The plaintiff must establish title to property, and valid documentation and witness testimony can affirm ownership against competing claims.

JUDGMENT :

1. This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the Sub Judge, Kulithalai, dated 19/04/2002 passed in AS No.86 of 1995 confirming the judgment and decree of the Additional District Munsif, Kulithalai, dated 18/03/1992 passed in OS No.281 of 1985.

2. The plaint averments:-

The suit property is a house with vacate site bearing Door No. 3-10. It originally belongs to one Haritheertham Iyar and his brother Mani. The plaintiff purchased the property from them on 26/11/1984 for valid sale consideration. At that time, one Raju Pillai was a tenant at the monthly rate of Rs.15/-. He died and later, his wife Lakshmi Ammal vacated the premises. The plaintiff was put in possession. At that time, he was in Pattukottai. He came down to the village in December 1984 for occupation. At that time, the defendant interfered into the possession, for which he has no right. Even a criminal case was registered against the defendant for assaulting the plaintiff. Since, the defendant denies the title of the plaintiff, the plaint was amended seeking the relief of declaration and consequential permanent injunction and in the alternative for recovery of possession, mesne profit, costs, etc.

3. The statement:-

The title of the plaintiff through his vendors namely Haritheertham Iyar and Mani are denied. The suit property never belonged to them. The sale deed is also denied as false. So also the tenancy in favour of one Raju Pillai is also denied. So also handing over possession to the plaintiff by Lakshmi Ammal. The defendant is in possession of the property for several years. He purchased an extent measuring about 20' x 15' on the east of the Door No.3/10 from one Rasu Pilllai, on 09/03/1984. Till now, the defendant is paying the tax. The four boundaries on ground differs from the four boundaries mentioned in the sale deed of the plaintiff.

4. On the pleadings of both parties, the following issues were framed by the trial court, on 06/02/1992:-

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and consequential permanent injunction in respect of the suit property?

(2) In the alternative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and possession in respect of the suit property?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages from the date of claim?

(4) Whether the defendant has any right in the suit property?

(5) What other relief, the plaintiff is entitled to?

4.1 On the side of the plaintiff, 4 witnesses were examined and 8 documents marked. On the side of the defendant, 2 witnesses examined and 10 documents were marked. The Commissioner's report and plan were marked as Exs.C1 and C2.

5. At the conclusion of the trial process, the trial court decreed the suit for declaration and for recovery of possession. In respect of mesne profit, it was dismissed. Against which, the defendant preferred appeal before the appellate court namely the Sub Judge, Kulithalai in AS No.86 of 1995. It also came to be dismissed, confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial court.

6. Against the concurrent findings of the courts below, this second appeal is preferred by the defendant as appellant.

7. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were framed:-

(1) Whether the Courts below are right in decreeing the suit finding fault with the defence of the appellant overlooking that it is for the plaintiff/respondent to establish every link in his title in the suit for title and possession?

(2) Whether the Appellate Court has not misdirected himself in not framing the points for consideration in the Appeal?

8. Heard both sides.

Substantial question of Law No.1

9. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would draw the attention of this court to the discussion made by the trial court in para No.8. The discussion started from the angle of the defendant's case. Issue No.4 was framed as to whether the defendant has got any title over the property. Actually, that issue