The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish title and possession of the property. Documentary evidence such as patta (Ex.A3) alone may not be sufficient to prove exclusive possession.

R. Hemalatha, J.

The appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.151 of 1987 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam and respondent in A.S.No.86 of 1992 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam.

2. The respondent/plaintiff (Chellammal) filed a suit in O.S.No.151 of 1987 before the Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam for declaration of her title to the suit property situate in Survey number 289/10 of Bommaya Palayam Village, Vannur Taluk measuring 35 cents and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant Kothandapani (Dw1) from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property.

3. The case of the respondent/plaintiff in nutshell is as follows. The suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff's husband Ranganathan Gounder (PW2) and the suit property and other properties were allotted to her husband's share in a family arrangement that took place during the year 1962. The husband of the plaintiff was in enjoyment of the suit property by mutating the revenue records and also he executed a settlement deed dated 04.03.1974 (Ex.A4) in favour of his wife, the respondent/plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by cultivating cashew nut crops and that the defendant without any iota of right over the suit property, is attempting to interfere with her peaceful possession, since February 1987.

4. The suit was resisted by the appellant/defendant on the ground that the suit property was originally owned by one Sadayandi Gounder and his three brothers, from whom he (defendant) purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 23.12.1986(Ex.B1). According to him, he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

5. The trial court framed necessary issues and after full contest, dismissed the suit on the following grounds.

[i] The alleged family arrangement that took place during 1962 has not been proved by the plaintiff.

[ii] The settlement deed (Ex.A4) is not a valid document.

[iii] The defendant has not also proved his title to the suit property.

6. Aggrieved over the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.151 of 1987 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam, the plaintiff Chellammal filed an appeal before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam. The appeal was allowed and the decree and judgment dated 30.04.1992 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam was setaside.

7. Now the present second appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant.

8. Mrs. Srimathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that, when the plaintiff has not proved the alleged partition that took place during the year 1962, the PW2, husband of the plaintiff had no right to execute the settlement deed dated 04.03.1974 (Ex.A4) in favour of the plaintiff. She also drew the attention of this court to the deposition of PW1, wherein, the PW1 had categorically admitted that the suit property is the ancestral property of her husband Ranganatha Gounder (PW2). The PW1 had also deposed that she was not aware as to whether there was partition between her father-in-law and his brothers. She had further deposed that neither a partition deed was executed nor a memorandum in evidence of partition was prepared and that his father-in-law Sadayandi Gounder had four brothers and that one Balu and Damodaran are the sons of her father-in-law's brothers.

9. Ranganatha Gounder (PW2) in his deposition admitted that his father's name is Sadayandi Gounder and that he does not know as to whether any partition took place between his father and his brothers. In fact, the PW2 had married the plaintiff as his third wife, even during the life time of his second wife Kannayi.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that when the alleged oral partition of the year 1962 has not been proved, the PW2 does not have any right to execute a settlement deed (Ex.A4) in favour of his th