Ownership must be established through valid documentation and evidence of possession; failure to do so results in dismissal of claims.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Second Appeal - The plaintiffs sought to declare ownership of suit 'B' schedule property and remove encroachments by defendants, who claimed adverse possession of 'A' schedule property. The First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court's decree, leading to the present appeal. (Paras 1, 9, 10, 23)

(B) Ownership and Title - The court emphasized the necessity of proving title through valid documentation and possession, noting that the plaintiffs failed to establish ownership of 'B' schedule property. (Paras 22, 23)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs claimed ownership of 'B' schedule property based on a series of sale deeds, while defendants contended adverse possession of 'A' schedule property. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but the First Appellate Court reversed this decision. (Paras 4, 9)

Findings of Court:
The First Appellate Court found that the plaintiffs did not prove ownership of 'B' schedule property, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. (Paras 23)

Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiffs could establish ownership of 'B' schedule property against the defendants' claims. (Paras 10, 23)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs failed to substantiate their claim of ownership over 'B' schedule property, affirming the First Appellate Court's decision. (Paras 22, 23)

Result: The Second Appeal is dismissed. (Para 24)

Table of Content
1. plaintiffs argue against appeal (Para 11 , 12)
2. court reviews evidence (Para 14)
3. court's reasoning on ownership (Para 23)
4. second appeal dismissed (Para 24)

JUDGMENT :

The Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.537 of 1999 dated 25.01.2002 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Trichy reversing the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.5 of 1994 dated 27.02.1998 on the file of the District Munsif, Musiri.

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

3. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.5 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif, Musiri are the appellants herein.

4. The case of the plaintiffs is that the portion marked as BCEF in plaint plan (marked as Ex P-1) is suit 'B' schedule property. The portion marked as EFGH in plaint plan A-1 is suit 'A' schedule property. Originally, ABEFCD portion in the plaint belonged to Vaiyapuri Chettiar. The wife of Vaiyapuri Chettiar inherited the property and sold suit 'B' schedule property to one Mookan Chettiar through Ex.A3 dated 06.06.1918. Thereafter, the wife of said Mookan Chettiar sold the said property to one Rathinammal through Ex.A4 dated 22.06.1955. Thereafter, the said Rathinammal sold the said property to 1^st plaintiff through Ex.A5 dated 11.05.1968. When the said property was under the possession and enjoyment of the 1^st plaintiff, the defendants asked the 1^st plaintiff to sell said property to them, however, she refused. Enraged by this, the defendants highhandedly encroached and put up construction in the 'B' schedule property. The construction put up by the defendants is shown as 'C' schedule in the plaint. The 'A' schedule property was bought by the 2^nd plaintiff, who is none else than the son of the 1^st plaintiff from one Pichai Chettiar S/o Rathinammal through Ex.A6 dated 02.09.1993. As the defendants have created documents and claimed that the property purchased by the 1^st plaintiff is 'A' schedule and not 'B' schedule and further they claimed ownership over 'B' schedule through Ex.B1, the suit was constrained to be filed to declare that the 1^st plaintiff is the sole, absolute and exclusive owner of the suit 'B' Schedule property and to deliver possession of the 'B' schedule property to the first plaintiff and to grant a mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs directing the defendants to remove the construction in 'C' schedule property.

5. The defendants filed a written statement and contested suit. It is denied that the subject matter of conveyance under 22.06.1955 sale deed was a schedule property. It is false to state that Rathinam Ammal vendee under sale deed was put into possession of 'B' schedule property and in pursuance of said sale deed, she has been in enjoyment of 'B' schedule property openly, peacefully, continuously and uninterruptedly for more than that the statutory period of limitation and thus, she had perfected title by adverse possession also in respect of 'B' schedule property. As mentioned supra, the subject matter of conveyance under sale deed dated 22-6-1955 was only a schedule property and Lakshmi Ammal was in enjoyment of A schedule property only. The averments in para 11 of the plaint are totally false. The first plaintiff purchased under sale deed dated 11-5-1968 from prior owner Rathinam Ammal only 'A' schedule property and since 'A' schedule property was situated adjacent west of Akkandi Chettiar manai, it has been rightly described in said sale deed as west of Akkandi Chettiar manai. The first plaintiff has purchased under sale deed only 'A' schedule property and she has been in possession and enjoyment of 'A' schedule property only and she has perfected title to A schedule property only by adverse possession also. The averments to the contra in para 11 of plaint are totally false. Even in the partition deed dated 09-07-1993, it is held that in 2^nd defendant's family owner of 'A' schedule property is derived to Arumugham