The burden of proof in establishing title and possession lies with the claimants, and the weight of evidence presented by the parties influences the court's decision.

The legal heirs of the first plaintiff, who are the plaintiffs 2 to 8 are the appellants herein. The suit is filed for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. There are two items of properties regarding which the declaration is sought for.

2. As per the plaint averments, the suit properties are vacant site belonging to the first plaintiff's father ancestrally. The first plaintiff had two other brothers by name Gnanasigamani and Masilamani. Masilamani died issueless. The first item of the property is 0.05 cents, of which 0.02 cents were released on 26.07.1931 by the brother of the first plaintiff viz., Gnanasigamani in favour of the first plaintiff and the other brother Masilamani. Out of the balance of 3 cents, 0.01-1/2 cents of land was sold by the first plaintiff's mother in favour of the first plaintiff on 20.03.1950. The said sale deed was attested by the father of the first plaintiff. As stated earlier, since the other brother of the first plaintiff viz., Masilamani died issueless, 0.01 cents belonging to him was also in the possession of the first plaintiff. After the death of the parents of the first plaintiff, the remaining 1-1/2 cents devolved upon the first plaintiff. Thus, the entire extent of 0.05 cents was in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. So far as the second item of the suit schedule is concerned, it is an extent of 0.04 cents. It was purchased by the first plaintiff's grandfather on 22.07.1913. It is stated that there was a partition between the first plaintiff's father and his brothers in the year 1926, as per which the second schedule 0.02 cents fell to the share of the first plaintiff's father and the same has been in possession and enjoyment of the first plaintiff, after the death of his father. As the defendants were trying to disturb the possession denying the title of the plaintiffs, the suit has been filed.

3. In the written statement, the defendants had denied all the contentions raised by the plaintiffs. According to the defendants, the first item of suit property was originally owned by one Mahalingam Nadar, who sold it to one Ponnusamy Nadar, who is the father of the first defendant. From the date of purchase, the property has been in the possession and enjoyment of the said Ponnusamy Nadar and now by the first defendant and his children. The plaintiffs have got no right or title over the suit properties and they were never in possession of the same at any point of time. The defendants further contended that the documents produced by the plaintiffs do not tally with the suit properties. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the suit properties.

4. The trial Court, on perusal of the documents filed, had decreed the suit in part by granting the relief of declaration and permanent injunction with respect to the second item of the suit property and the suit was dismissed with respect to the first item. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the defendants also preferred a cross appeal. The first appellate Court also confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal.

5. At the time of admission, the following questions of law were framed for consideration:

“(a) When the courts below found that the plaintiffs/appellants are entitled for 3+ cents in suit 1st schedule property through Exs.A2, A7 and A8 which are all old documents prior to 30 years, whether the courts below are correct in declining the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of entire 1st schedule property measuring five cents and thus the judgment and decree of the courts below warrants interference under Section 100 of CPC?

(b) Whether the findings of the courts below that the respondents herein/defendants got title to suit 1st schedule property measuring 5 cents through Ex.B1 and B2 deeds in the year 1948 and 1968, whereas these appellants trace their title to the very same property through Exs.A2,