Possession of property establishes a prima facie case for title; the burden of proof rests on the disputing party, especially under Indian Evidence Act Section 110.

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2017 passed in A.S.No.70 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, reversing the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2013 passed in O.S.No.29 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Vanur.

2.The plaintiff, who suffered a reversal finding at the hands of the First Appellate Court, in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, is the appellant herein.

3.The parties are described as per their litigating status before the Trial Court.

4.The case of the plaintiff is that he had purchased the suit property on

02.11.2007 from one Venugopal and that ever since the said date, he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. According to the plaintiff, the suit property is comprised in S.No.354 and there was a resurvey in the year 1924, the property was assigned Resurvey No.231/2A measuring 2.96 acres and subsequently, it was again resurveyed and assigned S.No.267/1A. The total extent available in S.No.354 namely the suit property is 4 acres and 13 cents. According to the plaintiff, the said property belonged to one Srinivasa Gounder, who conveyed 2.81 acres in favour of Arumuga Gounder on 14.10.1911. Srinivasa Gounder also settled 1 acre and 32 cents in favour of Throwpathiamman Temple and after the above mentioned sale/gift, the said Srinivasa Gounder had no right in the suit property. Arumuga Gounder sold 1.32 acres to Murugappa Gounder, being the southern side of the property and to Lakshmiammal, 1.49 acres, being northern side, in and by sale deeds dated 07.02.1914 and 19.04.1918. The sons of Lakshmiammal had borrowed money from Venugopal and the said Venugopal had filed a suit in O.S.No.303 of 1931 and the property of Lakshmiammal was brought to sale in public auction and Venugopal was the successful auction purchaser, who also obtained delivery of possession from the Executing Court on 06.02.1939. Subsequently, the said Venugopal has also mutated the revenue records in his favour and thereafter, he sold the property to the plaintiff. However, the defendants are trying to stake a claim in the suit property purchased by the plaintiff from the said Venugopal and therefore, the suit has been filed for declaration of title and injunction to protect the possession of the plaintiff.

5.The defendant filed a written statement stating that the suit property originally belonged to his great grandfather, Srinivasa Gounder who had orally gifted 1.32 acres in S.No.354 to Throwpathi Amman Temple. The sale deeds in favour of Arumugam and Lakshmiammal are denied. According to the defendant, the Srinivasa Gounder was in possession of the remaining extent of 2.2 acres and he died leaving behind his son, Adhimoolam who was in possession of the suit property during his lifetime and subsequently, the said Adhimoolam also died, leaving behind his six sons as his legal heirs. Out of the said six sons, two of the sons by name Venugopal and Nandhagopal died leaving behind their heirs and the suit property was partitioned amongst the surviving legal heirs on 07.06.1973. In the said partition Deed, the suit property was allotted to the share of Jayaraman and Thirumal who subsequently divided the properties in and by a Partition Deed dated 15.12.2003 and the suit properties were allotted to the share of Thirumal. The partition deed has been attested by the plaintiff.

6.It is the specific case of the defendant that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of declaration or permanent injunction. The decree obtained by Venugopal is also denied and the averment that Venugopal took delivery of the property through Court is also denied. According to the defendant, the plaintiff has no title to suit property and consequently he is neither entitled to relief of declaration nor entitled to the relief of permanent injunction.

7.The Trial Court, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties