The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish the preponderance of probabilities in his favor, and failure to do so can lead to the dismissal of the case.

1. This Second appeal is focussed by the plaintiff animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2011 passed in A.S.No.47 of 2006 by the Principal Sub-Judge, Puducherry, confirming the judgment and decree of the District Munsif, Puducherry in O.S.No.787 of 2003. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

2. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:

(a) The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) To grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants, agents and any persons claiming any right through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, by the plaintiff until he is duly evicted by due process of law; and

(ii) for costs." (extracted as such)

(b) D2 filed the written statement which was adopted by D1.

(c) Whereupon issues were framed by the trial Court.

(d) On the side of the plaintiff, he has not examined himself as a witness, however P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 and A18 were marked. The second defendant-Kumarakrishna Reddiar examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.W.2-Rajamanikam and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked. Exs.X1 to X7 were also marked.

3. Ultimately the trial Court decreed the suit partly, by granting injunction relating to items 1 and 2 and dismissed the suit in respect of the remaining items 3 to 6 of the suit properties.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred appeal for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate Court, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

5. Challenging and impugning the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, this Second Appeal has been focussed by the plaintiff on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law:

"1. The failure of the Court below to consider the contents of Ex.A5 Rent Receipt viz., the specific mention of all the 6 items of the suit properties and the extent made by the respondents themselves therein as leased out to the appellant, had not vitiated its finding and judgment that the appellant is not the cultivating tenant in possession of the items 3 to 6 of the suit properties and made them perverse?

2. After having issued Ex.A5 receipt, specifically mentioning all the 6 items of the suit properties and the extent as leased out to the appellant and receiving the lease amounts from him therefor, the respondents are not barred and estopped from claiming the contrary that they have leased out only items 1 & 2 to him and they are in possession of the remaining items 3 to 6 of the suit properties?

3. When the appellant is in actual possession of the items 3 to 6 of the suit properties, can he be evicted there from without following due process of law by stating that he has not proved that he is the cultivating tenant of those items?

4. Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record, Ex.B4 Adangal Extract which was procured by the respondents after receipt of the suit notice, containing incorrect particulars and not proved in accordance with law, can be relied upon and hold that they are in possession of the items 3 to 6 of the suit properties?

5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the failure of the 1st respondent viz., the competent person to file her written statement, get in to the box, give evidence and make her available for cross examination by the appellant, would not lead a presumption that if she has done so, her statement and evidence would be unfavourable to the case of the respondents and consequential rejection of the same?

6. Whether the Court below was right in proceeding that it has jurisdiction to decide the issue relating to Cultivating Tenant, presuming that the issue involved in the suit is also relating to Cultivating Tenant, ignoring Ex.A5 issued by the respondents admi