The burden of proof in property disputes, the principle of possession following title, and the limited jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 22.03.2010 passed in A.S. No.3 of 2007, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri, upholding the decree and judgment dated 27.10.2006 passed in O.S. No.260 of 2000, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Palacode.)

1. The defendants who failed before both the courts below had filed this present Second Appeal.

2. The respondent/plaintiff K. Chinnaraj filed the suit in O.S.No.260/2000 before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Palacode, seeking for a relief of declaration of his title to the suit property and for a consequential relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants/appellants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit property as described in the plaint is a punja land in Survey No.656/3B of Erranahalli Reddiyur Vilage, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District, admeasuring 1.25.5 hectare within the boundaries stated therein.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank in the present appeal would also be indicated.

4. The case of the plaintiff in nutshell is as follows: The suit property belongs to the plaintiff through two registered sale deeds dated 08.06.2000 (Ex.A1) and 15.11.2000 (Ex.A2). He purchased the suit property from one Sathyanarayanan and ever since the date of purchase, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying necessary tax to the Government, as evidenced by Ex.A3, Ex.A4 and Ex.A10. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palacode, issued a patta (Ex.A8) dated 18.12.2000 to the plaintiff. However, the defendants without any right over the suit property are attempting to interfere with the same. Hence the suit.

5. The 4th defendant filed his written statement and the other defendants adopted the same. In the written statement the defendants/appellants have stated that the plaintiff had never been in possession of the suit property and that only they are in possession of the suit property as lessees. According to them, the original owner Sathyanarayanan orally leased out the suit property in favour of the defendants and the plaintiff after the purchase of the suit property vide sale deeds dated 08.06.2000 (Ex.A1) and 15.11.2000 (Ex.A2), had demolished the building in the suit property illegally, for which the defendants lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Palacode Police Station and the same was registered as Crime No.780/2000. Moreover, on the basis of the representations given by the defendants 1 and 4, they were registered as cultivating tenants of the suit property by the Tahsildar & Record Officer, Palacode, vide his proceedings dated 29.09.2001 (Ex.B1). Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

i. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property?

ii. Whether the defendants 1 and 4 are cultivating the suit property for more than 20 years as lessees?

iii. Whether there is no jurisdiction for the civil court to entertain the suit since the defendants 1 and 4 are recognised as cultivating tenants?

iv. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property?

v. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?

7. In the trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself and two other witnesses and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A11. The 4th defendant examined himself and one another witness and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B3.

8. After full contest, the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Palacode, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff vide his decree and judgment dated 27.10.2006 on the following grounds:

i. The plaintiff has established that he is the title holder of the suit property by way of a