Possession follows title, and mere possession for any number of years does not constitute title in favor of the possessor.

This second appeal by the defendant is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 22.11.1999 passed in A.S.No.77 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kulithalai in reversing the judgment and decree dated 16.11.1995 passed in O.S.No.133 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kulithalai.

2. The parties are referred to hereunder in the same order as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

3. Broadly but briefly, the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed thus:

The plaintiff is the owner of the suit property which comprised of a plot and a hut constructed therein. As per Ex.A5, dated 19.03.1955 the assignment deed given by the Government, the plaintiff became the owner of the said plot and he constructed the hut thereon. While so, the plaintiff permitted the defendant to be in occupation of the said suit property; subsequently, when the former demanded the latter to vacate and hand over possession of it, the defendant turned turtle, which necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit.

4. Impugning and challenging, denying and refuting the allegations/averments in the plaint, the defendant filed the written statement; the gist and kernel of it would run thus:

The plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property. It was the defendant who of his own accord entered into the property and raised hut and living ever since 1952. He has been paying tax to the suit property. By his long enjoyment, he acquired absolute right and title over the suit property. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

5. The trial Court framed the relevant issues and during trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On the side of the defendant, he examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.B.1 to B.10 were marked.

6. The trial Court ultimately dismissed the suit.

7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred the first appeal, whereupon the first appellate Court reversed the Judgment and decree of the trial Court.

8. Challenging the Judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the defendant filed this second appeal on the following grounds among others:

The first appellate Court erroneously prevented the defendant from adducing additional evidence viz., the photocopy of the voters list relating to the year 1979, intended to prove the possession of the defendant. The first appellate Court fell into error in not considering that the plaintiff, who was expected to prove his case, has not produced any evidence to show that ever since the emergence of Ex.A4, he was in possession and enjoyment of it. The first appellate Court failed to consider the significance of Ex.B4, which enures to the benefit of the defendant to prove his title over the suit property. The other exhibits filed on the side of the defendant also was not considered by the first appellate Court in proper perspective. There was no evidence to indicate that the defendant was put in possession of the suit property by the plaintiff as permissive occupier and in such a case the first appellate court was not right in simply accepting the case of the plaintiff and decreeing the suit. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the Judgment and decree of the first appellate Court and for restoring the Judgment and decree of the trial Court which dismissed the original suit.

9. The following substantial questions of law were framed by my learned Predecessor at the time of admitting this second appeal:

"1. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is correct in not permitting the appellant to file the additional document filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC without following the procedure as laid down under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC?

2. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is correct in relying upon the Ex.A.5 which is admittedly not acted upon since the year 1955 onwards?

3. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is correct in ignoring t