The plaintiff must provide acceptable and reliable evidence to establish ownership and possession of the property, and a suit must have a cause of action.

Challenge in this second appeal is made by the appellant/plaintiff against the Judgment and decree dated 09.02.2010 made in A.S.No.97 of 2009 on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Court, Salem, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 20.10.2008 made in O.S.No.1157 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem.

2. The suit is for declaration, possession and Permanent Injunction.

3. The averments contained in the plaint are briefly stated as follows:

The suit property, which is a vacant site, measuring about 201 sq. ft, along with some other property originally belonged to Sellakannu Pandaram and he sold the same to Lakshmiammal under a registered sale deed dated 22.04.1970. The plaintiff purchased 1770 sq. ft of land along with joint right in the manure pit from Lakshmiammal under a registered sale deed dated on 07.02.2002 and on 20.02.2006, the plaintiff purchased the suit property from Lakshmiammal under the registered sale deed. Thus, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property. The defendants, who are strangers to the suit property, are claiming right over the same without any title or interest and forcibly encroached into the suit property on 21.09.2007, for which, a police complaint had been lodged. The defendants are liable to be evicted from the suit property and hence, the suit.

4. The averments, in the written statement filed by the first defendant and adopted by the other defendants, are briefly stated as follows:

The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is false to state that the plaintiff had purchased 1770 sq. ft from Lakhmiammal on 07.02.2002 and the plaintiff had purchased the suit property measuring 201 sq. ft from Lakshmiammal on 20.02.2006. The defendants never encroached upon the suit property as alleged in the plaint. The sale deeds were fraudulently created by the plaintiff and patta had been obtained. The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. There is no cause of action for the suit and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. In support of the plaintiff's case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and Exs.A1 to 3 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant had been examined as DW1 and Exs.B1 to 7 were marked.

6. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties, the trial Court was pleased to decree the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved over the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court, the defendants preferred the first appeal and the first appellate court, on a consideration of the evidence adduced in the matter, was pleased to allow the appeal and thereby set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and consequently, the suit had come to be dismissed. Aggrieved over the Judgment and Decree of the first appellate Court, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

7. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, by their ranking in the trial Court.

8. The plaintiff claims title to the suit property measuring 201 sq. ft by virtue of the sale deed dated 20.02.2006. According to the plaintiff, she had purchased the suit property from Lakshmiammal. Further, according to the case of the plaintiff, the suit property and other properties originally belonged to Sellakannu Pandaram and Sellakannu Pandaram had sold the same to Lakshmiammal under the registered sale deed dated 22.04.1970.

9. The defendants have vehemently denied the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. According to the defendants, the plaintiff has created the sale deeds alleged in the plaint fraudulently and laying false claim over the suit property. It is stated further that the plaintiff was not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property at any point of time and without any cause of action, has laid the suit against the defendants. In the light of the defence put forth by the defendants, it can be seen that the onus is on the plaintiff to establish that s