JUDGMENT : The lis which has given rise to the captioned second appeal is more than a decade old as a suit in O.S.No.11 of 2011 on the file of 'District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate's Court, Vanur' (hereinafter 'trial Court' for the sake of convenience and brevity) was filed by three plaintiffs against seven defendants on 11.02.2011 with prayers inter alia for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Suit property is a dry land comprised in S.No.105/2, Iyveli village situate within Vikravandi sub-registration district and Villupuram Registration District. 2. After full contest, trial Court decreed the suit in and by judgment and decree dated 13.04.2017. Defendants 5 and 7 in the trial Court alone carried the matter in appeal by way of a first appeal under Section 96 of 'The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ('CPC' for the sake of brevity) to 'Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Tindivanam' (hereinafter 'first Appellate Court' for the sake of convenience) vide A.S.No.22 of 2017. After full contest, the first Appellate Court also dismissed the regular first appeal in and by judgment and decree dated 14.10.2019 confirming the decree passed by the trial Court. Against these two concurrent judgments and decrees, defendants 5 and 7 in the trial Court arraying themselves as Appellants 1 and 2 respectively have filed the captioned second appeal under Section 100 of CPC. This second appeal Court deems it appropriate to set out essential facts in a nutshell. Against these two concurrent judgments and decrees, defendants 5 and 7 in the trial Court arraying themselves as Appellants 1 and 2 respectively have filed the captioned second appeal under Section 100 of CPC. This second appeal Court deems it appropriate to set out essential facts in a nutshell. Essential facts imperative for appreciating this judgment (sans unnecessary particulars / elaboration) are that plaintiffs case is that title qua suit property is traceable to Kannan @ Kannappa Gounder, father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 vide sale deed dated 02.05.1963; that the plaintiffs' title is buttressed by revenue records in the form of patta, A-Register extract dated 07.01.2011 and Kist receipt dated 08.01.2011, which were marked as Exs.A4, A5 and A6 respectively in trial Court; that the second plaintiff Ravinathan examined himself as PW1 and an independent witness Lakshmanan was examined as PW2, both of whom deposed buttressing the pleadings of plaintiffs; that the defendants resisted the suit primarily on the ground that when the suit property was purchased in the name of Kannan @ Kannappa Gounder (father of plaintiffs 2 and 3), it was not purchased as separate property of Kannan @ Kannappa Gounder, it was rather purchased only as joint family property of Kannan @ Kannappa Gounder and his brother Subbarayan Gounder; that Kannan @ Kannappa Gounder was the eldest member of the joint family and therefore the suit property was purchased in his name is the sheet anchor defence of the defendants; that the defendants also pleaded that about 7 cents from and out of the suit land was sold by plaintiffs in favour of first defendant vide Ex.A2 and another 11 cents from and out of the suit land in favour of fourth defendant vide Ex.A3; that these sale deeds were marked on the side of plaintiffs themselves as Exs.A2 and A3 (dated 29.01.2001 and 31.12.1987 respectively); that the fifth and seventh defendants deposed as DW1 and DW2 respectively and a relative of DW2 one Janarthanan deposed as DW3; that they are alinees qua suit property portions is the case of Defendants 5 and 7; that the trial Court and first Appellate Court returned factual findings that there is no joint family nucleus much less that the nucleus had surplus income which can lead to the presumption that is being propounded; that the trial Court framed as many as three issues on which parties went to trial and the first Appellate Court framed four points for consideration on which the regular first appeal was heard out; that as already set out supra, defendants 5 and 7 in the trial Court are before this Court as appellants 1 and 2 in captioned second appeal. 3. Mr. R. Thirugnanam, learned counsel for appellants, who was before this Virtual Court, made submissions summation of which are as follows: (a) The burden of proof is on the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs cannot succeed by shifting the burden; (b) The Courts below have failed to take into account Ex.A2 vide which 7 cents from and out of suit property have been sold by plaintiffs in favour of first defendant. 4. This Court heard learned counsel for appellants besides carefully perusing the judgments of the trial Court and first Appellate Court. A careful perusal of the judgments of the two Courts brings to light that the Courts have not held that the burden of proof is on the defendants. On the contrary the Courts below have proceeded on the basis that the plaintiffs having produced their title deed i.e., title deed of predecessor-in-title (father of plaintiffs 2 and 3) as Ex.A3 besides supporting revenue records as Exs.A4 to A6, the onus shifts on the defendants as the defendants plea that though suit properties stands in the name of father of plaintiffs 2 and 3, it was actually joint family property and that it was jointly purchased by father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 Kannan @ Kannappa Gounder and his brother Subbarayan Gounder. Therefore, trial Court and first Appellate Court have not proceeded on the basis that the burden is on the defendants, but they have only proceeded on the basis that the onus shifts to the defendants. In the aforementioned backdrop, the law is well settled that burden does not shift, but the onus swings like pendulum of a clock from one end to the other depending on the trajectory of the trial. Therefore, on facts and circumstances of the case on hand, this Court is unable to find itself in agreement with the submission that an error has been committed by the courts below as they have not placed burden on defendants, but have only held that onus shifted. 