The Appellant/2nd Defendant has focussed the present Second Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment and Decree dated 08.01.2001 in A.S.No.51 of 1998 passed by the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai in reversing the Judgment and Decree of the Learned District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai dated 09.02.1998 in O.S.No.623 of 1985 and allowing the Appeal with costs.

2. Earlier, before the trial Court in the main suit filed by the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff, during trial, 1 to 10 issues have been framed. On the side of the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff, witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 have been marked. On the side of the Defendants, witnesses D.W.1 to D.W.5 have been examined and Exs.B.1 to B.19 have been marked. Also, on behalf of the Court, Ex.C.1-Commissioner's Report and Ex.C.2-Plan have been marked.

3. On a careful analysis of the entire gamut of then oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court has come to a consequent conclusion that there is no proof to show that Syed Rahim has enjoyed the suit property in Town Survey No.1625. Further, it observed that it is not evident from the witnesses produced tha