In a suit for declaration of title, the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish ownership, and the courts found sufficient evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim.

JUDGMENT :

R.Sakthivel, J.

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated March 7, 2018 made by the Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi in A.S.No.106 of 2011, which confirmed the Judgment and Decree dated August 2, 2011 made by the Principal District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi, in O.S.No.208 of 2007, by allowing this Second Appeal.

This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated March 7, 2018, made by the ‘Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi’ ['First Appellate Court' for short] in A.S.No.106 of 2011, thereby confirming the Judgment and Decree dated August 2, 2011, made by the ‘Principal District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi’ ['Trial Court' for short] in O.S.No.208 of 2007.

2. The appellants herein are the defendants while the sole respondent herein is the plaintiff before the Trial Court. Hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array before the Trial Court.

PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN BRIEF:

3. The Suit Property is an extent of 6 Cents (0.02.5 Hectares) in Old Survey No.107/4, New Survey No.107/9 of Thenkeeranur Village of the Kallakuruchi Taluk, comprising of a tiled roof house on the west and a thatched shed on the east. The plaintiff’s father - Ayyakannu owned the said 6 Cents of land as ancestral property along with some other properties. Vide registered Partition Deed dated September 11, 2006 executed among the plaintiff, plaintiff’s father and plaintiff’s brothers, where the said 6 Cents of land was allotted to the plaintiff as ‘B’ Schedule Property. Revenue records pertaining to the Suit Property which also stands in the name of the plaintiff. The defendants have no right or interest in the Suit Property. While so, on February 18, 2007, using men and money power, the defendants trespassed and encroached upon the thatched shed, and erected a mud wall on the property. Hence, the plaintiff has filed this Suit for Declaration, Recovery of Possession, and Costs.

DEFENDANTS’ CASE IN BRIEF:

4. The defendants filed written statement, wherein it is averred that the Partition Deed dated September 11, 2006 has not yet come into force and it is invalid. Total extent of suit survey number is 6 Cents (0.02.5 Hectares). The said extent of land originally belonged to Muthu, Arumugam, Ayya kutty @ Ayyan and Raman, who were in possession and enjoyment of it. Then, they orally divided the said extent equally (1.5 Cents each). The second defendant is son of said Muthu while the first defendant is son of the second defendant. The plaintiff is one of grandsons of said Arumugam. Ganesan is one of the sons of said Ayyakutty. Annamalai, son of said Raman, along with his two minor sons, sold the extent of 1.5 Cents allotted to them in the said Oral Partition, to the defendants vide Sale Deed dated July 1, 1972. Thus, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of 3 Cents of land out of the said extent of 6 Cents; the defendants have constructed a thatched shed on the property and have obtained an electricity connection. In a nut shell, out of the said 6 Cents, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of 3 Cents, while the plaintiff and Ganesan, son of Ayyakutty, are in possession and enjoyment of 1.5 Cents each. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought for.

TRIAL COURT AND FIRST APPELLATE COURT :

5.Upon hearing either side and perusing the records, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court concurrently found that an extent of 6 Cents in Old Survey No. 107/4 (New Survey No. 107/9) along with other properties was owned by the plaintiff’s father (Ayyakannu son of Arumugam) as Hindu Joint Family properties; that they partitioned the properties under Ex-A.1 = Ex-A.8 - Registered Partition Deed dated September 11, 2006, whereby the said extent of 6 Cents along with some other properties was allotted to the share of the plaintiff as ‘B’ Schedule Property; that Ex-A.1 = Ex-A.8 coupled with the revenue records and electricity r