This second appeal is filed against the judgement and decree dated 16.11.2005 passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, in A.S.No.101 of 2004 reversing the judgement and decree dated 16.6.2004 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam, in O.S.No.14 of 2001. This second appeal is focussed by the plaintiff, animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 16.11.2005 passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, in A.S.No.101 of 2004 reversing the judgement and decree dated 16.6.2004 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam, in O.S.No.14 of 2001, which was filed for declaration and permanent injunction.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. Compendiously and concisely the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: (a) The plaintiff filed the suit O.S.14 of 2001 for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of an extent of 5 acres of land in S.No.73/4, Dindivanam Division, Marakanam Sub Division, Nadukuppam Village. The defendant filed the written statement and resisted the suit. (b) Whereupon issues were framed. The plaintiff on his side examined himself as Ex.P.W.1 along with Exs.P.W.2 to P.W.4 and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. The defendant on his side, examined himself as Ex.R.W.1 along with R.W.2 and R.W.3 and Exs.B1 to B20 were marked. (c) Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit. (d) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the defendant preferred the appeal and after hearing both, the appellate Court reversed the judgement of the trial Court and dismissed the suit.

4. Challenging and impugning the judgement of the appellate Court, the plaintiff filed this second appeal on various grounds, inter alia thus: The appellate Judge wrongly understood the actual dispute involved in this case. The evidence of P.W.3 was mostly relied on by the appellate Court as though his evidence supports the case of the defendant that Vasu Naidu became the owner of S.No.73/4. However, the fact remains that Ranganatha Gounder was granted with the land in S.No.73/4 measuring an extent of 5 acres as per the patta issued to him. Accordingly the appellate Court wrongly upset the well reasoned judgement of the trial Court, warranting interference in the second appeal.

5. While admitting the second appeal my learned predecessor framed the following substantial question of law: "Whether or not the lower appellate Courts findings regarding the title of the defendant is perverse in the absence of examination of Vasu Naidu and illegality of Ex.P-9 sale deed which is in violation of conditions of assignment?

6. However, the aforesaid substantial question of law is reframed as under, by virtue of the proviso appended to Section 100 of C.P.C. Whether the findings of the appellate Court as well as the trial Court are based on insufficient materials relating to Revenue records, which are ex facie and prima facie found tampered with illegally and unauthorisedly and whether decisions were rendered without getting the best evidence even though should have been available with the Government officials?

7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff advanced his arguments which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: (a) The patta was admittedly issued in favour of Ranganatha Gounder relating to Survey No.73/4 measuring an extent of five acres and the same was exhibited before the Court as document No.Ex.A8. (b) The deposition of P.W.3 during chief-examination is out and out in favour of Ranganathan Gounders title over S.No.73/4 measuring an extent of 5 acres. However, during cross-examination, he at the fag end would state as though based on the amended Revenue records, Vasu Naidu was given with patta relating to S.No.73/4 measuring an extent of five acres and he would further add that in S.No.73/3 an extent of five acres was allott