1. The onus of proving title lies on the plaintiff, and the plaintiff cannot succeed on the weakness in the defence presented by the defendant. 2. Recitals as to boundaries in documents not inter partes are inadmissible in evidence without examining the executants of the document. 3. A party is estopped from denying the correctness of the description of the suit property in their own document.

This Second Appeal coming on for hearing on Thursday, sixteenth day and tuesday, the twenty first day of July, 98 upon perusing the Grounds of Appeal, the judgment and Decrees of the Lower Appellate Court and the Court of First Instance and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Sarvabhauman Senior Counsel for M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates for the Appellant and the respondents not appearing in person or by Advocate, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following judgment :

The appellant is the 1st defendant and the respondents are the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant before the lower Court.

2. The respondents 1 to 7, who are the plaintiffs before the lower Court, filed the suit in O.S. No. 815/80 on the file of Principal District Munsif's Court at Karur for declaration of their exclusive title to the suit property and for a consequential permanent injunction or in the alternative for the relief of possession in case if it is found that the defendants trespassed into the suit property.

3. It is the case of the respondents 1 to 7, who are the plaintiffs before the lower Court, that the suit property is the northern half share measuring 1.89 1/2 cents in the total extent of 3.79 acres in S.F. No. 1430/C of Sanapatti Village in Karur Taluk and one Nachiyammal purchased the suit property from one Sowriammal as early as on 16-2-1927 and the said Nachiyarammal conveyed the suit property to one Krishnaswamy Naidu under a registered sale deed dated 12-3-1928, and the said Krishnaswamy Naidu died in the year 1941 survey by his wife by name Andalammal, and Andalammal is the grandmother of the plaintiffs and the Andalammal executed a registered settlement deed dated 11-7-1961 in favour of the plaintiffs and ever since then the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property, and the defendants attempted to trespass into the suit property, and so the present suit was filed.

4. The appellant/1st defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the 2nd defendant, stating that it is not correct to state that the suit property originally belonged to Adalammal, and she was in exclusive possession of the same, and the plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the execution and attestation of the settlement deed dated 11-7-1961 in their favour, and the plaint is silent as to how Sowriammal got title in the suit property, and neither the plaintiffs nor their predecessor-in-title had any title or possession to the suit property at any time, and the 1st defendant purchased the suit property from one Perianna Gounder under a registered sale deed dated 21-8-1975 and the 1st defendant was in possession of the suit property, and the 1st defendant sold a portion of the suit property to the 2nd defendant on 26-10-1977, and the defendants are in possession of the suit property on the date of suit, and the allegation that they attempted to trespass into the suit property is denied, and so the suit deserves dismissed with costs.

5. On the above pleading and considering the oral and documentary evidence placed, the learned Principal District Munsif at Karur came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title to the suit property and they were in possession of the suit property on the date of suit as claimed by them, and the defendants are in possession of the suit property, and so the plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs of declaration of their title to the suit property and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction or in the alternative for the relief of possession and so the learned Principal District Munsif at Karur dismissed the suit with costs.

6. Aggrieved against the said findings of the trial Court, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 74/83 before the Sub-Court at Karur and the learned Subordinate Judge at Karur came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have proved their title beyond reasonable doubt (language (Tami