In property disputes, the duty of the plaintiff to prove the case and the relevance of registered documents are crucial legal principles.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the decree and judgment in A.S.No.42 of 2011 passed by the Subordinate Court, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District dated 11.10.2013 confirming the decree and judgment in O.S.No.152 of 2007 passed by the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi dated 25.02.2011.)

1. This appeal is filed against the order in A.S.No.42 of 2011 passed by the Subordinate Court, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District dated 11.10.2013, confirming the decree and judgment in O.S.No. 152 of 2007 passed by the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi, dated 25.02.2011.

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The respondents 1 to 3 are the defendants in the suit and the respondents 4 to 6 are the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent.

3. A brief substance of the plaint is as follows: The suit property belonged to the father of the plaintiff and his brother Jeyaraman Chettiar. The suit property was allotted to the share of the father of the plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff had three sons and one daughter. The second defendant is the daughter. The second defendant is the sister of the plaintiff. Since sufficient sridhana articles were given to the second defendant, the male issues entered into a partition on 24.03.1981 and they executed a family arrangement document in the presence of witnesses.

4. In the partition, the suit property was allotted to the share of the plaintiff. On 07.04.2007, the defendants disturbed the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff seek for a prayer of declaration of title and for permanent injunction against the defendants and their men.

5. A brief substance of the written statement filed by the defendants 2 and 3, adopted by first defendant is as follows:

In the description of the property, the survey number and the boundaries are wrongly stated. The first schedule survey No. 100/9b the four boundaries are wrongly stated. The second schedule, there is no such sub division as survey No.122/2C, in the revenue records. The four boundaries mentioned in the second schedule is also not correct. The properties are not in the possession of the plaintiff. The properties are not allotted to the plaintiff. The first schedule property belonged to another brother of the second defendant by name Nadimuthu. The second defendant purchased the property from Nadimuthu, through a sale deed dated 25.07.1982 and she got patta in her name. She planted Eucalyptus trees and she had cut the grown up trees three times and that she is in enjoyment of the property. There is no Survey Number as 122/2C and the plaintiff is not in the possession of any such property and prayed this petition to be dismissed.

6. The trial Court has framed the following issues:

i) whether the plaintiff is entitled to a relief of declaration and injunction ;

ii) what are the other reliefs?

7. Two witnesses were examined and six documents were marked on the side of the plaintiff. Two witnesses were examined and 16 documents were marked on the side on the side of the defendant. After trial, the trial Court has dismissed the suit.

8. Against the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.42 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pudukottai.

9. The Subordinate Court framed the following issues:

i) Whether the appeal is to be allowed?

After hearing both sides, the appeal was dismissed by the Subordinate Court, Pudukottai.

10. Against the order of the first Appellate Court, the petitioner filed this Second Appeal.

11. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :

i)whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below are sustainable since the respondents / defendants have not proved the title of their predecessors by placing relevant records both oral and documentary evidence?

ii)whether both the Courts below are right in dismissing the suit in favour of the respondents / defendants when Ex.A6 family arrangement was cl