Onus lies on the person to prove the contrary.

Plaintiff in O.S. No.2556 of 1979, on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Karur, is the appellant herein. Defendants 1 to 6 are the respondents.

2. For the sake of convenience, reference to the parties in this appeal is made as per their array in the suit.

3. Plaintiff and the 6th defendant are sons of late Nachimuthu Gounder. Nachimuthu Gounder was the owner of all the plaint items. Plaint Item 1 is having an extent of 2 acres 8 cents. Item 2 is having 2 acres 48 cents, and Item 3 is having 36 cents, altogether 4 acres 92 cents. It is averred in the plaint that Nachimuthu Gounder was in possession of all these items, having obtained the same as per partition deed dated 212. 1959. It is said that there was some proposal to form a house building society in Pallappatti under the Chairmanship of one Koolayappa Rowther. First defendant opposed the formation of the Society under the Chairmanship of Koolayappa Rowther, and he also wanted Nachimuthu Gounder not to give any property or sell the suit properties to the Society. On his advice, the acquirer executed Ex.A-2 sale deed for an extent of 23 112 cents. The purpose of the sale was only to shield the property from acquisition, and the plaintiff alleges that it is a sham document and never came into effect. It is also said that the document is not supported by consideration. Nachimuthu Gounder continued in possession in spite of the document dated 16. 1963. Nachimuthu Gounder died in 1966 and thereafter plaintiff and 6th defendant, along with his widow and daughters were in joint possession. As per Ex.A-5, the widow and daughters executed a release in favour of the plaintiff regarding their right in the property. It is said that the first defendant executed a document in favour of defendants 2 to 5 on 211. 1979 stating that he is the owner of the 23 1/2 cents covered by Ex.A-2. According to the plaintiff, the sale deed in favour of the first defendant is not valid because title did not pass as per Ex.A-2. It is a sham transaction intended to shield the properties from acquisition. The suit is filed for declaration of title and consequential injunction. Even though the subject matter of the dispute is only 23 1/2 cents as per Ex.A-2, the plaint schedule is the entire 4 acres 92 cents.

4. In the written statement filed by defendants 1,2 and 4, they contended that Ex.A-2 is supported by consideration and has come into effect. They also said that the Housing Society was not formed, and there was no proposal for any, acquisition. The first defendant did not advise the original owner Nachimuthu Gounder to sell any property to any person and Ex.A-2 is only one such deed executed by him. Nachimuthu Gounder himself wanted to sell the property in many plots and one such building was purchased by the firs defendant for proper consideration. He also said that similar documents were executed by Nachimuthu Gounder on 210. 1963 and 10. 1964 respectively, as per Exs.A-3 and A-4. They were executed in favour of strangers, and they are also in possession of the property. According to them Ex.A-2 was not a nominal document. But, after the sale, first defendant also wanted to put up a construction, but due to paucity of funds, he could not do it. Second defendant purchased the property for valuable consideration and he was also put in possession. He also said that eversince the date of Ex.A-2, he was the pattaholder for the property and he was paying kist for that area. He also said that since he is in possession of the (property pursuant to Ex.A-2, plaintiff cannot also acquire title by adverse possession and limitation. They prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The 6th defendant, who is the brother of the plaintiff, filed a separate written statement. He pleaded ignorance aboutEx.A-2. He said in paragraph 8 of the written statement that eversince the death of their father, no cultivating was going on in any portion of the property and the property was lying fallow, and none of t