JUDGMENT

The second appeal is filed by the legal heirs of the defendant in O.S.No.239 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli.

2.The respondent's mother filed the suit in O.S.No.239 of 2004 on the file of the District Cum Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli for declaration of title and for mandatory injunction to remove the superstructure put up by the defendants in the suit property. The suit is also for recovery of compensation after removing the superstructure.

3.The suit property is an extent of 20 cents comprised in Suvey No.9 of 2015 in Kadallur District. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit property originally belonged to the first plaintiff's mother by name Ambuthachi. After the death of the first plaintiff's mother about 15 years back, the property was inherited by the first plaintiff. It is also stated that the suit property was cultivated by the plaintiff by Manavary Crops.

4. It is stated that patta was also given in favour of the first plaintiff and that the first plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property. It was stated that the defendant, who is the owner of the land on the south of the suit property, was trying to encroach the property. It is further submitted that the defendant wanted to sell the suit property by putting temporary shed on 25.07.2004. The husband of the first appellant, who was the defendant in the suit, filed a written statement, claiming title to the property on the basis of a oral sale obtained from one Kesavan Naidu, who is none other than the father of the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff died and hence the suit was prosecuted by second plaintiff.

5.The trial Court decreed the suit after holding that the plaintiffs have established their tittle. The trial Court granted the relief of mandatory injunction and directed the defendants to remove the superstructure within a period of three months and to hand over possession within three months. As against the judgment and decree of the trial court, the appellants herein preferred an appeal in A.S.No.3 of 2012 on the file of the Sub-Court, Neyveli. During the pendency of appeal, it is stated that the appellants filed a petition in I.A.No.15 of 2014 in A.S.No.3 of 2012 under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C to receive certain documents as additional evidence. The appellate Court after considering the pleadings and evidence independently confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Against the dismissal of appeal, the legal heirs of the defendant filed the present second appeal.

6.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants filed I.A.No.15 of 2014 for receiving additional documents and the lower Court has failed to mark those documents. He further submitted that the burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove their tittle and that therefore, the findings of the lower Courts shifting the burden on the defendant are unsustainable.

7.This Court considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents and grounds raised in the appeal. At the time of admitting the second appeal, this Court has framed the following question of law:-

''1.Whether in law the lower appellate Court below was right in not even referring to I.A.No.15 of 2014 filed by the appellants for receiving additional documents which were omitted to be marked by the counsels inadvertence?

2.Whether in law the Courts below were right in shifting the burden on the defendant when the plaintiff had failed to prove her case?''

Having regard to the admitted facts, this Court is of the view that the substantial questions of law raised by the appellants have no substance.

8.First of all, the case of the plaintiffs claiming tittle through the mother of first plaintiff is indirectly admitted by the defendant in the written statement. In the written statement, the defendant claimed tittle to the property on the basis of a oral sale obtained from the husband of the first plaintiff. It is stated that the d