1. The Appellant/Plaintiff has projected this instant Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.05.2001 in A.S.No.121 of 2000 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 27.06.2000 in O.S.No.216 of 1996 passed by the Learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Chengam.

2. The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.121 of 2000 (filed by the Respondents/Defendants as Appellants) on 31.05.2001, has inter alia held that 'The Respondent/Plaintiff has failed to establish her case and claim to the hilt and as such, not been in agreement with the findings of the trial Court in holding that the oral sale is a true one and that the Respondent/Plaintiff has proved her prescribed title and enjoyment by Adverse Possession and consequently, allowed the Appeal, leaving the parties to bear their own costs, thereby, setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court in the main suit.'

3. Before the trial Court, in the main suit, 1 to 5 Issues have been framed for determination. On behalf of the Plaintiff, Witnesses PW1 to PW4 have been examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.21 have been marked. On the side of the Defendants, Witness DW1 has been examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.21 have been marked.

4. The trial Court, on an appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, has come to a consequent conclusion that 'the Appellant/Plaintiff, 12 years before filing of the suit, with the knowledge of the Respondents/Defendants, has been in enjoyment of the suit property and as such, acquired the right of Adverse Possession and viewed in that perspective, granted the relief of declaration in respect of suit property in favour of the Appellant/ Plaintiff and also, granted the relief of permanent injunction and passed a Decree without costs to the effect.'

5. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, this Court has formulated the following Substantial Questions of Law for determination.

“1.) Whether the Lower Appellate Court has not erred in dismissing the suit when the Plaintiff had proved the discharge of mortgage under Ex.A.1 and oral sale subsequently to it?

2.) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in disbelieving the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 when their evidence is acceptable and trustworthy?

3.) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in dismissing the sale made in favour of the Appellant and should it not have seen that the continuous possession and enjoyment after the discharge of the mortgage would be a relevant factor to reckon?

4.) Whether the Lower Appellate Court ought not to have held that by long possession and enjoyment the Appellant had prescribed title to the suit property?”

6. The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on Substantial Questions of Law No.1 to 4: According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff, the First Appellate Court should have seen that the Mortgage, as per Ex.A.1 dated 09.02.1960, has been discharged by the Appellant/ Plaintiff and the same has been duly registered.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff urges before this Court that the Appellant/ Plaintiff in fact has proved the discharge of mortgage as per Ex.A.1 Mortgage Deed dated 09.02.1960, by producing the original Mortgage Deed and also, by examining the attesting witnesses as well as the scribe.

8. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff submits that the evidence of PW2 to PW4 are cogent and enough to prove that subsequent to the discharge of mortgage, the Appellant/Plaintiff has been put into possession and continued to be in uninterrupted possession of the property as per Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.11. But, these aspects have not been adverted to by the First Appellate Court in proper and real perspective.

9. It is the plea of the Appellant/Plaintiff that she has discharged the burden of proof