8.As seen earlier, though the defendant claims that his father had with the permission of Soora Naicker put up a thatched shed in the suit property and running a tea stall and thereafter, with the permission of Palaniammal, the defendant had put up a tiled house in the suit property, the defendant has not averred and established as to how come Soora Naicker and Palaniammal had title and right over the suit property in question. It could therefore, be seen that without any basis the defendant has pleaded that the original owner of the suit property is Soora Naicker. If that be so acceptable documents to evidence the same would have been produced by the defendant. On the other hand, as adverted supra, the plaintiff has established that A.S.Krishnamoorthy, being the original owner of the suit property had settled the property upon her father under Ex.A1 and thereafter the suit property had been enjoyed by the plaintiff as a full owner by paying house tax and also obtained necessary blue print and permission from the town panchayat for putting up the new construction in the suit property. If really, as pleaded by the defendant, his father or the defendant as the case may be, had obtained the electricity service connection in the suit property and also built up a tiled house, to establish the same, the defendant would have endeavoured to examine Palaniammal in support of his case. However, Palaniammal has not been examined in support of the defendant's case. That apart, the plea of the defendant as claimed in the
