Raghavan, J.-The above two Second Appeals are referred by Ismail, J. in view of the conflicting decisions of this Court on the admissibility of boundary recitals. in documents not inter partes. In order to appreciate the reference, it is necessary to set out briefly the facts.

2. Defendants 1 and 2 are appellants in S.A.No.1157 of 1963 and the 5th defendant is the appellant in S.A.No. 19 of 1964. Both second appeals arise out of O.S. No. 530 of 1960 on the file of the District Munsiff’s Court,Tiruvarmamalai. The plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of his title to the suit site in the village of Kalasapakkam and for possession. The plaintiff’s case is that the suit site originally belonged to one Periathambi Chetti, the father-in-law of the 3rd defendant Muniammal and the great grandfather of the 4th defendant minor Kasi Chetti. The said Periathambi was in possession and enjoyment of the site by installing a country oil mill thereon. While so, certain enemies of his complained to the Government that he had encroached on the Government land, and that he should be evicted. Periathambi contended that the property in question had been in his possession for over 30 years and accepting this contention, the Government issued an order dated 24th April, 1880 recognising his rights. Periathambi died in or about 19.1.0 leaving his son Annamalai. Annamalai was in possession and enjoyment of the suit site till his death. Thereafter, his widow, the 3rd defendant, Maniammal and his son Mannu Chetti were in possession and enjoyment of the suit site. They mortgaged the suit site as well as their house to one Ratnavelu Chetti on 29th May, 1946 and subsequently sold the same to the plaintiff on 26th November, 1946. The plaintiff’s case is that, ever since his purchase, he had been in possession of the suit site and house, and that, in or about March, 1952, defendants 1 and 2 trespassed into the suit site and constructed some walls thereon. The plaintiff filed applications before the Tahsildar of Polur and the Revenue Divisional Officer. Tiruvannamalai, complaining about the trespass committed by defendants 1 and 2, and the Tahsildar of Polur directed the plaintiff to establish his rights in a civil Court. Thereupon the plaintiff filed O.S.No. 501 of 1953. The 5th defendant, the State of Madras, took up the plea of want of notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code, and the suit was dismissed on the preliminary point. Ultimately, the order of the trial Court was upheld by this Court in S.A.No. 305 of 1957. The present suit has been filed, after the issue of the requisite notice to the Government, for declaration of his title to the suit site and for possession.

3. Defendants 1 and 2 contended that the suit site was a Natham and was not assigned to any one. They denied the continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit site by Periathambi and his descendants. They also contended that the order dated 24th April, 1880, relied on by the plaintiff, did not relate to the suit site and that the plaintiff and his predecessor-in-title had not been in possession and enjoyment of the suit site for a period of 12 years prior to the suit.

4. The 3rd defendant remained ex parte. The 4th defendant’s mother and guardian filed a written statement disputing the necessity for Mannu Chetti, the son of Annamalai, to borrow and contending that the alienation by Mannu Chetti was fraudulent.

5. The 5th defendant, the State of Madras, filed a separate written statement contending that the suit site was not conveyed to any one, that it was shown as unoccupied as waste in the village site plan, that defendants 1 and 2 had encroached on it, that they had been suitably dealt with under the Land Encroachment Act, and that the title to the suit site was still in the Government.

6. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the order passed by the Tahsildar of Polur dated 24th April, 1880, did not relate to the suit property, that there is no proof of plaintiff acq

Click Here to Read the rest of this document