In property disputes, established legal title prevails over claims of possession and unproven arrangements such as exchanges, reaffirming that 'title follows possession' is rebuttable.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.

1. These two second appeals arise from the common judgment and decree dated 09.07.2013 in A.S.No.126 of 2012, whereby the first appellate Court set aside the decree of declaration of title granted by the trial Court, but confirmed the decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.307 of 1999.

2. S.A.No.70 of 2014 is by the plaintiffs, seeking restoration of the declaration of title; S.A.No.1282 of 2013 is by the first defendant, challenging the grant/confirmation of injunction.

3. Since both second appeals arise from the same lis and overlap on facts and law, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

4. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties in both the second appeals are referred to in this judgment according to their respective ranks as arrayed in the suit in O.S.No.307 of 1999.

5. The suit O.S.No.307 of 1999 was filed by Mani and others against Kaliyaperumal and another seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property.

6. The plaintiffs’ case, in substance, is: (i) there was a family partition around 1964; (ii) thereafter, for convenient enjoyment, an exchange arrangement was entered into between the plaintiffs’ father and the first defendant, by which the plaintiffs’ father came to enjoy the suit property; (iii) patta/mutation and tax payments stood in their line; (iv) the plaintiffs rely on a settlement deed dated 07.07.1999 executed by their father in their favour.

7. The first defendant denied the plaintiffs’ title and possession; pleaded a registered partition deed dated 08.12.1964 and asserted that the suit property stood allotted to his share; denied any exchange by which the plaintiffs’ father could acquire title and contended that the settlement deed dated 07.07.1999 is void as the executant had no title.

8. The trial Court decreed the suit for declaration and injunction. The first appellate Court found that the trial Court had proceeded on a presumption that “there should have been an exchange arrangement”, which the appellate Court held to be legally unsustainable.

9. On title, the first appellate Court held that the settlement deed dated 07.07.1999 was not binding since the executant had no title, and therefore refused declaration. However, on possession, the first appellate Court relied upon revenue/tax materials (Exs.A2 to A8) and confirmed permanent injunction.

10. Aggrieved by the judgment of the first appellate court, both parties have preferred the above Second Appeals before this Court, as stated supra, raising the following grounds.

11. Plaintiffs’ grounds in S.A. No. 70 of 2014: The plaintiffs contend that the first appellate court reversed the trial court decree without proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, and that its judgment is contrary to law and the weight of evidence. They rely principally on the registered settlement deed dated 07.07.1999 (Ex.A1) and assert long, peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property pursuant to that deed; they also emphasise patta/mutation entries in their favour (Ex.A2, Ex.A4) and admissions/evidence said to support their possession (including DW2 and aspects of DW1’s cross-examination). They further allege perversity and non-consideration of material evidence, including that the defendant’s mortgage document was a post-suit, preparatory document, and urge that despite accepting plaintiffs’ possession, the first appellate court erroneously refused declaration.

12. Defendant’s grounds in S.A. No. 1282 of 2013: The defendant (appellant) challenges the decree of permanent injunction granted by the lower appellate court as legally erroneous and based on misreading of evidence. The principal submission is that the plaintiffs failed to prove possession as on the date of suit, and that the lower appellate court wrongly founded injunction on mutated revenue records allegedly obtained after institution of the suit and not shown to pertain to the suit pr