The burden of proof lies with the plaintiffs to establish their title and landlord-tenant relationship, and the production of prior documents is crucial to prove ownership.

These appeals are preferred against dismissal of plaintiffs suit for declaration of title and possession, and for recovery of arrears of rent. Being aggrieved by reversal Judgment of the First Appellate Court, unsuccessful plaintiffs have preferred these appeals.

2. Plaintiffs have filed suits – O.S.Nos.216, 217, 218/1988 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankari against the Defendants for recovery of possession of thatched sheds alleging that the Defendants are Tenants under the plaintiffs and their predecessor-in-title. Since common points are involved in all three appeals, the appeals shall stand disposed of by this common Judgment.

3. Case of the plaintiffs is that first plaintiff Ramayee Ammal was the absolute owner of S.No.527/5 to an extent of 4.23 acres in Chinna Goundanoor Village, Sankari Taluk and the first plaintiff has put up thatched shed in S.No.527/5. Defendants are alleged to have occupied the suit property as Tenants under the first plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs.100/- and the Defendants have been regularly paying rent to the first plaintiff. Since Defendants committed wilful default in the payment of rent from June 1982, Eviction Petition was filed before the Rent Controller/District Munsif, Tiruchengode against the Defendants. The Defendants denied the title of the plaintiff and contested the eviction proceedings as not maintainable. Since the Defendants have denied title of the first plaintiff, three suits were filed for declaration and possession, and also for arrears of rent. During the pendency of the suit, the first plaintiff sold the suit properties and other properties in favour of one Varadharajan under the Sale Deed – Ex.A-6 dated 25.02.1985. From the said Varadharajan, plaintiffs 2 and 3 have purchased the property under the Sale Deeds dated 310. 1985 and 01.07.1987 and being purchasers pendente lite, plaintiffs 2 and 3 were impleaded as parties to the suit. Stating that the Defendants have no right to be in possession of the property, plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of their title, recovery of possession and arrears of rent.

4. Denying landlord-tenant relationship, Defendants have filed Written Statement contending that they have put up a shed in S.No.153 Kaluvankuttai Poromboke in Sankari village and the Defendants sheds have nothing to do with S.No.527/5. Since the Defendants sheds are situated in S.No.153, plaintiffs are not entitled to the said sheds constructed on the Government land and the plaintiffs cannot seek for delivery of possession.

5. On the above pleadings, six issues and three additional issues were framed in the trial Court. After extracting oral evidence in-extenso in three separate Judgments, the trial Court held that the suit property belongs to the plaintiffs and the Defendants are in occupation of the sheds as Tenants. On the basis of evidence of P.W.s 1 and 2, the learned District Munsif held that the huts situated in suit S.No.527/5 belong to the plaintiffs. The trial Court further held that the Defendants are Tenants under the plaintiffs on the basis of oral tenancy Agreement and held that the Government is not a necessary party. Stating that the first plaintiff is aged about 80 years and observing that non examination of the first plaintiff would not in any way affect the plaintiffs case, the trial Court decreed the suit for declaration and delivery of possession.

6. Reversing the findings of the trial Court, the first Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs have produced only exhibits Ex.A-6 to A-8 and that they have not produced any prior document to prove the title of the plaintiffs in S.No.527/5. The first Appellate Court further held that the plaintiffs have not satisfactorily proved their title to S.No.527/5 and that the plaintiffs have not produced either A Settlement or Adangal. Pointing out that no documents were produced by the plaintiffs to show that the plaintiffs have constructed shed, the lower Appellate Court allowed