Adverse inference may be drawn for non-production of document in the possession of a party.

(Prayer:- This Second Appeal is filed against the judgement and decree dated 3.1.1995, made in AS.No.76/1993, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, confirming the judgement and decree made in OS.No.855/1985 dated 3.12.1992, on the file of the District Munsif, Tirukoilur.)

1. The Plaintiff, who succeeded before the trial court, but lost his case before lower appellate court, is the appellant in this second appeal.

2. The appellant herein filed the suit in OS.No.855/1985, before the District Munsif, Tirukovilur, for eviction against the 1st respondent herein. In the said suit, the 1st respondent filed a Written Statement denying the title of the appellant herein and stated that he was the tenant under the 2nd respondent herein and thereafter, the 2nd respondent herein came to be impleaded in the said suit and the said suit was decreed by the trial court. The appeal filed as against the same in AS.No.76/1993 before the Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, by the 2nd respondent alone was allowed, setting aside the judgement and decree of the trial court and no first appeal has been filed by the 1st respondent herein. Aggrieved by the judgement and decree of the lower appellate court, this second appeal has been filed by the Plaintiff.

3. The case of the appellant herein was that he was the owner of the suit property; that the 1st respondent herein entered into an oral tenancy agreement with him for a monthly rent of Rs.100/-; that the 1st respondent paid the rent upto 31.3.1984 and from 1.4.1984, he had committed default in paying the rent and the appellant herein issued a notice of termination of the tenancy and thereafter, filed the suit for eviction against the 1st respondent.

4. The case of the 1st respondent herein was that the suit property originally belonged to the mother of the appellant herein, who executed a Will dated 29.11.1971, bequeathing the suit property in favour of the appellant's wife as well as the 2nd respondent herein; that the mother of the appellant herein died two years prior to the filing of the suit and the 2nd respondent herein acquired the suit property by virtue of the said Will and from 1978 onwards, the 1st respondent started paying the rent to the 2nd respondent; that the appellant had no right in the suit property.

5. The case of the 2nd respondent herein was that after the demise of the mother of the appellant, Thayarammal, he acquired the suit property with absolute right by virtue of the said Will; that the 1st respondent started paying rent from 1978 onwards to the 2nd respondent; that the appellant without establishing his ownership over the suit property, filed the vexatious suit hastily.

6. Before the trial court, the appellant herein marked Ex.A1 dated 31.5.1987, patta issued by the Tahsildar, Tirukovilur in the name of the appellant, Ex.A2 dated 9.7.1984, notice issued to the 1st respondent through the counsel of the appellant herein and Ex.A3, dated 10.7.1984, acknowledgement card of the 1st respondent and examined himself as PW.1 and one Ayyamperumal as PW.2 and the respondents neither let in any oral evidence nor marked any documents.

7. The trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, found that the 1st respondent herein was the tenant under the appellant; that the patta was issued by the Revenue Authority concerned in favour of the appellant in respect of the vacant land, where he constructed a building; that thereafter he leased out the same to the 1st respondent; that the 2nd respondent has no right in the suit property; that both the respondents neither let in any oral evidence nor marked any documents to prove their claim in the suit property; that the appellant admitted that he did sign as a witness in the will dated 29.11.1971 executed by his mother in favour of the 2nd respondent and hence, the said Will is a genuine one, but the validity of the same could not be decided, since it was not produced; that the 1st respondent was liable to pay the