1. The plaintiff in the original suit is the appellant in the second appeal. The appellant filed the suit on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai- i) for a declaration that he his the absolute owner of the suit property, ii) for a permanent injunction restraining the first respondent from interfering with his alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and iii) for a mandatory injunction directing the first respondent to assign new door number to the suit property and receive house tax and other charges from the appellant/plaintiff and his heirs. After trial, the suit was dismissed by the trial court by its judgment and decree dated 25.07.2005. On an appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff as A.S.No.88/2008 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Erode, the decree of the trial court was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate court by its judgment and decree dated 03.08.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/plaintiff has approached this court with the present second appeal on various grounds set out in the Memorandum of Grounds of second appeal.

2. The original suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff based on the plaint averments, which are in brief, as follows:

i) The appellant/plaintiff got the suit property by virtue of a Gift Deed dated 04.02.1964 executed by the Correspondent and Reverend of C.S.I. Schools. Right from the date of the said gift deed, the appellant/plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property continuously and without any interruption. Even if the gift deed turns out to be invalid, the appellant/plaintiff has perfected title by adverse possession. In July 1997, the first respondent assigned new door numbers to the other houses in the area and omitted to assign new door number to the suit property. When the appellant/plaintiff volunteered to pay house tax, the first respondent/first defendant refused to receive the same. Hence the house tax was sent through money order and the same was also refused on the premise that the plaintiff's name was not found in the house tax demand register.

ii) On 18.01.1998, the first defendant trespassed into the suit property and fell trees worth Rs.50,000/- that were standing in the suit property. A complaint was also made to the District Collector regarding the non-assignment of new door number to the suit property and regarding the other acts of the first defendant, but the said complaint evoked no response. On 21.01.1999, the son of the appellant/plaintiff applied to the District Revenue Officer, Erode for the grant of patta in respect of the suit property, but the same was not granted. Under the said circumstances, on 14.08.1999, the first respondent/first defendant attempted to effect forcible entry into the suit property and the same was thwarted by the appellant/plaintiff with the help of his neighbours. Hence the appellant/plaintiff was constrained to approach the court with the suit for the above said reliefs.

3. The suit was originally filed against the first respondent/first defendant alone. Since the first defendant took a defence plea that the suit is bad for jon-joinder of necessary parties, the appellant/plaintiff impleaded respondents 2 and 3 as defendants 2 and 3. The respondents 2 and 3/ defendants 2 and 3 did not actively contest the suit and they remained ex-parte. The first defendant alone contested the suit on the basis of the averments made in the written statement. Apart from the general and specific denial of the plaint allegations, the first respondent/first defendant has made the following averments.

i) The suit without proper description of the suit property giving survey number and extent is not maintainable. From the plaint averments, it transpires that the gift deed, by which the appellant/plaintiff claims to have derived title, is an unregistered one and the same shall not be a valid document. The said document coul