In disputes regarding property ownership, the burden of proof rests on the claimant to establish title, with absent evidence leading to dismissal of claims.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

1. These second appeals arise out of O.S.No.122 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti and A.S. Nos.24 and 25 of 2016 before the Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti. The plaintiffs in the said suit are the appellants in the present second appeals.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. Pleadings: The Plaint in brief:

3.1. The suit property belonged to Yesaiyya, who is the father of the second defendant. The father of the plaintiff, viz., Pandithevar entered into an unregistered sale agreement with the said Yesaiyya on 31.10.1974 and having paid the entire sale consideration was put in possession of the suit property, even on the date of the sale agreement. The father of the plaintiff died in the year 2002 and thereafter, the plaintiffs have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Yesaiyya died on 15.08.2004 in Kerala. Subsequent to his death, the plaintiffs approached the second defendant to execute the sale deed in their favour and the second defendant also obliged by executing a sale deed on 16.12.2004 in favour of the plaintiffs.

3.2. As the plaintiffs were working away from the Village, because of their employment, they could not take steps to mutate the revenue records in their names. However, they have been paying the kists in the name of their father Pandithevar till 2010. Patta stands in the name of Yesaiyya in patta No.15. The plaintiffs came to know that the patta was transferred in the name of the first defendant and sought for cancellation of the same by approaching the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti.

3.3. At that point of time, the plaintiffs came to know that the first defendant has obtained sale deed on 03.11.2004 from the second defendant and his sister David Rani. The second defendant and his sister David Rani did not execute any such sale deed in favour of the first defendant and the sale deed has been executed by third parties, having no right over the suit property and the sale deed in favour of the first defendant is not a valid document in the eye of law and has to be declared as null and void. As the first defendant is trying to alienate the suit property, injunction is also prayed for. Title of the plaintiffs is also sought to be declared.

4. Written statement filed by the 1st defendant in brief:

The first defendant admitted the unregistered sale agreement between the father of the plaintiff, Pandithevar and Yesaiyya, on 31.10.1974. However, no steps were taken by Pandi Thevar to get a sale deed and the agreement has lapsed by efflux of time. The first defendant denies the fact that the father of the plaintiffs was put in possession of the suit property under the said registered sale agreement. The first defendant claimed to have purchased the suit property from the legal heirs of Yesaiyya, viz., Anthonysamy and David Rani, vide registered sale deed dated 03.11.2004 and eversince the first defendant has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment, including effecting mutation of revenue records and patta in his name. The sale deed relied upon by the plaintiffs is fraudulent and only with an intention to grab the suit property. The petition filed by the plaintiffs before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, has also been dismissed.

5. Written statement filed by the 2^nd defendant in brief:

The second defendant is the son of Late.Yesaiyya, who was the original owner of the suit property, by virtue of patta No.15. The said Yesaiyya sold the suit property to the father of the plaintiffs in and by an u