The burden of proof in establishing the nature of the property, the significance of communications and correspondences as evidence, and the shifting of burden of proof based on the evidence presented.

The plaintiff, who had lost before the Courts below, is the appellant herein.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this Second Appeal, briefly narrated, are as follows:-

[a] The appellant/plaintiff has filed a suit in OS.No.254/1984 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif at Dharmapuri, praying for a judgment and decree to declare that he is having right, title and possession in respect of the suit property situate at Virupatchipuram, Dharmapuri Taluk and District and also for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and also for cost.

[b] The appellant/plaintiff would aver among other things that he had purchased the said suit properties under Registered Sale Deeds dated 03.07.1975 [Exs.A1 and A2] and thereafter, started paying statutory levies and the patta was also transferred in his name [Ex.A3] and as such, he is having absolute right and title over the property. It is further averred by the appellant/plaintiff that the defendants have no rights whatsoever, in respect of the suit properties and with the support of some unruly elements, started interfering with his possession and enjoyment on 15.04.1984 and therefore, came forward to file the suit.

[c] The defendants filed the written statement, denying the averments and would contend that the suit properties originally belonged to one Soora Rengaiyya Chettiyar family and the suit probabilities were purchased for the benefit of the joint family out of the joint family income as well as the efforts put up by the plaintiff and the defendants and since the 1st defendant has to go out of the State in pursuant to his employment, the suit properties were purchased in the name of the eldest member of the family, viz., the plaintiff herein and as such, the suit properties are joint family properties. It is further contended by the defendants that they have not engaged the services of any rowdy elements to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and since the properties acquired on account of the joint effort and contribution, the plaintiff is not entitled to get a declaration and other consequential reliefs and prays for dismissal of the suit.

[d] The Trial Court, on a consideration of the pleadings, had framed the following issues:-

Whether it is true that the plaintiff alone is having title and possession in respect of the suit properties?

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and for permanent injunction?

Whether the suit properties are joint family properties as pleaded by the defendants?

To what other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?

[e] The Trial Court, on 18.06.1996, had framed the additional issue, viz., Whether the suit properties have been valued properly for the purpose of Court fees?

[f] During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined one Gopal Maistry as P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A53 were marked and on behalf of the defendants, the 1st defendant was examined as DW1 and one Govindaraj was examined as DW2 and Exs.B1 to B67 were marked.

[g] The Trial Court, on a consideration of pleadings and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidences, has dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 16.11.1998 and challenging the legality of the same, the appellant/plaintiff, filed an appeal in AS.NO.4/1999 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri and also filed IA.No.74/2002 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for reception of additional documents and the said miscellaneous petition was allowed.

[h] The Lower Appellate Court, on a consideration of the Memorandum of Grounds and materials placed before it, had formulated the following points for determination:-

Whether the documents sought to be marked as additional evidence, can be entertained and are necessary for the disposal of the appeal?

Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court are liable to be set aside and the ap