The plaintiff's failure to incorporate necessary pleadings and the perversity and illegality in the judgment and decree of the lower courts led to the remand of the matter for further evidence and amendment of the plaint.

This second appeal is focussed animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 22.03.2005 passed in A.S.No.98 of 2004 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Munsif, Vridhachalam in O.S.No.71 of 1999.

2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. Niggard and bereft of details the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:

(a) The plaintiff, who is the second appellant herein, filed the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property measuring an extent of 50 cents of land in S.No.507/4 on the western portion of it, on the main ground that he became the owner of the suit property by virtue of Ex.A3, the sale deed dated 15.06.1983, and according to him, the antecedent title deeds to Ex.A3 are:

(1) 08.01.1935

(2) 05.03.1948 (Ex.A1)

(3) 17.08.1959 (Ex.A2)

(4) 13.06.1979

(5) 15.06.1983

(b) The plaintiff would plead that ever since he purchased the suit property, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same, that D1 attempted to trespass into it, whereupon the suit was filed.

(c) Per contra, D1 filed the written statement denying and refuting, challenging and impugning the averments/allegations in the plaint, on the main ground that D1's father purchased the suit property vide Ex.B1-the sale deed dated 18.08.1954 Ever since the date of purchase, he had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Subsequently D1 being the son of Govinda Padayachi, purchased additionally an extent of 8-1/2 cents on 26.02.1987 vide the sale deed Ex.B2 from one Valliammal/D3 on the northern portion of S.No.507/4. D1 also raised his house in the centre of the property which was purchased and his father, and himself and his family have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. His commencement of possession could be traced long prior to the suit itself. As such the very filing of the suit as though D1 was attempting to trespass into the suit property was nothing but a load of baloney fraught with falsity and mendacity.

(d) It appears D2 and D3 did not file the written statement and contest the matter. Accordingly, he would pray for the dismissal of the suit.

(e) The trial Court framed the relevant issues.

(f) Up went the trial, wherein, the plaintiff-Kasilingam examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2-Subramanian and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked; the first defendant-Rajavannian examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.W.2 – Kalia perumal and Exs.B1 to B10 were marked. The witness's document was marked as Ex.X1. Twice the Commissioner was appointed and he submitted his report with sketch; however, only Exs.C1 and C2 were marked.

(g) The trial Court ultimately dismissed the suit as against which the appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of both the Courts below, this Second Appeal has been focussed on various grounds.

5. My learned Predecessor formulated the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether ancient documents do not have evidentiary value?

2. Whether anterior documents filed by plaintiff do not take precedence over the documents of defendants?

3. Whether the lower courts were right in not marking the sale deeds dated 8.1.1935 and 13.6.1979 which were filed along with the plaintiff?

4. Whether the lower courts were not entitled to look into documents not marked?

5. Whether patta and kist receipts are not evidence of title and possession?

6. Whether the Commissioner's report can be relied on without he being examined when there is dispute regarding identity?

7. Whether the lower courts were right in not giving the precedents to plaintiff's documents which are anterior in point of time?

8. Whether inspite of finding that the first defendant has