Possession follows title for vacant land, and the burden of proof lies with the party claiming adverse possession or oral sale.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal preferred under 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vridhachalam passed in AS.No.81/2019 dated 21.01.2020 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam dated 05.04.2018 made in OS.No.593/2008.)

(1) The unsuccessful defendants 4, 5 10 and 21 in the suit in OS.No.593/2008 on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Virdhachalam, are the appellants in the above Second Appeal.

(2) The respondents herein, as plaintiffs, filed the suit in OS.No.593/2008 for declaration of their title in the suit properties and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

(3) The case of the plaintiffs in the plaint is that the suit properties originally belonged to one Rajakannu and his four sons namely, Subramanian, Rangasamy Padayachi, Gopal and Jagannathan. It is stated that Subramanian, one of the sons of Rajakannu, is the father of plaintiffs/respondents. From the averments in the plaint, it is seen that the legal heirs of Rajakannu were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and other properties by executing mortgage aad other conveyance. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that there was an oral partition in the family among the co-owners and that the suit property was allotted to the plaintiffs who are the legal heirs of Subramanian.

(4) The suit was contested by the appellants and other defendants on the ground that they obtained oral sale from the plaintiffs' father and that the plaintiffs' father did not object to the enjoyment of the defendants based on the oral sale. This Court is unable to find a consistent stand taken by the appellants and other defendatns on the basis of any documents in the written statement.

(5) The Trial Court, after framing necessary issues, specifically held that the plaintiffs have proved their title obtained from their predecessors in title and that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The Trial Court also found that the revenue records stand in the names of the plaintiffs. After holding that the plaintiffs have proved their title and enjoyment, the Trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. The Trial Court also specifically framed an issue as to whether the defendants have proved the oral sale pleaded by them. It was found that the defendants have not proved the oral sale from the father of the plaintiffs or their enjoyment on the basis of such oral sale. The appellants have also pleaded that the suit itself the barred by limitation. Having regard to the specific findings on the issue of title and the other evidence, the Trial Court also held that the suit is not barred by limitation. The Trial Court specifically found that the plaintiffs have proved their title in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 and an extent of 3 1/2 cents out of 8 cents in Item No.3. Consequential injunction was also granted only in respect of Item Nos.1 and 2 and 3 ½ cents out of 8 cents described as Item No.3. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the appellants and the other defendants have filed AS.No.81/2019 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore District at Vridhachalam. The plaintiffs have also filed Cross Appeal in Cross Appeal No.81/2019.

(6) The Lower Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court after holding that the plaintiffs have proved their title and the defendants have failed to prove their oral sale or their enjoyment over the suit properties. Aggrieved by the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below, the present Second Appeal is filed by defendants 4, 5, 10 and 21 in the suit in OS.No.593/2008.

(7) The appellants have raised the following substantial questions of law in the Memorandum of Grounds of Se