A party claiming ownership must prove their title independent of any weaknesses in the opponent's case; admissions in legal documents undermine claims.

JUDGMENT :

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants herein. They filed a suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondent temple. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and the findings of the trial court were confirmed by the first appellate court. Challenging the concurrent findings against them, the plaintiffs have come before this court by way of second appeal.

2. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property was originally belonged to Appa Durai Chetty and 3 others. Pursuant to the decree dated 31.10.1944 passed by this court in CS.No.14 of 1944, the suit property was brought to sale in auction and one C.M.Vadivambal had been declared as successful purchaser. The sale was confirmed by order dated 04.09.1946 and subsequently, the sale certificate was issued on 17.10.1946. The said Vadivambal and her sons sold the property to father of the plaintiffs namely K.Jambulinga Mudaliar under sale deed dated 30.08.1948. The father of the plaintiffs died on 25-02-1961 and thereafter, there was a partition suit between the legal representatives of the said K.Jambulinga Mudaliar. As per the compromise decree dated 05-10-1978 made in CS.No. 191 of 1977, the suit property was allotted to the share of the first plaintiff. Thus, the 1^st plaintiff had become absolute owner of the property and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same from the date of allotment in his favour in the compromise decree.

3. The second plaintiff is the son of the first plaintiff. In the family arrangement that had taken place in the year 2000, the suit property was allotted to second plaintiff. As on today, the second plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and he has been paying property tax to the competent authority.

4. It is claimed by the plaintiffs that they received a notice on 04-07-2009 from the Executive Officer of the respondent temple claiming that the suit site belonged to the temple and the first plaintiff committed a trespass into the property of the temple. The first plaintiff sent a reply to the respondent temple enclosing the copies of the documents conferring title on him. It is further claimed by the plaintiffs that the Executive Officer of the respondent temple started locking the nearby premises on the ground that all the properties at Boothaperumal Mudali Street are owned by respondent Devasthanam. Since the Executive Officer of the respondent temple made arrangement to lock the suit premises, the plaintiffs were constrained to file a suit for declaration and injunction.

5. The respondent temple/defendant filed a written statement and denied the ownership of the appellants over the site of the suit property. According to the respondent temple, the site of the suit property which lies in Survey.No. 9/8 belongs to the temple and the revenue records stand in its name. It was also stated that the respondent temple was not a party to the suit in CS.No. 14 of 1944 and any order passed thereon and the sale in favour of plaintiffs’ predecessor in interest would not bind the temple. It was also stated that the respondent temple was not a party to the sale deed dated 30.08.1948 executed in favour of plaintiffs’ father and hence, the same is not binding on the temple.

6. It is the specific case of the respondent temple that in the compromise decree referred to in the plaint under which the plaintiffs claimed right over the suit property, there was a clear mention about the right of the temple over the suit site and hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek declaration of title over the suit property. It was also stated that in view of Section 109