Adverse inference is to be drawn for withholding of vital document by party.

(Second Appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.1994 made in A.S.No. 97 of 1992 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.9.1992 made in O.S.No. 113`1 of 1988 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Namakkal.)

The unsuccessful plaintiff before the courts below is the appellant herein.

2. During the pendency of this appeal, the first appellant/plaintiff died and his legal representative, the second appellant has been brought on record. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect of the schedule mentioned suit property. According to the plaintiff she purchased suit first and second items of the properties from his vendor Palaniandi under Ex.A.1, dated 14.1.1945 for a sale consideration of Rs.25/=. In respect of suit third item, he has been in adverse possession since purchase of suit first and second. As the defendants are attempting to take possession of the suit properties, the plaintiff has filed the suit for the reliefs stated as above.

3. The second defendant in his written statement which has been adopted by the first defendant,has stated that the first and second items of the suit properties did not belong to even Palaniandi, the plaintiff's vendor as he himself had no title over the said items and no such sale or possession took place, the alleged Ex.A.1 has been created on the anti dated old stamp paper, the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit items, the plaintiff also not in adverse possession of suit third item from the date of purchase of suit first and second items, it is true that the plaintiff's son Periyasamy and two others submitted a petition before the defendant on 5.9.1988 along with the alleged sale deed which is pending consideration, that the suit properties absolutely belonging to the Government and the plaintiff cannot object to the same being issued to the eligible Harijans by issuing pattas, there is no cause of action for the suit, the plaintiff is only an encroacher, and that the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. On the said pleadings and on hearing the learned counsel appeared on either side and taking into consideration of the documentary and oral evidence, the trial court dismissed the suit holding that Ex.A.1 sale deed is not genuine since the vendor himself has no title to the suit 1 and 2 items. On appeal, the first appellate court also concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the First Appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.

5. At the time of admission, the following substantial Question of Law was framed by this Court for consideration:-

"Whether the appellant in possession of the village Natham lands is not entitled to decree as prayed for especially in the light of the admissions of D.W.2?"

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs contended that the first plaintiff has purchased the first and second items of the suit properties from her vendor under Ex.A.1 dated 19.1.1945 for a sale consideration of Rs.25/= which does not require any registration. During trial, the plaintiff who was aged 101 years was examined as P.W.1 and she has deposed her case. Third item of the suit property was enjoyed by her from the date of purchase of first and second items of the suit properties and thus she is claiming adverse possession in respect of the same. It is submitted that the defendants have issued B.Memos in respect of the plaintiff's possession in third item of the suit property. According to the learned senior counsel even if the sale is held to be invalid, the plaintiff has perfected title by adverse possession as against the Government as she has been in possession of the suit properties for 43 years.

7. According to the learned senior counsel, it is the admitted case of the parties that the entire suit properties falls under the category of grama nath