JUDGMENT :

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

The defendants are the appellants in this second appeal.

2. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 299 of 2003 seeking for the relief of declaration of title for the first and second schedule properties and for the relief of permanent injunction on the ground that the first schedule property belongs to the mother of the plaintiff which was owned on the basis of a court auction sale. The second schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff from one Chelladurai, son of Kannaya Thevar, through a registered sale deed dated 23.12.1969 marked as Exhibit A2 and that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property and an attempt was made by the defendants to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property. Under such circumstances, the suit came to be filed before the trial court.

3. The defendants denied the exclusive title claimed by the plaintiff mainly on the ground that there was no title deed insofar as the first schedule property is concerned. Insofar as the second schedule property is concerned, the patta (Ex.A1) was issued in the name of five persons and from one of the person's son, the plaintiff has purchased 60 cents and it is not known as to when any partition took place and how the vendor was entitled for 60 cents. Accordingly, the defendants sought for the dismissal of the suit.

4. The trial court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not established title over the suit properties and accordingly dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 29.09.2004. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed appeal before the Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi in A.S. No. 42 of 2005 and the appellate court by judgment and decree dated 07.08.2006 allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal has been filed before this Court.

5. The following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court when the second appeal was admitted on 13.02.2007:

“(1) Whether the 1^st Appellate Court is right in terming the evidence of the appellant/ 1st defendant as admission in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court reported in 200 (9) S.C.C., 214, and 2002 (1) M.L.J., 749.

(2) Whether the 1^st appellate Court is right in placing the burden of proof on the appellant/ 1st defendant, when it is the settled principle that the plaintiff alone has to establish the claim through impeccable evidence?

(3) Whether the 1^st appellate Court is justified in accepting Exhibit A.2, when the plaintiff failed to produce evidence to trace his vendor's title over the second schedule property?”

6. This court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

7. There are two items of properties for which the plaintiff was claiming title. Insofar as the first schedule property is concerned, the plaintiff claimed that it belonged to his mother Vadivammal and to substantiate the same, the boundary description in Exhibit A2 sale deed was relied upon. Even though the plaintiff claimed that the first schedule property came to the mother through a court auction sale, the same was not substantiated and no document was placed before the court to establish the title.

8. Insofar as the second schedule property is concerned, the plaintiff was placing reliance upon Exhibit A2/sale deed. The sale deed was executed by one Chelladurai, who is the son of Kannaya Thevar. The original title is based on Exhibit A1, which is the settlement register in which the names of five persons have been mentioned, namely, Kannaya Thevar, Vadivammal, Maruthaya Thevar, Irulappa Thevar and Muthukrishna Thevar.

9. The trial court, while dealing with the evidence, came to the conclusion that there is absolutely no document to establish as to how Kannaya Thevar became entitled exclusively to