The burden of proof lies with the party making the claim, and possession can be considered as evidence of ownership. Notarial sale deeds carry presumptions and require proof to assail.

The second defendant, who was successful before the trial Court, and failed before the first appellate Court, is the appellant.

2. The suit for declaration and for consequential relief of possession, coupled with mesne profits, was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents on the ground that the suit property belongs to them ancestrally, that the same was leased out to the first defendant, who in turn subleased the same to the second defendant, and that despite demand and notice, they have not only failed to pay the arrears of lease amount, but also failed to deliver possession of the suit property, in addition, the second defendant denied the title, thereby prayed for the above said reliefs.

3. The second defendant opposed the claim of the plaintiffs, contending that neither the plaintiffs nor their alleged predecessor in title, had any semblance of right at any point of time, over the suit properties and that in fact, the suit property belongs to him by purchase in which the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any interest, which should follow, neither the question of possession nor the profit will arise for consideration. Thus, setting up title in himself, the second defendant opposed the claim praying for the dismissal of the suit.

4. The trial Court after framing as many as 11 issues, took the case for trial. On behalf of the plaintiffs, four witnesses were marched in, armed with Exs.A1 to A8. To counter act the claim and support the defence, on behalf of the second defendant, four witnesses were marched in armed with four documents.

5. The learned II Additional District Munsif at Pondicherry, while evaluating and assessing the above materials, came to the conclusion that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties, that the second defendant is not the sub lessee of the first defendant, that the first defendant himself is not the lessee of the suit property, that the second defendant had purchased the property from its original owner and on the strength of ownership alone, he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, which could not be disturbed by ordering recovery of possession or directing him to pay mesne profits. Concluding so, the learned II Additional District Munsif, dismissed the suit on 30.11.1989, thereby giving cause of action for the plaintiffs, to prefer an appeal.

6. The plaintiffs when appealed before the II Additional District Judge at Pondicherry, impugning the above said judgment, in A.S.No.59/90, the II Additional District Judge found fault with the reasoning given by the learned II Additional District Munsif and concluded that the second defendant had failed to prove his title to the suit property, whereas the plaintiffs have proved the character of ancestral nature of the property. In this view of the matter, he allowed the appeal, setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court, thereby decreeing the suit as prayed for.

7. The second defendant, aggrieved and unable to satisfy himself, by the judgment rendered by the learned II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, preferred this second appeal questioning the correctness of the first appellate Court's judgment, canvassing the correctness of the trial Court's judgment.

8. This Court, while admitting the second appeal, formulated the following substantial questions of law for consideration.

"1. Whether the court below was right in holding that in respect of an ancestral property, title has to be traced only from the ancient ancestors?

2. Whether Exs.A4 to A7 will prove the plaintiffs title over the suit property?

3. Whether the respondents 1 to 6 are entitled to a decree for declaration and recovery of possession in respect of the suit property in the absence of any evidence?

4. Whether the suit without impleading the legal heirs of Vaiyapuri Achari was not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and consequently not liable to be dismissed.?"

9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Mr.T.P. Manoharan and the learned