to adduce any evidence in support of the said contention. Except marking Ext.B1 sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of third parties, no other documents were marked by the defendants. It is also significant to notice that the defendants had purchased the property in 1996. But, they did not produce even their documents of title to the property. In fact, there was no evidence at all from the side of the defendants to show that the claim of the plaintiff was untrue. It was in this context that both the courts wre constrained to lay considerable reliance on the Commissioner's report and decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The mere fact that the lower Appellate Court has not dealt with the encumbrance certificate produced before the said Court by the defendants, does not advance the case of the defendants at all. Nothing prevented them from producing the encumbrance certificate or any other documents before the Trial Court to prove that the claim of the plaintiff was false. They did not even produce their own title deed to the property, claimed to be purchased by them.
