IMPORTANT POINT
The plaintiff's establishment of ownership to a high degree of probability shifted the onus to the defendant, leading to the plaintiff's burden of proof being deemed discharged. The suit was maintainable without joining co-sharers as it enured to their benefit.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2011 made in AS.No.27 of 2010 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram confirming the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2010 made in OS.No.330 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kangayam.)

1. The defendant in the suit is the appellant in the above appeal. The Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2011 in A.S. No.27 of 2010 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2010 in OS.No.330 of 2007 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kangayam, Erode District.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts, which gave rise to this Second Appeal, are as follows:

According to the plaintiff, her father Kandasamy Gounder has purchased the suit property on 23.09.1937 in Ex.A.4. Pursuant to his death, the plaintiff had inherited the suit properties and she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than 40 years. The house situated in the suit property got damaged and at present, the suit property is vacant and except the plaintiff no one else has any right over the suit property. When her father purchased the suit property, the property of one Karupatthal, Kandasamy Gounder and Chenniyappa Gounder was on the northern side, property of Ponnathal on the eastern side and the lands belonging to Pattaiya Gounder was on the western and southern side of the suit property. The same has also been shown in the schedule to the sale deed in Ex.A.4 purchased by her father. As of now, one Chinnasamy Gounder, the legal heir of Ponnathal is on the eastern side and Palanisami Gounder and Subbaraya Gounder, legal heirs of Chenniyappa Gounder are on the northern side and the defendant by name Mohankumar who has purchased the property is on the southern and western side. As such, the suit boundaries has been given as per the existing situation. On 10.02.2006, the defendants purchased the properties on the western and the southern side of the properties of Pattaiya Gounder. While the defendant purchased his property, he has shown the eastern side boundaries of the plaintiff as the eastern side in his document. The defendant while mentioning the house of Ponnathal on the eastern side has wrongly mentioned as property of Chinnasamy Gounder on the eastern side. The defendant on 01.07.2007 attempted to sell the suit property in favour of the 3rd persons as such, the plaintiff has issued the legal notice on 01.08.2007 for which the defendant had issued evasive reply and as such, the plaintiff has come up with the suit for declaration of title and injunction.

4. The defendant has resisted the suit by filing the written statement that the suit property is in Natham Survey no. 454/20 and that the plaintiff or her ancestors had no right in the said property and also they had not been in enjoyment of the property. The defendant has also denied the contention of the plaintiff that the father of the plaintiff had purchased the suit property on 23.09.1937. In fact what was purchased by the plaintiff was only two Anganam roof facing east and another 3 anganam roof and both of which is only two cents. According to the defendant, the suit property is no way connected with the property purchased by the plaintiff's father. The defendant had denied the plaintiff's statement that she has lived in the suit property for nearly 40 years. The defendant further contended that the suit property originally belonged to one Ponnammal and after her demise, it was inherited by her legal heirs. In respect of amount borrowed by Pattaiya Gounder from his brother Sivanmalai Gounder, he instituted a suit in OS.No.355 of 1956 on the file of District Munsif Court, Dharapuram. Pursuant to the decree, Execution Petition in EP.No.178/1967 was filed in which the properties were brought for auction, and Papap