The burden to prove the validity of a sale deed lies with the party asserting its validity, and the omission to frame specific points for determination regarding alternate reliefs does not necessarily vitiate the court's finding.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.6 of 2009 dated 19.10.2009 on the file of the Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court – 2), Tindivanam, confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.38 of 2006 dated 20.12.2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam.)

(The case has been heard through video conference)

1. The Appellant in this Second Appeal is the plaintiff in the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court and the Appeal by the First Appellate Court, the present Second Appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Courts below.

2. The case of the appellant as plaintiff in the original suit is that, the property described under 'B' schedule of the plaint originally belong to one Govinda Gounder S/o. Subburaya Gounder. He sold it to one Narayanasami S/o. Kuppa Padayachi under the registered sale deed dated 11.04.1944 and delivered the possession. The property was under the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said Narayanasami, till his death. He died intestate leaving behind his daughter Govindammal as his sole heir. She took possession of the property and enjoying it absolutely putting up a house on the South of item No.1 of 'A' schedule properties. This is a portion of item No.1 in the 'B' schedule properties. The said Govindammal, died about 8 years prior to the filing of this suit. She left behind her husband and two sons to inherit the suit properties. Govindammal husband Periyasami and her two sons Ranganathan and Manibalan divided the property among themselves about 6 or 7 years prior to the suit. At that time, Govindammal second son Manibalan was still a minor. The Northern portion in item No.1 of ½ share in item No.2 of ‘B’ schedule was allotted to the share of Periyasami and the minor son Manibalan. The southern portion in item No.1 and ½ share in item No.2 of the 'B' schedule was allotted to Ranganathan. The share allotted to Periayasami and his son Manibalan is the 'A' schedule property in the suit. The 2nd item property in the pathway for common use of both the parties.

3. On 22.11.2000, Periyasami for himself and on behalf of his minor son Manibalan sold the 'A' schedule property for Rs.7,500/- to the plaintiff/appellant and put him in possession. After mutation of the revenue records, joint patta No.631 issued to the plaintiff/appellant. While the plaintiff/appellant enjoying the item No.1 of the 'A' schedule property exclusively and the item No.2, pathway jointly with other pattadars. The son of Periyasami, the defendant/respondent herein, disgruntled by the appellant purchasing his father’s share, with a scheme to drive away the plaintiff/appellant attempted on 18.01.2006, to interfere his possession of 1st item of the 'A' schedule property and exclude him from the item No.2 of 'A' schedule property. Hence, the suit for declaration of title in respect of item No.1 and ½ share in item No.2 of the 'A' schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from interfering with his exclusive possession of item No.1 and joint possession of item No.2 of the 'A' schedule properties. Or in alternate ½ share in the item No.1 and item No.2 in the 'B' schedule properties.

4. The respondent contested the suit admitting the relationship narrated in the plaint, denied the alleged partition between Periyasami and his sons after the demise of Govindammal. The subsequent sale deed alleged to have been executed by Periyasami in favour of the plaintiff/appellant also denied. The plaintiff/appellant never in possession of the suit property. The inclusion of his name in the patta will not confer him any title. The suit property purchased by Narayana Padayachi on 11.04.1944. He built up a thatched house and living with his daughter Govindammal. After the death of Narayana Padayachi, continue to enjoy the property paying tax. Patta was transferred in her name and she