The plaintiff must establish a valid chain of title through predecessors to uphold claims of ownership in property disputes; mere possession is insufficient.

JUDGMENT

Heard.

2. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and Decree passed in. A.S.No. 9 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Sub- Court, Tenkasi, dated 11.01.2019 reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 120 of 2012 on the file-of the District Munsif cum Magistrate Court, Shenkottai, dated 16.12.2013.

3. This Second Appeal arises from a dispute concerning immovable property situated in Aaykudi Village, Tenkasi Taluk, comprised in Survey Nos. 64/5 and 64/7. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 120 of 2012, wherein he sought (i) a declaration of title to the suit property and (ii) a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court.

5. The plaintiff claims ownership of suit properties measuring 1 acre and 90 cents of punjai land purchased under a registered sale deed dated 28.06.2006 (Ex. A1) from Abbas, who had earlier acquired title from Annammal Vagaira on 30.06.1992 (Ex. A2), thereby establishing a valid chain of title. He asserts continuous possession since purchase, alleges unlawful interference by the defendant that led to the suit on 08.11.2012, and relies on a joint patta dated 04.11.2011 (Ex. A3) for Survey No. 64/5 standing in the name of Michael Ammal.

6. The defendant denied the plaintiff’s title and asserted an independent claim of ownership, stating that the property in Survey No. 64/7 originally belonged to his grandfather, Anthonymuthu Nadar, who purchased it under a registered sale deed (Ex. B1), and that it later devolved to his father, Panimariyan, by a Will dated 05.01.1961. Following his father’s death on 31.03.1987, the defendant claimed exclusive ownership based on an oral release from his siblings 04.06.2008and a registered settlement deed (Ex. B2) executed by his mother in his favour on 16.12.2008. He further relied on pattas and tax receipts standing in his name to prove possession, while specifically denying the plaintiff’s title through Abbas and Annammal Vahera, contending that their sale deeds were invalid and conveyed no right since the property never belonged to Abbas.

7. The Trial Court found that the plaintiff’s sale deeds, Exs. A1 and A2, were duly registered instruments forming a valid chain of title from 1992 to 2006, thereby establishing both his ownership and possession of the suit property. The Court reasoned that the Will dated 05.01.1961, on which the defendant’s claim rested, had not been produced or marked as an exhibit. In the absence of proof of the Will, the subsequent settlement deed executed by the defendant’s mother on 16.12.2008 (Ex. B2) was held to be without legal foundation, as she herself had no right to convey. The Court further relied on the defendant’s admission that he had no claim over Survey No. 64/5, noting that revenue entries or pattas cannot override registered conveyances. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s title was upheld, and he was granted a permanent injunction, with the defendant’s alleged oral release and settlement deed deemed irrelevant.

8. The defendant’s first appeal in A.S. No. 9 of 2014 was allowed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi, who reversed the Trial Court’s decree. The appellate court held that in a title suit the burden lies wholly on the plaintiff, citingUnion of India v. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. 2014 (4) CTC 471 andEureka Builders v. Gulabchand 2018 (5)MLJ 610. It found that while Exs. A1 and A2 were registered, they failed to sho