Proof of possession as well as animus possedendi is a must.

JUDGMENT :- P. Chellaiah, the appellant herein, having lost before both the Courts below, has filed these two appeals.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 748 of 1981 before the trial Court against the respondents/defendants for declaration of his title and also for permanent injunction and recovery of possession of 2nd and 3rd schedule properties. The first defendant filed a suit in O. S. No. 82 of 1982 for declaration of his title and also for permanent injunction and recovery of possession in respect of 13 cents.

3. The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and the suit filed by the first defendant was decreed in his favour. Against the judgment and decree of the trial court, the appellant filed two appeals in A. S. Nos. 36 of 1984 and 21 of 1985. The appellate Court dismissed both the appeals by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence these two second appeals by the appellant.

4. According to the appellant /plaintiff, the plaint 1st schedule property measuring about 3 acres and 18 cents belong to him. Originally, the said property belonged to the plaintiff's mother, Rakkammal. She settled the entire property in favour of the plaintiff under a registered settlement deed. Since then, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property by paying land tax. Patta also has been transferred in the name of the plaintiff. At that time, both the first and second defendants trespassed into the said property and also occupied 2nd and 3rd schedule properties on 31-10-1981. Hence the suits.

5. According to the first defendant, the plaint 1st schedule property originally belonged to the first defendant and his paternal uncle, by name, Ganapathy Thevar alias Mottaya Thevar. The said Ganapathy Thevar executed a registered sale deed in the year 1933 in favour of one Ganapathy Thevar, son of Ponnu Thevar, conveying an extent of 3 acres and 5 cents in the plaint 1st schedule property. The vendee, Ganpathy Thevar is the maternal grandfather of the plaintiff. The wife of the aforesaid vendee, Ganpathy Thevar executed a registered sale deed on 23-5-1949 in favour of Rakkammal, the mother of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff's mother-Rakkammal settled the abovesaid property in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. Therefore, the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to 3 acres and 5 cents only and not 3 acres and 18 cents in the property as alleged by the appellant/plaintiff.

6. After necessary issues were framed, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined. The appellant/plaintiff examined himself asP.W. 1 and examined Rakkammal as P. W. 2. On behalf of the defendants, D. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined. On the plaintiff's side, Exs. A-1 to A-34 were marked. On the defendants' side, Exs. B-1 to B-3 were marked. Exst. C-1 and C-4 were marked as court exhibits.

7. Both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court considered the materials available on record and the evidence adduced by both the plaintiff and the defendants and concluded that the appellant/plaintiff would not be entitled to the relief sought for. But however, a finding was rendered that the appellant/plaintiff would be entitled to an extent of 3 acres and 5 cents in the plaint 1st schedule property on the basis of Exs.B-1 to B-3. This is the subject matter of challenge before this Court in the second appeals.

8. While admitting the second appeals, the following substantial question of law was framed for consideration :-

"Whether the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence, oral and documentary, and overlooked the material evidence in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to 2.91 acres when the patta in his favour is only in respect of 2.78 acres and that the ridge of the defendant is in the plaintiff's land?"

9. While elaborating the facts in the above second appeals, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that both the Courts below have not considered Exs. A-1 to A-34 in the proper perspective even though the d