1. This second appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 19.8.1997 made in A.S. No. 162 of 1996 on the file of the District Court, Sivagangai modifying the decree and judgment of the District Munsif Court at Sivagangai in O.S. No. 268 of 1994 dated 26.7.1996.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties averred in the plaint is referred in the appeal.

3. The appellant/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration, injunction and also claiming a sum of Rs. 2,100/- as damages for cutting the balm trees. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the suit property viz., Survey No. 366/9 to the extent of 1.85.0 Ars, in which 30 balm trees also belonged to the plaintiff as per sale deed dated 29.4.1955 and patta was granted in his name and the plaintiff has paid kist and enjoying the suit property. It is further stated that at the time of Updating Register scheme joint patta was given in the name of plaintiff and the first defendant. As against the proceedings, the plaintiff has filed an appeal before the Tahsildar, Sivagangai in B-9-15.199/86 and it is pending and taking advantage of the above said joint patta, the first respondent/1st defendant cut 21 balm trees worth about Rs. 2,100/- and therefore, the appellant/plaintiff has filed the suit for the above said reliefs.

4. The respondents/defendants has contested the above said suit by stating that the plaintiff has purchased only 3 ‘thaku’ i.e., approximately 3 acres but the extent of the suit property stated as 4 acres 56 cents and the first defendant is entitled to the half share in the suit property as ancestral property and at the time of survey and settlement itself, joint patta was granted in the name of the first defendant and plaintiff as Patta No. 75 and in the year 1974 joint patta was granted in favour of both the plaintiff and the first defendant and after that in the year 1985 at the time of Updating Register scheme, Joint Patta No. 743 was issued in the name of both the first defendant and the plaintiff. According to the defendants, the suit property is joint possession of the plaintiff and the first defendant and therefore, the first defendant and his legal heirs i.e., second and third defendants are enjoying the suit property for long period and got prescribed title over the suit property by adverse possession and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the entire suit property.

5. From the above said pleadings, the learned trial Judge has framed five issues and on considering the oral and documentary evidence on either side, finally the trial judge has passed the decree and judgment, in which he declared that the plaintiff is entitled to only undivided half share in the suit property and dismissed the prayer for permanent injunction and damages. Aggrieved over the above said judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff has filed the first appeal and the learned first appellate Judge has partly allowed the appeal and held that the portion viz., 2 acres 39 cents out of 4.56 cents, which was marked as A, B, C, J, K and L, in Exhibit C-2, Commissioner Plan, the plaintiff is entitled to and therefore granted declaration of title for the above said portion and dismissed all other reliefs sought for in the suit. Aggrieved over the above said finding of the Courts below, the appellant/plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. Respondents/defendants have not filed any appeal against the decree and judgment of first appellate Court.

6. This Court has admitted the second appeal and framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration:

“(i) Whether the legal presumption that possession has also been with the appellant be dislodged and discarded merely on the basis of revenue records created since 1971, when the title has been with the appellant since 1955 by virtue of a sale deed?

(ii) Whether it can be decided that there has been existing legal relationship of joint possession between the appellant and the respondents eversince the exec