The Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 11. 2002 in A.S.No.3 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Villupuram, reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2001 in O.S.No.65 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court at Villupuram.

2. The averments in the plaint are as follows:

The suit property originally belongs to the joint family of one Thirunavukkarasu, son of Subburayal Naidu and his three brothers, namely Sathiya Babu, Govindaraju and Nagaraju, in which the said Thirunavukkarasu, as the eldest member of the family, was the Manager. They have sold the suit property to the plaintiff for Rs.2,500/-on 29. 1986 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The said Thirunavukkarau executed the sale deed for himself and as eo-nominee for the then minor brothers, namely Govindaraju and Nagaraju. The minors, after attaining the majority, have not protested before the time prescribed for the same. The plaintiff also prescribed title by adverse possession as having been in open, continuous, hostile and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the same for more than the statutory period of 12 years. Patta also stands in his name. Since it is vacant site, no tax has been levied. The defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit property, but as hostile neighbour, has began to threaten the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file suit for declaration of title to the suit property and for permanent injunction and prayed for a decree.

3. Thegist and essence of the written statement filed by the defendants are as follows: The property belongs to one Thirunavukkarasu, Sathiya Babu, Govindaraju and Nagaraju. The said Thirunavukkarasu was in fact not the Manager as alleged by the plaintiff. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff cannot be valid in law. At that time, Govindaraju and Nagaraju were not minors and so, Thirunavukkarasu cannot act on their behalf. The plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He has not prescribed title by adverse possession. Govindaraju and Nagaraju conveyed their interest in the property in favour of the defendant on 2. 1999 for valuable consideration by means of a registered sale deed. The defendant is entitled to the property on the basis of conveyance and as such, it is not correct to state that the plaintiff is entitled to the property. The plaintiff is not in possession of the property. The Court fee paid is not correct. He prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Thetrial Court, after considering the averments both in the plaint and in the written statement, has framed three issues, and considering the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and D.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-8 and Exs.B-1 to B-4, decreed the suit as prayed for in the plaint. Against that, the defendant preferred appeal. The first appellate Court, after considering the arguments of both counsel, had framed three points for determination and allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Against that, the plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal.

5. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration:

"(i) Whether the lower appellate Court was right in dismissing the suit on the basis of Ex.B-3 and Ex.B-4, when the same remain unsubstantiated?

(ii) Whether the lower appellate Court was right in presuming that the birth extracts under Ex.B-3 and Ex.B-4 relate to the vendors of the defendant?

(iii) Whether the lower appellate Court was right in dismissing the suit when more than 12 years had lapsed from the date of sale to the date of filing of the suit?

.(iv) Whether the lower appellate Court was right in relying upon Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, when the property is a joint family property?

.(v) Whether the lower appellate Court was right in dismissin