Respondent failed to prove his possession.

Plaintiffs 1, 3 to 6, 8 to 12 and the legal representatives of the plaintiff No.7 are the appellants. They filed suit O.S.No.148 of 1977 before the District Munsif’s Court, Kallakurichi against the respondent herein for declaration, recovery of possession and mesne profits alleging as follows: The suit property originally belonged to one Ramu Reddiar son of Muthu Reddiar. He gifted the property to his daughter Pachaiammal on 2. 1951 under Ex.A-1. The gift was accepted by Pachaiammal and she was in enjoyment. Under Exs.A-1 to A-4 Pachaiammal gave the suit properties to the plaintiffs. From the date of the settlement deeds Exs.A-2 to A-4 the plaintiffs had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Except plaintiffs 1 to 4, nobody else had any right over the suit properties. The respondent unlawfully trespassed into the suit property. The suit was therefore necessitated for the reliefs already mentioned. The second plaintiff died pending suit. The third plaintiff and plaintiffs 5 to 12 were impleaded as heirs to the deceased second plaintiff.

2. The respondent resisted the suit contending inter alia as follows: It was not true to say that the settlement deeds Exs.A-2 to A-4 were accepted and acted upon and that the plaintiffs took possession of the properties. The plaintiffs never enjoyed the properties and Pachaiammal continued to enjoy the suit properties and under Ex.B-1 dated 20.7.1953 Pachaiammal sold two acres in the suit property to the respondent’s father one Ayyasamy Rounder for Rs.5,000 and the said Ayyasamy Rounder was in enjoyment and after his death, the respondent was in enjoyment. Even prior to the purchase from Pachaiammal, the respondent’s father was in enjoyment under a bogiam executed by Pachaiammal’s father Ramu Reddiar and Pachaiammal. There was no trespass by the respondent as alleged.

3. The learned District Munsif framed the necessary issues and found that the settlement deeds Exs.A-2 to A-4 were true, valid and were accepted and acted upon and that the plaintiffs 1 to 4 were in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties that they had also prescribed for title by adverse possession that the sale deed in favour of the respondent’s father was not true and valid that the bogiam set up by the respondent had also not been established that the respondent had committed trespass and that the plaintiffs were entitled to the reliefs prayed for by them. By his judgment and decree dated 18. 1982, the learned District Munsif decreed the suit as prayed for with costs. The respondent filed appeal A.S.No.110 of 1982 before the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Vridhachalam and the learned Subordinate Judge, by his judgment and decree dated 10. 1982 allowed the appeal set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the present second appeal has been filed. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law where framed for decision in the second appeal.

“1. Whether the learned Judge is right in holding that Exs.A-2 to A-4 were not proved by examining an attestor in spite of the fact that the execution of the documents was admitted by the executant, the respondent, who gave evidence as P.W.2?

2. Whether the learned Judge is right in holding that the admission of P.W.2 was not sufficient to prove Exs.A-2 to A-4 as against the defendant who was only claiming under P.W.2?

3. Whether the finding of the learned appellate Judge on point No.2 is vitiated by his failure to consider the entire evidence on record?”

4. Mr.D.Rajagopal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the lower appellate court made a serious mistake in law in rejecting Exs.A-2 to A-4 on the ground that the documents had not been proved to have been executed by examining the attestor to the documents. The learned counsel submitted that the settlor herself had come and deposed before the trial court that she had executed the settlement deeds Exs.A-2 to A4 and when once