The plaintiff, in the plaint, would only claim title to the suit
property through his father based on the settlement deeds said
to have been executed by his father marked as Exs.A2 and A3.
Further according to the plaintiff, as averred in the plaint,
his father had been granted assignment of the suit property on
29.08.1958. However, the said assignment order has not been
produced by the plaintiff for the reasons best known to him. As
above pointed out, the plaintiff's father in the earlier
proceedings i.e. in O.S.Nos.144/1972 and 105/1981 had also
claimed title to the suit property based on the assignment dated
29.08.1958. However, his case had been disbelieved and rejected
in the abovesaid proceedings and it has been held that only
Maran who had title to the suit property and not the plaintiff's
father. Accordingly, Maran's title in O.S.No.144/1972 has been
upheld both by the trial court as well as the appellate court.
Even in A.S.No.92/1985 preferred by Palani against the judgment
and decree passed in O.S.No.105/1981 it is only Maran's title
which had been upheld by the concerned courts. When the
plaintiff's claim of title to the suit property, through his
father, had been challenged by the defendants in toto, it is for
the plaintiff to establish that his father had a valid claim of
title to the suit property. However, to sustain the plaintiff's
case, as above pointed out, the plaintiff has not even
endeavoured to produce the assignment order issued in favour of
his father qua the suit property. In such view of the matter,
when the plaintiff's father's entitlement to the suit property
has not been established by the plaintiff and when the competent
courts had also declared that the plaintiff's father has no
title to the suit property and only Maran had title to the suit
property and the plaintiff having also not endeavoured to
examine his father to establish as to how he had acquired title
to the suit property, particularly, whether he had been granted
any assignment qua the suit property, when the so called
assignment said to have been issued in favour of the plaintiff's
father dated 29.08.1958 had been disbelieved and rejected by the
competent counts in the earlier proceedings, as rightly
contended by the first defendant's counsel, the plaintiff's
father would have no entitlement or competency to settle the
suit property in favour of the plaintiff and his brother by way
of Exs.A2 and A3 settlement deeds. Thus, it is found that by way
of Exs.A2 and A3 settlement deeds, the plaintiff would not
derive a valid title to the suit property. Resultantly, the
plaintiff's claim of issuance of patta in his favour qua the
