The central legal point established in the judgment is the shift of burden to the defendants to prove lack of possession and title when the plaintiffs have established continuous possession and title to the property.

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree of the Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvannamalai in A.S.No.10 of 2009 dated 18.12.2009 reversing the Judgment and Decree of District Munsif, Thiruvannamalai in O.S.No.431 of 1991 dated 27.02.2007.)

Aggrieved over the decree and judgment of the First Appellate Court reversing the decree and judgment of the trial court the Defendants are filed the present Second Appeal.

2. The brief facts leading to file this Second Appeal is as under:

2.a An extent of 1.10 acres in S.No.59/1 marked as 'A' Schedule property originally belonged to one Vellai Gounder and Muthusamy Gounder. One Varadarajulu Naidu has purchased the 'B' Schedule property in court auction sale in O.S.No.267 of 1939. The said Varadarajulu Naidu has sold the above 'B' schedule property to the First Plaintiff and to his brothers Ponnusamy and Chinnasamy. Eversince the date of such purchase, the purchasers were in possession of the property, as they are also acquired title by their continuous possession. 'C' Schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff from one Muthusamy Gounder. The plaintiff has constructed the house in the property shown as 'E' Schedule property which is part and parcel of 'B' and 'C' schedule property.

2(b) The Defendants 1 to 4 were in possession of the 'B' Schedule Property. Patta in S.No.59/1A was issued in the name of the First Plaintiff for an extent of 0.41.5 hectare. Similarly S.No.55/1B was sub-divided and patta was issued in the name of Gopal Gounder. The First Plaintiff and his brothers were divided the property in the year 1950, by which 'E' Schedule property was allotted to First Plaintiff. Ramasamy was allotted S.No.65/1 and Murthy was allotted S.No.65/19. The above said Ramasamy and Murthy were jointly allotted S.No.65/14. That Chinnasamy was allotted S.No.65/12 and 65/15 which was more fully shown in the 'F' Schedule. First Plaintiff was allotted to S.No.65/42; 4th Defendant was allotted S.No.65/21. One Gopal was allotted S.No.65/13 and Ponnan and Pachaiyappan were jointly allotted S.No.65/32, which is in the 'F' Schedule. All the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the property. The Defendants who have no manner and right or title or interest over the `E` Schedule property. Hence filed suit for declaration and injunction.

3. The Second Defendant in his written statement contended that there is no property in 'E' schedule property and boundaries also not given in the 'E' schedule property. Originally, one Paramachi Ammal wife fo Chinnathu Gounder, the grand mother of the defendant was given a property in settlement deed dated 25.05.1925. In the above settlement 17 cents with specific boundaries in S.No.59/1 out of 1.10 acres was given to her. This Defendant and other Defendants are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the above property.

4. 10th Defendant has filed written statement contending that the Plaintiff is not entitled to declaration according to them the Deed dated 25.05.1925 is not settlement deed. In fact that is a registered deed of sale executed in favour of Paramachiammal and Pachaiammal by one Vellaiyan and Muthusamy. Eversince the date of sale they are in possession of the property in an extent of 0.17 acres with specific boundaries. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot claim any title over above property based on the sale deed dated 29.1.1946 and 22.5.1947. 0.17 cents were in possession of Paramachiammal and Pachaiammal. This defendant is grand son of Pachaiammal and grand son of Paramachiammal. Therefore, he is entitled to 17 cents. The defendants are in possession of the above property. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The trial Court has framed the following two issues:

1. Whether the document dated 25.06.1925 is true and valid?

2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

3. In Survey No.59/1 out of 1.10 acres whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to 17 cents on the southern side.

4. Whether th