The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title, and failure to establish exclusive title can result in dismissal of the claim.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal preferred under 100 of CPC against the decree and judgment dated 16.09.2016 in AS.No.1/2014 passed by the Lower Appellate Court namely the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, dismissing the appeal and confirming the decree and judgment dated 23.10.2013 passed in OS.No.69/2011 passed by the learned Principal District Musif, Tindivanam.)

1. The plaintiff in the suit in OS.No.69/2011 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam, is the appellant in the above Second Appeal.

2. The appellant, a private Ltd. Company, filed the suit in OS.No.69/2011 for declaration of appellant’s title in respect of the suit property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with its possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. The suit property is described as a property measuring an extent of 3.29 acres in Old S.No.128/3, New S.No.200/3 in Marakkanam Village, Tindivanam Taluk.

4. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint is that the plaintiff is entitled to an extent of 2.89 acres in the suit property by virtue of a Sale Deed dated 22.12.2004 and the remaining 40 cents was purchased by the plaintiff under two Sale Deeds dated 14.02.2007, each for an extent of 20 cents. It is stated that the suit property originally belonged to one Narayanasamy Gramani and Ponnusamy Gramani who were in possession and enjoyment of the property and that after their demise, the legal representatives of the owners by name Narayanasamy Gramani and Ponnusamy Gramani executed a Power of AttorneyDeed under Ex.A1 dated 10.01.1994 in favour of one Devi Palaniswamy. The said Power of Attorney agent executed a Sale Deed dated 07.01.2004 in favour of one Sethurama Pandiyan under Ex.A2. The said Sethurama Pandiyan after mutation of patta in his name, appointed one Vijayalakshmi as his Power of Attorney agent vide a document under Ex.A3 dated 22.07.2004. The Power of Attorney agent Vijayalakshmi executed a Sale Deed under Ex.A4 dated 08.11.2004 in favour of one Bagiratha Marthandan. The said Bagiratha Marthandan thereafter executed a Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff under the document Ex.A5 dated 22.12.2004. The Sale Deed was in respect of 2.89 acres. It is also stated that the said Bagiratha Marthadan executed a Sale Deed in favour of his wife in respect of 20 cents by a document dated 01.11.2004. Thereafter, the said Vijayalakshmi, as Power of Attorney agent or the original owner, executed another Sale Deed in respect of the remaining extent of 20 cents in favour of one Srividhya Subramaniayan. It is also stated that the said Srividhya also executed a Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of 20 cents under the document dated 14.02.2007. It is further stated that the said Vijayalakshmi executed another Sale Deed dated 14.02.2007 through her Power of Attorney agent, Bagiratha Marthandan. The two Sale Deeds were also marked as Exs.A6 and A7.

5. The defendant filed a written statement specifically denying the title of plaintiff in respect of the whole extent of 3.29 acres as claimed by the plaintiff. It is the specific case of the defendant that one Kannu @ Rangasamy Gramani who is also the brother of Narayanasamy Gramani and Ponnusamy Gramani is entitled to equal share along with the other two brothers under whom the plaintiff claim title. Various title deeds and documents from the year 1915 was relied upon by the defendant to state that the property belonged to three brothers equally. It is the further case of the defendant that Kannu @ Rangasamy Gramani died intestate and that one Muniyammal and Padmavathy inherited the property as the legal heirs of Kannu @ Rangasamy Gramani. By referring to the mortgage and other transactions by which Kannu @ Rangasamy Gramani was dealing with his right in the property, the defendant contended that an extent of 1.10 acres in S.No.128/3 which is the suit property belonged to the predecessors in title of the defendant as ev