IMPORTANT POINT
A party claiming title must prove the vendor's title; assumptions or gaps in evidence are insufficient to establish ownership.

JUDGMENT :

S.Sounthar, J.

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.12 of 2001, dated 30.11.2001, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.384 of 1995, dated 10.08.2000, on thefile of First Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli.

The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.12 of 2001, dated 30.11.2001, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.384 of 1995, dated 10.08.2000, on the file of First Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli.

2.The defendants in the suit are the appellants. The respondents filed the suit for declaration of title and injunction. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal filed by the respondents/Plaintiffs, the First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and granted a decree as prayed for. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants are before this Court.

3.According to the respondents/plaintiffs, the first plaintiff purchased 92 1/2 cents of eastern A1.28 cents in S.No.305/1 under Ex.A2, dated 11.09.1985 from one Shesilia @ Nallammal.The second plaintiff purchased the remaining 35 ½ cents in eastern 1.28 cents in the very same survey number under Ex.A3 on the very same date from the very same vendor. It was claimed that the plaintiffs had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from the date of purchase on the basis of the sale in their favour. The Patta was granted in favour of the plainiffs in the year 1987. Though the plaintiffs entitled only 1.26 cents on the eastern side, patta was granted in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the entire extent of the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiffs submitted an application before the Tahsildar, Tirunelveli to correct the extent as 1 acre 28 cents instead of 2 acres and 26 cents. On 7.4.1965, he passed an order cancelling the patta in favour of the plaintiffs and directed inclusion of defendants’ name. The said order was challenged by the plaintiffs before the Revenue Divisional Officer by filing an appeal. The order of the Tahsildar was stayed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Since the defendants threatened to tresspass into the suit property, the plaintiffs were constrained to file a suit for declaration of title and for injunction.

4.The defendants filed their written statement denying the title of the plainiffs vendor specifically. According to them, the suit property originally belonged to Mahalingam Iyer and his brother Balasubramaniam Iyer. In an oral partition between them, the suit property was allotted to the share of Balasubramaniam Iyer and subsequently, the same was purchased by the defendants under sale deed, dated 15.08.1994. The defendants also purchased the western 98 cents in suit survery number from the legal heirs Sabiyal Beevi under sale deed, dated 24.10.1994. Thus the defendants claimed right over the entire extent in the suit survey number. On these pleadings, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

5.Before the trial Court, the husband of the first plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and yet another witness was examined as P.W.2. 11 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A11.The father of the second defendant and father-in-law of the first defendant was examined as D.W.1 and seven documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B7.

6.The trial Court, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to establish their title over the suit property and consequenty, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in A.S.No.12 of 2001, on the file of First Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli. The First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before this Court by way of this Second Appeal.

7.At th