5. This takes us to the manner in which the Courts below have dealt with the onus. As already alluded to supra, trial Court framed three issues and they are as follows: '(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration of title to the suit property? (ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as sought for in the plaint? As already alluded to supra, trial Court framed three issues and they are as follows: '(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration of title to the suit property? (ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as sought for in the plaint? (iii) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to any other relief?' 6. While dealing with these three issues, trial Court has placed reliance primarily on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gangamma v. G. Nagarathnamma reported in (2009) 15 SCC 756 for the principle regarding full/real owner. First Appellate Court has placed reliance on judgment of this Court in Renuka and another Vs. K.G. Chandran and another reported in 2015 (3) CTC 129 to say that a person pleading a presumption that a property has actually been purchased from joint family nucleus should prove two essential ingredients i.e., a) that there was joint family nucleus and b) that the joint family nucleus had surplus income from and out of which it may be presumed that the property in question could have been purchased. On facts, on a careful analysis of the documentary and oral evidence, first Appellate Court also has returned the finding that the defendants have failed the onus test in this regard. 7. This takes us to the second submission of learned counsel regarding alienation of a part of the suit property i.e., 7 cents in favour of first defendant. This alienation has not been suppressed by the plaintiffs. On the contrary, plaintiffs have filed this sale deed as Ex.A2 being sale deed dated 29.01.2001. The point is, absent proof that the suit property was joint family property, this is of no consequence and more importantly, the vendee under Ex.A2 is first defendant and first defendant has not preferred this appeal. Be that as it may, the moment finding rendered is that suit property was the absolute property of Kannan @ Kannappa Gounder (father of plaintiffs 2 and 3), he having purchased the same vide sale deed dated 02.05.1963 (Ex.A1) and that the sale is supported by revenue records which have been marked as exhibits, details of which have been alluded to supra, this pales into insignificance. 8. 8. In any event, captioned second appeal being one under Section 100 of CPC, it is imperative that a substantial question/s of law arise/s. To be noted, the expression 'substantial question of law' occurring in Section 100 CPC has been elucidatively explained in a long line of authorities starting from Sir Chunilal Mehta's case [Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. Vs. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 1962 SC 1314 ]. To be further noted Sir Chunilal Mehta case is a Constitution Bench judgment, which affirmed the view taken by a Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in Rimmalapudi Subba Rao's case [Rimmalapudi Subba Rao Vs. Noony Veeraju And Others reported in AIR 1959 Madras 969]. Relevant paragraphs in Chunilal Mehta's case are Paragraphs 6, which reads as follows: '6. We are in general agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court and we think that while the view taken by the Bombay High Court is rather narrow the one taken by the former High Court of Nagpur is too wide. The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether if directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law.' 9. As the law is well settled in this regard, this Court deems it not necessary to delve any further into this. The lone question propounded and proposed as substantial question of law by the protagonists/appellants in captioned second appeal as can be culled out from the memorandum of grounds of second appeal reads as follows: '(i) Whether the Courts below are correct in decreeing the Suit in entirety when the Appellants have purchased a portion of the Suit property under Ex.B.3 and Ex.B.4.' 10. The aforementioned question by its very nature is clearly far from being a substantial question of law. In any event, it certainly does not qualify as a substantial question of law calling for a debate or disregarding any settled principle in the light of facts and circumstances of the case and the trajectory the matter has taken in the Courts below, all of which have been alluded to supra. 11. This takes us to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kirpa Ram case [Kirpa Ram Vs. Surendra Deo Gaur and others reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 935] wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a second appeal can be dismissed at the admission stage without formulation of a substantial question of law if none arises in a case. 12. In the light of the narrative thus far, this Court has no doubts in its mind that in this decade old lis, which commenced on 11.02.2011, no question of law much less substantial question of law arises and therefore, the captioned second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. In the light of the nature of the matter and the nature of the submissions made in the hearing, there shall be no order as to costs.