The court affirms that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, who failed to substantiate her ownership claim, leading to dismissal of her appeal.

JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful plaintiff is before this Court on appeal.

2. The Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 19.12.2018, in A.S.No.31 of 2014, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sivagangai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 09.11.2012, in O.S.No.189 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the litigative status before the trial Court.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that she had purchased 1 acre of the property on 13.05.1996 through a registered sale deed for valuable consideration. The plaintiff, pursuant to her purchase had been carrying on cultivation in the property in S.No.49/2. The plaintiff had leased out the suit property for a play ground. When the property was sub-divided, a portion of the property which was sub-divided as S.No.49/2A1C had been wrongly included and patta was granted in favour of the defendants' father. In this regard, on 10.04.2009, the plaintiff had filed a petition to the Revenue Divisional Officer. On coming to know about the same, the defendants are attempting to encroach the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff has come up with the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

5. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the defendants'

father Shanmugam @ Shanmugam Sundaram Pillai was in possession of the suit property in S.No.49/2A1C for the past 60 years. In view of the possession and enjoyment, Adangal had been issued and also 10A(1) records stand in the name of the defendants' father. Further the defendants' father had also sold a portion of the property in S.No.49/2A1C measuring 4 cents through a sale deed, dated 26.03.2004, in favour of one Rajeswari and the purchaser is in possession of the property to that extent of 4 cents. The plaintiff, who had purchased the properties recently wanted the defendants also to sell this suit property to the plaintiff, which the defendants' refused and as such, the plaintiff had come up with the suit with false claim and sought for dismissal of the suit and also sought for counter claim.

6. During trial, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and one Radhakrishnan as P.W.2 and marked exhibits A.1 to A.6. The second defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and one Irulappan and Velayutham as D.W.2 and D.W.3 and marked exhibits B.1 to B.3.

7. The trial Court, after analysing the evidences, came to the conclusion that when the plaintiff had purchased the property measuring 1 acre in S.No.49/2, which was sub-divided and patta was issued in favour of the plaintiff, that property purchased by the plaintiff does not include 13 cents, for which, patta was issued in favour of the defendants' father in S.No.49/2A1C in Ex.B.1 and thereby had dismissed the suit and allowed the counter claim. On appeal, the lower appellate Court reappraised the evidence and on finding that since the plaintiff failed to produce the copy of the patta issued in her favour in S.No.49/2A1B held that adverse inference has been drawn and only if the plaintiff shows that there is a lesser extent available than the lands purchased through the sale deed, the proposition that the boundary will prevail over the extent will be applicable and as such, dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

Assailing the concurrent findings of fact, the plaintiff had preferred the above Second Appeal.

8. The Second Appeal has not been admitted and this Court, by order dated 15.04.2019, only issued notice to the respondents.

9. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant argued that when the plaintiff had filed the sale deed in Ex.A.2 and also the lease agreement in Ex.A.3, she has pro