The judgment underscores the necessity of providing adequate proof of title and possession in property disputes to succeed in claims.

JUDGMENT

Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgment and Decree dated 12.07.2012, in A.S.No.30 of 2011, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Vellore, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 17.02.2011, in O.S.No.880 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Katpadi.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the Trial Court.

3.The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that the suit properties originally belonged to one Karkala Muni Reddy by virtue of the sale deed dated 05.11.1913. The entire extent in S.No.164 is 7.48 acres. Though it is referred to in the sale deed as 7.18 acres, the said Karkala Muni Reddy was in possession of 7.48 acres in S.No.164. The said Karkala Muni Reddy sold 83 cents of land infavour of one Munusamy Reddy by virtue of sale deed dated 12.07.1944. The said Karkala Muni Reddy died intestate in the year of 1955 leaving behind his only son Narayana Reddy to succeed his estate. Therefore, the said Narayana Reddy was in possession and enjoyment of 6.65 acres of land in S.No.164. The said Narayana Reddy sold 0.59 cents in S.No.164 in favour of Venkata Reddy under a sale deed dated 23.05.1967. Therefore, Narayana Reddy was in possession of 6.06 acres in the suit survey number. The said Narayana Reddy died intestate in the year of 1969, leaving behind his widow wife Muniammal and 2 daughters Munilakshmi and Dhanalakshmi, the plaintiffs 1 & 2 as his legal heirs. The plaintiffs 1 & 2 and the said Muniammal effected a division of their joint properties and agreed to enjoy the surplus 30 cents of land in S.No.164 in common.

3.1. After partition, the said Muniammal sold 2.15½ acres in S.No. 164 infavour of one Dr.Vimala Issac by way of a registered sale deed dated 17.07.1972. The 1st plaintiff and Muniammal jointly sold a house and site in S.No.164 in favour of one Thippi Reddy by way of a registered sale deed dated 11.01.1973 and the 2nd plaintiff and Muniammal sold 5 cents of vacant site infavour of one Chengalvaraya reddy, namely, the 1st defendant under a sale deed dated 31.05.1979. The 1st plaintiff had sold a portion of land under two sale deeds dated 11.01.1973 and 26.08.1974 in favour of the said Thippi Reddy. The 2nd plaintiff also sold 1.69 acres of land in favour of the said Dr.Vimala Issac. The total extent sold under the above sale deeds is 7.01 acres and there is 47 cents of land remaining and it belongs to the plaintiffs. The suit is in respect of 47 cents only. The plaintiffs and their mother were in possession of the 47 cents in S.No.164, which is the suit property. The 3rd defendant is the husband of the 1st plaintiff. Since the plaintiffs and their mother are women, they had to depend upon the 3rd defendant being the senior male member of the family.

3.2. Suddenly in the year 1990, the 3rd defendant began to assert the title in favour of the 2nd defendant, who is the son of the 1st defendant. The defendants 1 to 3 have no manner of right or title in the suit properties. Therefore, the plaintiffs and their mother issued a legal notice dated 12.02.1991 and the 2nd defendant issued a reply notice dated 11.03.1991. The 3rd defendant also issued a reply notice with false allegations. In the sale deed dated 25.05.1988, it is recited that the 3rd defendant's father orally sold the property. There was no oral sale either in the year 1969 or at any point of time and the 2nd defendant under the guise of the above sale deed is in possession of the 47 cents of the land unauthorizedly and illegally. Therefore, the 2nd defendant is bound to deliver the possession of the same. Hence the suit. 4.The second defendant contested the suit, denied the allegations in the plaint and filed a written statement, contending that the land in S.No.164 originally belonged to Muni Reddy. The said Muni Reddy sold a portion of land and the share in the Well to the father of one Venkata Reddy. After the death of the said Muni Reddy, his son Narayana Reddy sold a portio