IMPORTANT POINT
It is not permissible for the second appellate court to interfere with findings of the first appellate court only on the ground that the first appellate court had not come to grip with the reasoning given by the appellate trial Court.

Order

Special leave granted.

2. This is an appeal filed by the legal representatives of the de­ceased plaintiff against the judgment of the High Court of Madras in Second Appeal No. 1946 of 1983 dated 30th September, 1997. By the said judgment, the High Court reversed the judgment of the lower appellate court dated 30.6.83 and restored the judgment of the Trial Court dated 12.5.82 in O.S. No. 187 of 1979.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title of the suit property and for permanent injunction claiming to be the son of Late Haritheertham and Mariyayee. According to him the said Haritheertham his father died 40 years earlier and Mariyayee, his mother died 5 years before the suit. It was stated that the plaintiff was suffering from paralysis for over 25 years. It was also stated that several years earlier the first defendant and her mother were residing in the suit village and the second defendant was the husband of the first defen­dant. The 1st defendant was not the daughter of late Haritheertham and Mariyayee. The mother of the first defendant died 4 or 5 years before the suit and thereafter the first defendant got patta changed into her name and denied the right and interest of plaintiff. The plaintiff stated that the defendants were seeking to interfere with plaintiff’s possession and he therefore claimed declaration of title and permanent injunc­tion.

4. The defendants denied Mariyayee’s title. They contended that the plaintiff was an imposter and that he was not the son of late Hari­theertham and late Mariyayee. They also claimed to be in possession.

5. The plaintiff produced oral and documentary evidence in support of his case. Four witnesses PW 1 to PW-4 were examined in support of plaintiff’s case and plaintiff filed sixteen documents. The defendants adduced evidence of 7 witnesses and filed seven documents in support of their case. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence placed by the respective parties, the trial Court came to the conclu­sion that the plaintiff had not established that he was the son of Late Haritheertham and Mariyayee. The trial Court therefore gave a finding that the plaintiff had not proved his title to the property of his father and that the evidence also disclosed and the plaintiff was not in possession and therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to a declaration of title not for permanent injunction. The trial Court held that the first defendant was the only daughter of Haritheertham and Mariyayee. The suit was dismissed.

6. Against the said judgment, the plaintiff preferred an Appeal No. 138/82 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai. The appellate court discussed the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff and accepted the same. It also relied upon the voter’s list produced by the plaintiff for the purpose of proving the entry there in that he was the son of Haritheertham. The voter’s list was accepted alongwith other docu­ments. The appellate court rejected the oral evidence adduced by the defendant. It also defendant and came to the conclusion that the case set up by the defendant could not be accepted. It also gave the find­ing that the patta was changed in the name of first defendant without proper enquiry and by taking advantage of the weakness and illness of the first plaintiff. The defendant had manoeuvered the Revenue Department and got patta trans­ferred. In the result the appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial Court and held that the plaintiff was the son of Haritheertham and Mariyayee and was entitled to the property of his father. The appellate court also reversed the finding of the trial Court in rela­tion to the possession of the property and held that plaintiff was in possession on the date of suit. In the result, declaration of title and permanent injunction were granted by the lower appellate court.

7. In the second appeal, the learned Single Judge of the High Court initially framed the following point for consid