A mere mention of property ownership in sale deeds does not constitute a substantive admission of title under the Indian Evidence Act; the plaintiff has the burden to establish valid title independently.

JUDGMENT :

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

1. The instant second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2012 in A.S.No.15 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Hosur (First Appellate Court) confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.1.2012 in O.S.No.321 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Hosur (Trial Court) dismissing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for the relief of declaration of her right, title and interest over the suit property and for a permanent injunction.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is as follows :

(i) S.No.152/2 in Echankoor Village, Hosur Taluk and Sub-Registration District, Krishnagiri Registration District comprised of a total extent of 6.52 acres, out of which, the appellant purchased an extent of 2 acres, which was sub-divided into S.No.152/2B, by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 23.10.1970 marked as Ex.A.1.She is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(ii) The grievance of the appellant is that defendants 1 to 4 namely respondents 1 to 4 herein along with their mother - one Mrs.Venkatamma dealt with the remaining extent of 4.4 acres and sold it by virtue of two sale deeds both dated 11.4.1996 marked as Ex.A.4 and Ex.A.5 respectively to one Mrs.Vinutha Reddy and one Mr.P.S.Ramakrishna Reddy. Therefore, there was no other extent of property available to be dealt with. In the said sale deeds dated 11.4.1996, there was also a specific mention regarding the two acres that was sold in favour of the appellant.

(iii) While so, the said Mrs.Venkatamma executed a power of attorney deed in favour of the fifth defendant/fifth respondent herein to deal with the property comprised of an extent of 2 acres, which was already sold to the plaintiff. Based on this power of attorney document, the fifth defendant executed a sale deed dated 14.12.2005 marked as Ex.B.3 in favour of the sixth defendant/sixth respondent herein. Taking advantage of the said sale deed dated 14.12.2005, defendants 5 and 6 were attempting to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property that was in the possession of the plaintiff. It was under those circumstances, the suit came to be filed seeking for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction.

4. The sixth defendant filed a written statement before the Trial Court wherein he took a stand that the property in S.No.152/2 measuring an extent of 6.44 acres did not belong to the vendor of the plaintiff namely one Mr.Pappiah and that therefore, he did not have any right or title to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. The further stand taken was to the effect that the plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

5. In the written statement, the sixth defendant also took a stand that the property in S.No.152/2 measuring an extent of 6.44 acres originally belonged to one Mr.Chinna Pappaiah and one Mr.Avalappa, who were the sons of one Mr.Chinna Goopalliyappa, that they executed a gift deed dated 04.7.1980 marked as Ex.B.1 in favour of the said Mrs.Venkatamma, who was the mother of defendants 1 to 4, for the entire extent of the property, that subsequently, the revenue records were also transferred in favour of the said Mrs.Venkatamma, that out of 6.44 acres, the said Mrs.Venkatamma and her sons (D1 to D4) sold an extent of one acre in favour of the said Mrs.Vinutha Reddy and an extent of 3.44 acres in favour of the said Mr.P.S.Ramakrishna Reddy, that the remaining extent of 2 acres was dealt with through a registered general power of attorney docum