The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle 'possession follows title' in property disputes and the importance of proving possession. The court also emphasized the legal principles of 'nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria' and 'De minimis non cural lek' in reaching its decision.

G. Rajasuria, J.

This second appeal is focused by the defendant, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 8. 1994 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvellore in A.S. No. 32 of 1990 confirming the judgment and decree dated 24. 1990 passed by the learned District Munsif, Tiruvellore in O.S. No. 233 of 1986. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

2. Niggard and bereft of details, the germane facts, which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:

The plaintiff filed the suit O.S. No. 233 of 1986 seeking the relief of declaration that the second plaintiff is the absolute owner of the house site described in the schedule of the plaint and for the consequential injunction by setting out the following averments:

One Sivalingam purchased the suit property as per the sale deed dated 29. 1936 from one Kuppammal and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Following him, his son Ganapathy inherited the same and enjoyed it. After his death, his son the first plaintiff inherited it and sold it in favour of the second plaintiff as per sale deed dated 24. 1996. The defendant without having any manner of right whatsoever started laying claim ever the suit property as though it is a joint family property. Hence the suit.

3. Per contra, denying and refuting, challenging and impugning the averments/allegations in the plaint, the defendant filed the written statement, the pith and marrow of it would run thus:

“The said Sivalingam referred to the plaint did not purchase the suit property out of his own income. But it was purchased from out of the joint family income in the name of Sivalingam as he was the eldest male member of the joint family. Consequently, other averments relating to inheritance are all false. The second plaintiff cannot be taken as the one who acquired proper title from his vendor. The second plaintiff is not is possession of the suit property. The defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for over 36 years openly, uninterruptedly and continuously and thereby perfected his title by adverse possession and accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of suit.”

3. The trial Court framed the relevant issues. During trial, the first plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2 and 3 and Exhibits A-1 to A-17 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant examined himself as D.W1 along with S.Ws.2 and 3 and Exhibits B-1 to B-9 were marked.

4. Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit, as against which, the defendant preferred first appeal in A.S. No. 32 of 1990, for nothing but to be dismissed by the lower appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

5. Being disconcerted and aggrieved by the judgment and decree of both the Courts below, the defendant has filed this second appeal on various grounds, the gist and kernel of them would run thus:

“Both the Courts below fell into error in placing reliance on the sale deed Exhibit A-2, which was brought about so s to create falsely, interest in the suit property. The lower Court failed to hold that the suit property was purchased from out of the income of the joint family. The evidence of PW3 was not considered properly. The commissioner’s report and the sketch Exhibits C-1 and C-2 were failed to be taken note of by both the Courts below. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree of both the Courts below.

6. My learned predecessor framed at the time of admitting the second appeal the following substantial question of law:

“Is the Court justifiable under law to ignore the presumption under law by the erroneous approach, i.e. When there is the probability that by treatment and conduct, the suit property was treated as joint Family Property and thrown into the hotch pot. Is it justifiable to base the findings on the sale deed Exhibit A-2 that stan