The respondent in A.S. No. 91 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur has filed this Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the said Court.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 422 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif, Srivilliputhur for declaration and injunction. The trial Court after full trial, dismissed the suit and the unsuccessful plaintiff filed A.S. No. 91 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur who allowed the appeal and hence, the Second Appeal.

3. The following substantial questions of law are framed in the Second Appeal:-

"(1) Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is in accordance with Order 41, Rule 31, C.P.C.?

(2) In a suit for declaration of title and for consequential injunction does not the initial burden of proof lie on the plaintiff?

(3) In keeping with the initial burden, is not the plaintiff bound to prove his case by positive evidence on his side, rather than by reliance on the loopholes, if any, on the side of the defendant?

(4) Is not secondary evidence as provided under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act worthy of credence and entitled to be acted upo