The burden of proof lies with the defendants to show benami purchase. The 'either or survivor' clause in the purchase deed is valid under the Transfer of Property Act. Adverse possession claim requires essential pleadings and evidence. Suppression of material facts must be proven. Inconsistent plea based on mutually destructive inconsistent factual allegations is not permissible.

1. The suit has been filed seeking the relief of: (a) declaration that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the suit property, i.e., located at 18/1 & 2 Soodiammanpet, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015; (b) to deliver vacant possession of the suit property; (c) mesne profits at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month, from the date of filing of the suit.

2. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiff is a physically challenged person, having suffered amputation of both arms, in a train accident. He was working as a Reader in the Small Causes Court and thus, he had self-earnings. The plaintiff purchased the suit property out of his self-earned money in the name of himself and his sister-Saraswathy on “either or survivor” basis. The purchase was made as per Ex.P-2, dated 29.10.1963.

2.1. The plaintiff's vendor, Narasimhalu Chettiar, was a prisoner at that point of time and therefore, his wife, as Power Agent, has sold the property.

2.1 The plaintiff, along with his sister, had sold a small piece of the land in the backyard of the suit property along with the right of pathway to his vendor, Narasimhalu Chettiar, by way of sale.

2.2. The plaintiff's sister died on 09.10.1985 and the death Certificate is Ex.P-4. The plaintiff's father died on 17.03.1980 as per Ex.D-10. The plaintiff's mother died on 17.06.2001, as per Ex.D-6.

2.3. The defendants, being family members of the plaintiff, were living along with him in the suit property. On a monthly rental basis, the defendants were permitted to stay. Due to personal reasons, the plaintiff shifted his family in the year 1980. After the demise of the plaintiff's mother in the year 2001 and immediately after retirement of the plaintiff from the service, he requested the defendants to handover possession. The defendants requested time till 2004, but did not upkeep the promise. The plaintiff came to know that the defendants are fraudulently concocting documents in their names and they refuse to vacate the property. The defendants went to the extent of denying the title of the plaintiff.

2.4. The plaintiff issued a notice, dated 19.07.2011, under Exs.P-5 and P-6 to the first and second defendants asking them to vacate the suit property. The first defendant gave a reply, under Ex.P-7, dated 25.07.2011 claiming that the suit property belonged to him. It amounted to denial of title of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession.

3. In the written statement filed by the first defendant, the following averments have been made:-

The defendants' father-Govindarajulu was an AGOT at Madras High Court. His father had five sons, namely, the plaintiff-G.Ramakrishnan, D-1-G.Subramanian, D-2-Jayaraman, Vijayaraghavan and Hanumantharao. The only daughter was G.Saraswathi. Out of five sons, the second defendant died and the legal representatives of the deceased second defendant are D-3 to D-7.

3.1. The suit property was purchased by the plaintiff's father, benami, in the name of the plaintiff and her sister-G.Saraswathi. It was only a family arrangement. From the date of purchase of the property, the plaintiff's father was residing in the suit property along with the defendants. The plaintiff is residing separately after his marriage and the plaintiff never resided in the suit property.

3.2. On 05.11.1977, there was a family arrangement between the plaintiff, Vijayaraghavan and Saraswathi and the plaintiff had executed a release deed, dated 17.10.1979. The release deed is kept pending registration, as the plaintiff did not produce the Income-Tax Clearance Certificate.

3.3. The plaintiff's father settled the property by way of his last Will, dated 24.01.1977, in favour of the first defendant and the second defendant and the plaintiff's sister-Saraswathi. After the death of the father and the sister, defendants 1 and 2 are the absolute owners of the suit property. The first and second defendants had executed a re