The legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff are the appellants herein.

2. The suit was filed for declaration of title and also for delivery of possession.

3. The Trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for, but, the first appellate court upset the findings of the Trial Court and non-suited the plaintiff and therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff are before this court by way of second appeal.

4. The plaintiffs have contended that the suit A schedule property originally belonged to one Muthammal wife of Subburaya Pathar. Muthammal and her husband Subburaya Pathar died without issues. The plaintiffs, being the children of Mathura Pathar, the brother of Subburaya Pathar being the second class heirs of Muthammal, are entitled to the said A schedule property. Muthammal sold away only B schedule property to the first defendant by virtue of sale deed dated 30.4.1973. It is alleged that the defendants trespassed upon A schedule property and started plucking fruits from the tamarind tree situated in the A schedule property. Hence, the suit for declaration of title, delivery of possession with respect to A schedule property and also for mesne profits.

5. The defendants resist the claim of the plaintiffs on the ground that they have purchased the entire 4 cents of land for a consideration of Rs.300/= by virtue of sale deed dated 30.4.1973 from Muthammal. Further, the defendants set up a plea that they prescribed title by adverse possession over a period of 12 years. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief as sought for.

6. The Trial Court, having adverted to the evidence on record, returned a finding that the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. The Trial Court, having referred to the evidence of PW2, the Maniyakarar of the village, in the background of the evidence of PW1 that the plaintiffs are the second class heirs of Muthammal and Ex.B2, the sale deed executed by Muthammal in favour of the first defendant, held that only three cents of land excluding the tamarind tree were conveyed under Ex.B2 to the first defendant by Muthammal. The Trial Court also rejected the plea of adverse possession set up by the defendants as it was not shown that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property for over a period of 12 years. The first appellate court, without adverting to the evidence of PW2, the Maniyakarar of the village and the specific recital found in Ex.B2, simply upset the judgment of the Trial Court and held that the first defendant has purchased the entire property of Muthammal, who got assignment under Ex.B1. Very casually, the first appellate court made an observation without actually looking into the period during which the defendant enjoyed the property that the defendants already prescribed title to the suit property.

7. The following substantial question of law was framed by this court at the time of admission of the second appeal:-

"Whether the first appellate court erred in law in not holding that the onus of proving the case lies with the defendant in view of the plea that the plaintiffs are not legal heirs of the deceased Muthammal?"

8. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs would submit that the first appellate court did not care to go through the tenor of the sale deed, Ex.B2 which specifically states that only 3 cents of land was meant to be conveyed and the tamarind tree was excluded from the purview of the sale transaction. The first appellate court made a very casual approach in upsetting the verdict of the Trial Court. It is his further submission that the defendants had not specifically denied the second class heirship of the plaintiffs in the written statement filed by them. Even assuming that there is a general denial of the second class heirship claimed by the plaintiffs, the evidence of Maniyakarar, who was examined as PW2, clinches the issue as to the second class heirship claimed by the plaintiffs. As regards the adverse possession clai