JUDGMENT :

The lis which has given rise to the captioned second appeal is more than a decade old as a suit in O.S.No.11 of 2011 on the file of 'District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate's Court, Vanur' (hereinafter 'trial Court' for the sake of convenience and brevity) was filed by three plaintiffs against seven defendants on 11.02.2011 with prayers inter alia for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Suit property is a dry land comprised in S.No.105/2, Iyveli village situate within Vikravandi sub-registration district and Villupuram Registration District.

2. After full contest, trial Court decreed the suit in and by judgment and decree dated 13.04.2017. Defendants 5 and 7 in the trial Court alone carried the matter in appeal by way of a first appeal under Section 96 of 'The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ('CPC' for the sake of brevity) to 'Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Tindivanam' (hereinafter 'first Appellate Court' for the sake of convenience) vide A.S.No.22 of 2017. After full contest, the first Appellate Court also dismissed the regular first appeal in and by judgment and decree dated 14.10.2019 confirming the decree passed by the trial Court. Against these two concurrent judgments and decrees, defendants 5 and 7 in the trial Court arraying themselves as Appellants 1 and 2 respectively have filed the captioned second appeal under Section 100 of CPC. This second appeal Court deems it appropriate to set out essential facts in a nutshell. Essential facts imperative for appreciating this judgment (sans unnecessary particulars / elaboration) are that plaintiffs case is that title qua suit property is traceable to Kannan @ Kannappa Gounder, father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 vide sale deed dated 02.05.1963; that the plaintiffs' title is buttressed by revenue records in the form of patta, A-Register extract dated 07.01.2011 and Kist receipt dated 08.01.2011, which were marked as Exs.A4, A5 and A6 respectively in trial Court; that the second plaintiff Ravinathan examined himself as PW1 and an independent witness Lakshmanan was examined as PW2, both of whom deposed buttressing the pleadings of plaintiffs; that the defendants resisted the suit primarily on the ground that when the suit property was purchased in the name of Kannan @ Kannappa Gounder (father of plaintiffs 2 and 3), it was not purchased as separate property of Kannan @ Kannappa Gounder, it was rather purchased only as joint family property of Kannan @ Kannappa Gounder and his brother Subbarayan Gounder; that Kannan @ Kannappa Gounder was the eldest member of the joint family and therefore the suit property was purchased in his name is the sheet anchor defence of the defendants; that the defendants also pleaded that about 7 cents from and out of the suit land was sold by plaintiffs in favour of first defendant vide Ex.A2 and another 11 cents from and out of the suit land in favour of fourth defendant vide Ex.A3; that these sale deeds were marked on the side of plaintiffs themselves as Exs.A2 and A3 (dated 29.01.2001 and 31.12.1987 respectively); that the fifth and seventh defendants deposed as DW1 and DW2 respectively and a relative of DW2 one Janarthanan deposed as DW3; that they are alinees qua suit property portions is the case of Defendants 5 and 7; that the trial Court and first Appellate Court returned factual findings that there is no joint family nucleus much less that the nucleus had surplus income which can lead to the presumption that is being propounded; that the trial Court framed as many as three issues on which parties went to trial and the first Appellate Court framed four points for consideration on which the regular first appeal was heard out; that as already set out supra, defendants 5 and 7 in the trial Court are before this Court as appellants 1 and 2 in captioned second appeal.

3. Mr. R. Thirugnanam, learned counsel for appellants, who was before this Virtual Court, made submissions summation of which are as follows:

(a) The burden of proof i