The burden of proof lies on the party asserting an oral sale, and clear, unimpeachable evidence is required to establish such a claim.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree dated 05.11.1997 in A.S.No. 24 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ariyalur, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 28.04.1992 made in O.S.No.298 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ariyalur.)

1.The plaintiff/legal representatives of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 298 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Ariyalur are the appellants herein.

2. O.S. No 298 of 1990 had been filed by the plaintiff, R. Manickam against his brother Sundaram, shown as the 2nd defendant, S. Pandiyan, the son of Sundaram, sown as the 1st defendant and Amsu, wife of Gurusamy Chettiar, shown as the 3rd defendant, seeking declaration of title and consequential injunction to protect possession of the suit schedule property.

3. By judgment dated 28.04.1992, the suit had been decreed.

4. S. Pandiyan, the 2nd defendant then filed A.S. No. 24 of 1993 before the Sub Court at Ariyalur. By judgment dated 05.11.1997, the appeal suit was allowed and the judgment in O.S. No. 298 of 1990 was set aside and the suit was dismissed.

5. The plaintiff, R. Manickam then filed the present second appeal. Pending the appeal, he died and his legal representatives have been brought on record as 2nd to 8th appellants. The 3rd respondent also died and the 1st and 2nd respondents were recognized as her legal representatives. The 1st respondent also died and 4th to 8th respondents were brought on record as his legal representatives.

6. The second appeal had been admitted on 11.07.2002 on the following substantial question of law : “Whether the lower appellate court is right in discarding the documents filed in support of the case of the plaintiff ?”

O.S. No. 298 of 1990 (District Munsif Court, Ariyalur):

7. The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction to protect possession of the suit property. The suit property was said to be house site and thottam (garden) in G.R. No. 541/570, measuring 0.04.0 acres, and measuring 12 human feet east to west and 120 human feet north to south in Vilangara Street, Ariyalur to an extent of 724 sq.ft. It was stated to be east of the plai8ntiff’s property and to the west of the plaintiff, 2nd defendant and another brother, Swaminathan’s property. It is a narrow stretch of land.

8. The plaintiff stated that the suit property was purchased by Natarajan in Court auction held on 16.03.1960, who then sold the land to Gurusamy Chettiar, the husband of the 3rd defendant on 03.11.1960 by a registered sale deed. The plaintiff then claimed that Gurusamy Chettiar then sold the suit property to him by oral sale on 10.07.1961 for Rs.90/-. It was stated that one Thangarasu son of Kaliaperumal Naidu was a witness to the oral sale. The plaintiff further claimed that he was in possession of the documents of title relating to the suit property. He claimed to be in possession and also claimed to pay Government tax.

9. He further stated that he allowed the 2nd defendant to occupy a smaller portion of the suit property to put up his house. It was then stated that the 2nd defendant claimed that he had actually purchased the suit property from the 3rd defendant, Amsu Ammal, wife of Gurusamy Chettiar, by a registered sale deed dated 27.07.1990. Claiming that the 2nd defendant was interfering with his peaceful possession and asserting title, the suit had been filed seeking declaration of title on the basis of the oral sale and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession.

10. The 1st defendant filed a written statement denying and disputing title of the plaintiff. He specifically disputed the bonafide of the oral sale in favour of the plaintiff. He denied that the 2nd defendant was allowed to be in possession of a portion of the suit property. He asserted that the plaintiff, being an advocate’s clerk knew his way around and was able to obta