Admissibility of ancient documents under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act and the concept of adverse possession were central to the judgment.

1. The Appellant/First defendant has projected the Second Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment and decree dated 12.07.1996 made in A.S.No.29 of 1995 on the file of the Learned II Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.

2.The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned II Additional District Judge, Coimbatore dated 12.07.1996 has among other things observed that 'Ex.A.3 Sale Deed dated 31.05.1961 has cogently traced the history of the title which had devolved upon Narayanan Chettiar even during the life time of Karian Chettiar and further opined that DW1 has admitted that he was permitted to occupy the suit property just because his property is situated opposite to the suit property etc., and has come resultant conclusion that the trial Court Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.92 of 1990, dated 12.07.1994 do not warrant any interference and dismissed the Appeal with costs.

3. Before the trial Court, three issues have been framed for determination in the case. On behalf of the Respondents/Plaintiffs witnesses PW1 to PW3 have been examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 have been marked. On the side of the Defendants, DW1 has been examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4 have been marked.

4. The trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record has come to the conclusion that the Respondents/Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration that they are the owners of the suit property and also they are entitled to get the relief of recovery of the possession and accordingly decreed the suit leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

5. Being dissatisfied with the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.29 of 1995, dated 12.07.1996, the Appellant/First Defendant has filed the present Appeal before this Court.

6. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law for rumination;

"1. Whether the reasoning of the Courts below that since Ex.A.3 is 30 years old, the entire contents of it can be taken to have proved are legally sustainable when it is in contravention to Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act?

2. Whether the Courts below are correct in exonerating the Respondents/Plaintiffs from the clutches of Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act in not demanding strict proof for their act of attributing permissive possession and subsequent trespass by the Appellant?.

7. Thecontentions, discussions and findings on substantial questions of law 1 and 2:

According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/First Defendant, the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have not appreciated of the fact that Narayanan Chettiar has no right title and interest in respect of the suit property and as such the suit filed by the Respondents/Plaintiffs is not maintainable in law.

8. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/First Defendant contends that no partition has been effected between Karian Chettiar and his son Narayanan Chettiar as present Appellant/First Defendant, but this aspect of the matter has not been taken note of by both the Courts below.

9. It is the further contention on the side of the Appellant/First Defendant that the suit property has been a self-acquired one of Karian Chettiar and the Sale Deed purported to be executed by Narayanan Chettiar when Karian Chettiar has been alive, then Narayanan Chettiar has no right over the suit property and all the more, no partition has been effected between Karian Chettiar and his son. A plea has projected on the side of the Appellant/First Defendant that no document has been produced by the Respondents/Plaintiffs to show that the property has been marked to Rangammal for Rs.300/- and she instituted a suit in O.S.No.1163 of 1959 and that a sum of Rs.375/-has been paid by Narayanan Chettiar on 05.06.1991.

10. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/First Defendant urges before this Court that the Appellant/First Defendant has been in exclusive possession