The burden of proof lies with the party claiming title under a document, and the best evidence available must be produced to prove the same.

1. This second appeal is filed by defendants 1 and 2, inveighing the judgment and decree dated 29.9.2003 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri, in A.S.No.32 of 2001, confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.4.2001 passed by the District Munsif, Harur, in O.S.No.567 if 1990, which is one for declaration and recovery of possession and for mandatory injunction.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to her under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and for declaration that the patta issued favour of the second defendant is not binding on her and for mandatory injunction directing defendants 3 and 4 to cancel the patta issued in favour of the second defendant.

4. The brief facts of the case as set out in the plaint are to the effect that the suit property belongs to the father of the plaintiff, namely, Vattan @ Theerthagiri, who died about 10 years ago, and after his demise, the plaintiff had acquired right, as the legal heir of Vattan @ Theerthagiri, and had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, the defendants, disputing the title of plaintiff, have trespassed into the property on 22.4.1989 by force. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

5. The first defendant filed written statement, contending that originally the father of the plaintiff, namely, Vattan @ Theerthagiri was owning the property, and on 6.10.1968 he sold the property to his father Elasi Gounder for a sale consideration of Rs.500/- and also handed over the possession to him. Since then, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is further contended that for the past 24 years, the first defendant has been in continuous possession of the land and so, even if the plaintiff is having any right, the first defendant had acquired right by adverse possession.

6. Whereupon issues were framed by the trial Court. During trial, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and 3 and marked Ex.A1. The firs defendant examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.W.2 and marked Exs.B1 to B8.

7. Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit in part declaring the title and possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property; however, dismissed the suit in respect of other reliefs.

8. As against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendants 1 and 2 preferred the appeal in A.S.No.32 of 2001, which was dismissed by the appellate Court, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

9. Being aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, this second appeal has been filed by defendants 1 and 2 on various grounds and also suggesting substantial questions of law.

10. The second appeal was admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law:

“(1) Whether the Court below are justified in holding that the Sale Deed dated 6.10.1968, under Exhibit B1 is not genuine, even though the respondent has not disputed the validity of the same by filing additional statement or otherwise?

(2) Whether the Courts below are correct in decreeing the suit, when the respondent has admittedly not produced documentary or any other convincing evidence in support of the claim of her possession of the suit properties ever since from the date of the death of her father?

(3) Whether the Court below are justified in putting the burden on the appellants to prove their possession and title to the suit properties?

11. Heard Mr.S. Kanniah, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and possession and therefore, the burden is on her to prove that she is the owner of the suit property. In the plaint, the plaintif