The burden of proof in property disputes shifts based on the evidence presented by the parties.

1. The Appellants/Defendants have filed the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.10.1998 in A.S.No.89 of 1998 passed by the Learned Principal Sub Judge, Mayiladuturai in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 03.01.1995 in O.S.No.973 of 1986 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Mayiladuturai.

2. The 1st Appellate Court viz., the Learned Principal Sub Judge, Mayiladuturai, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.89 of 1998, on 26.10.1998, has, inter alia opined that as per Ex.A.1 Sale Deed dated 26.01.1928, it is seen that the Respondent/Plaintiff's grandfather has half share right in the suit property and also, that as per Ex.A.3, the Town Survey Field Register Book Extract in respect of the suit property, Subramaniya Iyyer, who has executed a sale in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff's grandfather, has right and it is not established that as to how the Sambandam Pillai has executed Ex.B.1 Sale Deed dated 17.01.1955 to and in favour of Pethaperumal Pillai in respect of the suit property and no evidence of witnesses and documents have been let in or produced to show that Pethaperumal Pillai, as an absolute owner, has enjoyed the property purchased as per Ex.B.1 Sale Deed dated 17.01.1955 and moreover, the Appellants/Defendants have not established that they have got full right in respect of the suit property and under this circumstance, the Respondent/Plaintiff has a right to claim the half share in the suit property and resultantly, dismissed the Appeal with costs, thereby confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court in the main suit.

3. Before the trial Court, in the main suit, 1 to 4 issues have been framed for trial. On behalf of the Respondent/Plaintiff, witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 have been examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 have been marked. On the side of the Appellants/Defendants, witnesses

D.W.1 to D.W.3 have been examined and Exs.B1 and B.2 have been marked.

4. The trial Court after analysing the oral and documentary evidence available on record has come to a definite conclusion that the Respondent/ Plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of his half right share in the suit property as an alternate relief and passed a preliminary decree by decreeing the suit, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

5. At the time of Admission of the Second Appeal, this Court has formulated the following substantial questions of Law:

“1) Whether the Judgment of Court below is vitiated by reason of reliance upon a document which came into existence after suit?

2) Whether the court below was justified in placing the burden wrongly upon the Appellants?

3) Whether the Courts below erred in granting the relief to the Plaintiff when they have not established their vendor's title to the property?”

6. The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on substantial questions of law 1 to 3: According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Defendants, the Respondent/Plaintiff has failed to discharge his onus by establishing the title of his vendor Subramaniya Iyyer.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Defendants submits that the Appellants/Defendants in their written statement have denied the title of the Respondent/Plaintiff's title vendor Subramaniya Iyyer and it is clearly stated that he has no title to convey the suit property to the Appellants as per Ex.A.1 Sale Deed dated 26.01.1928 and that there is no evidence to show that the Respondent/Plaintiff enjoyed half of the suit property, subsequent to Ex.A.1 Sale Deed dated 26.01.1928.

8. Advancing his arguments, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Defendants that Ex.A.3 Town Survey Field Register Book Extract in respect of the suit property is not a title document and it cannot confer any title to Subramaniya Iyyer.

9. That apart, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Defendants projects a plea that Exs.A.7 to A.9 Tax Demand Notice, Order of the Assistant Commissioner (Urban Land Tax) and Mayiladuturai To