Establishment of property title requires valid ownership documentation; mere claims without corroborating evidence are inadequate.

For Appellants : Mr.G.Jermaiah for Mr.D.Krishnamoorthy For Respondents : Mr.K.Ravi Senior Advocate Assisted by Mr.R.Murugan for M/s.Rugan and Arya for R1 R2 and R3 dismissed vide order dated 17.04.2018 J U D G M E N T The unsuccessful defendants 2 and 4 are the appellants. The first respondent herein filed a suit seeking declaration that the first respondent/plaintiff and second respondent/3^rd defendant were the owners of the suit property and for recovery of possession. The plaintiff also sought for a declaration that sale deeds dated 22.11.1996 in favour of first and second defendant were null and void. The trial Court granted a declaration that the suit property belonged to plaintiff and 3^rd defendant. The sale deeds in favour of defendants 1 and 2 were declared as null and void. As far as relief of possession is concerned, the same was not pressed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendants 2 and 4 have come by way of this appeal.

2. According to the first respondent/plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to one Francine Marie Marguerite Leonis, W/o.Thomas and the suit property was allotted to her under a partition deed dated 28.11.1989 marked as Ex.A1. The translated copy of the said document was marked as Ex.A2. The plaintiff and 3^rd defendant's husband viz., Ketan L. Shah purchased the property from the above said Francine Marie Marguerite Leonis under sale deed dated 17.09.1990 for sale consideration of Rs.5,50,000/-. The above said Ketan L. Shah died leaving behind his wife Anisha K.Shah 3^rd defendant/2^nd respondent herein. Thus the plaintiff and 3^rd defendant got right over the suit property. It was further averred in the plaint that the defendants 1 and 2 speculatively purchased the suit properties by means of two separate sale deeds dated 22.11.1996 from one N.Augustin S/o. Nagarathinam who alleged to have had long possession over 50 years. Since the defendants 1 and 2 based on the said transaction claimed right over the suit properties, in order to clear cloud over the title of the plaintiff and 3^rd defendant, instant suit was filed. When the suit was pending, the 4^th defendant herein in collusion with defendants 1 and 2 illegally trespassed into the portion of the suit property and purchased the said portion from Daviot Amelie and A.Francine. It is stated by the plaintiff that the vendors of the 4^th defendant had no title right over the suit property.

3. The defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement and resisted the suit on the ground that they purchased the suit property under sale deeds dated 22.11.1996 from one N.Augustin for a valid sale consideration of Rs.3,60,000/-. According to the defendants 1 and 2, their vendors were the real owners of the suit property and hence the defendants gained title and possession over the same. The defendants 1 and 2 also denied other averments found in the plaint.

4. The 4^th defendant denied the title of the plaintiff and the 3^rd defendant over the suit property and stated that he purchased 412 ½ sq.ft of land in the suit property from Daviot Amelie and A.Francine under sale deed dated 26.06.1997. It was further stated by the 4^th defendant that his vendors got prescriptive title over the suit property by virtue of long enjoyment. It was also stated that subsequent to the purchase of the suit property by the 4^th defendant, the patta has been transferred in his name in respect of the portion of the property purchased by him. Therefore, they sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and three other witnesses were examined as PW.2 to PW.4. On behalf of the plaintiff, forty three documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A43. On behalf of the defendants, defendants 2 an