The main legal point established is that in property disputes, the burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish their legal entitlement, and the timing and validity of additional evidence submissions are crucial.

Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2003 passed in A.S.No.102 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Villupuram confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2000 passed in O.S.No.97 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Villupuram .

2. The parties are referred to as per the rankings in the trial court.

3. Suit for declaration, possession and damages.

4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the suit property belonged to Varadha Gounder by virtue of the partition deed dated 12.12.1945 and he had put up a house in the same time and died on 15.09.1947 leaving behind his only son, the plaintiff and accordingly, the plaintiff succeeded to the estate and the plaintiff's mother is Ellammal, she is also the mother of Srinivasa Gounder. After the death of Govindha Gounder, his younger brother, Varadha Gounder married Ellammal by tying “Nadu Veetu Thalli” to her and out of the wedlock, the plaintiff was born and tying “Nadu Veetu Thalli” is the customary mode of marriage recognized by law in some communities such as Vanniyar etc., as such the plaintiff is the legitimate son of Varadha Gounder and Ellammal and entitled to the suit property on the demise of Varadha Gounder and on account of the long and continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property beyond the statutory period from the days of his predecessors in interest, the plaintiff has also prescribed his title to the suit property by adverse possession. The first defendant is the son of Srinivasan, whose father is Govindha Gounder and in the partition deed dated 12.12.1945 entered into between Varadha Gounder, Renganathan Gounder and Srinivasan, separate properties were allotted to the shareres and accordingly, the sharers enjoyed their respective properties allotted to them and Srinivasan died and the first defendant in March 1995 requested the plaintiff to permit him to reside in the upstairs of the suit property and promised to vacate at the earliest and accordingly the plaintiff granted the permission and inasmuch as the suit property is a very old building and in a dilapidated condition, the plaintiff called upon the first defendant to vacate the same but, he refused his request and hence the plaintiff issued a notice on 19.02.1990 asking to hand over the possession of the suit property. However, the first defendant neither responded to the same nor complied with the directions of the notice and the first defendant or for the matter, the defendants have no right, title, interest in the suit property and hence, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. The case of the defendants in brief is that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is true that the suit property belonged to Varadha Gounder by virtue of the registered partition deed dated 12.12.1945, the property allotted to the share of Srinivasan was sold under a registered sale deed dated 02.01.1954 in favour of Kasambu ammal and the sale deed was executed by Srinivasan, his mother Ellammal @ Govindhammal and the minor plaintiff represented by Ellammal and the minor plaintiff is the illegitimate son of Ellammal and it is false to state that Varadha Gounder had put up a house on the suit property and left the plaintiff as his legal heir. It is false to state that the plaintiff has prescribed title to the suit property by way of adverse possession as put forth in the plaint. It is false to state that the plaintiff is the son of Varadha Gounder and it is false to state that the plaintiff permitted the first defendant to reside in the suit property and on the other hand, according to the defendants, Varadha Gounder died as a bachelor and thereafter, the first defendant's father Srinivasan and his paternal uncle son Renganathann succeeded to the suit property and Renganathann renounced the world and left Villupuram about 35 years ago and his