The burden of proof lies on the party asserting entitlement to property, and mere possession without evidence of ownership or adverse possession is insufficient to claim ownership.

JUDGMENT :

(P. VELMURUGAN, J.)

This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.07.1998 made in A.S.No.108 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thanjavur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 16.03.1992 made in O.S.No.514 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvayyaru.

2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:

(a) The plaintiffs are the sons of Late Masilamani Nadar. The property originally belonged to one Arogyasamy Nadar, who has settled the properties by registered Settlement Deed, dated 19.01.1924 in favour of three sons and grand- sons Masilamani Nadar and another grandson through his son Rayappa Nadar alias Rethinasamy Nadar. The suit property described in the plaint documents by referring to the name of the seller with boundaries. It is also mentioned as Panchanatham Pillai's lands. Panchanatham Pillai alias Govinda Pillai, sold the property in favour of Arogyasamy Nadar - the settlor. 10 Mahas of lands were purchased from Panchabanathan Pillai alias Govinda Pillai and the properties had been given to Ponnusamy Nadar - 2 Mahas 60 Kuzhis, Masilamani Nadar - 2 Mahas and 50 Kuzhis and Yagappa Nadar - 2 Mahas and 50 Kuzhis. The balance of the land out of 10 Mahas are without mentioning the extent given to Yesumuthu Nadar. The balance of the land available after the specified extent in 2 Mahas and 40 Kuzhis. Thus, Yesumuthu Nadar has derived title to only 2 Mahas and 40 Kuzhis, equivalent to 80 cents. The properties allotted to Masilamani Nadar had been given to the plaintiffs under a list of partition arrangement dated 14.05.1958. The said partition list has been given effect to and the respective properties are enjoyed by the respective persons. The plaintiffs are in enjoyment of 2 Mahas and 50 Kuzhis and it is continuously enjoyed by the plaintiff by cultivating paddy. The second plaintiff is in enjoyment of 2 Mahas 50 Kuzhis, allotted to Yagappa Nadar.

(b) The defendant is alleged to have purchased some properties in Panchanatha Pillai alias Govinda Pillai's land from Lourdu Mary Ammal, wife of Yesmuthu Nadar. Yesmuthu Nadar himself had got only 2 Mahas and 40 Kuzhis and that alone could be partitioned between the members of the family. The defendant is alleged to have claimed 2 acres 10 cents in Old Survey No.538/9. The old Survey No.538/9 is sub-divided into 538/5, 538/6 and 538/7. The sub- division has no reference according to enjoyment. Even though 538/6 is entered in the name of Masilamani Nadar with a lesser extent of 54 cents, the extent mentioned is not correct as per the enjoyment. The plaintiffs are in actual enjoyment of 2 Mahas 50 Kuzhis East of this. This extent is well within the boundary, which demarcates the plaintiff's enjoyment by a big ridge extending to the width of 1/2 feet to 2 feet, and to a height of 1/2 feet to 2 feet. The defendant who is a recent purchaser is trying to shift the bund (ridge) by exercising the influence of her husband who is employed as Grama Sevak. Recently, the defendant's husband secured some persons and had measured the extent as per her sale deed and has put up a stone in the plaintiff's land and also put up a small ridge without the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Neither the defendant, nor her predecessor-in-title, are entitled to more than 2 Mahas and 40 Kuzhis and the defendant cannot claim more extent than this.

(c) The plaintiffs are entitled to have a decree for declar