seeking declaration of title over the plaint A and B schedule properties, for recovery of possession of the plaint A schedule property, for prohibitory injunction against trespass into the plaint B schedule property and for damages for use and occupation.

5. The 1^st defendant filed a written statement denying the alleged lease arrangement. He claimed to be in possession and enjoyment of 30 cents of land with the residential building therein, under an oral agreement for sale. He also raised a plea of adverse possession and limitation.

6. Defendants 2 to 4 jointly filed a separate written statement. They set up an oral agreement for sale with the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, which allegedly was not honoured by the plaintiff's predecessor. Thereupon, the 2^nd defendant trespassed into the plaint schedule property in the year 1968 and started residing in the building thereon. They also raised a plea of adverse possession and limitation. It was also contended that the suit is not maintainable in view of the dismissal for default of the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff as O.S.No.132 of 2006, against the defendants, for prohibitory injunction against trespass. They also disputed the identity of the plaint schedule property.

7. The trial court turned down the plea of adverse possession and limitation. The plea of bar of suit under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also held against. However, holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove the identity of the property, the suit was dismissed.

8. We have heard Shri.P.B. Subramanian, the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and Shri.T. Sethumadhavan, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents-defendants.

9. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are:

(i) Is the challenge raised by the defendants regarding the identity of the property, of substance?

(ii) Is the plaint schedule property identifiable?

(iii) Does the decree and judgment of the trial court warrant any interference?

10. Shri.P.B. Subramanian, the learned counsel appearing for the app