The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of possession, recognition through Patta under the UDR Scheme, and the right to recovery of possession based on encroachment in land disputes.

This second appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree dated 17.02.2006 in A.S.No.18 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pollachi confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 07.02.2005 in O.S.No.174 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pollachi.

2. The appellant as a plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title to the suit property and also mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the illegal tiled shed put up by them and also for recovery of possession within the time stipulated by this Court, failing which, remove the encroachment through Court and injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere the suit property by putting up new superstructure or by trespassing into the same stating that the suit property is a Natham poromboke and she put up a small thatched shed in the suit property. The plaintiff's mother was staying there and when she went to her son's house, who is residing at Mysore, the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and confirming her possession, patta has been issued in her name and she was in enjoyment of the suit property. In the first week of December 1996, the defendants have demolished the old thatched shed and put up a new tiled house illegally. The plaintiff issued a notice to the defendants. Since the defendants refused to hand over the possession, she was constrained to file a suit.

3. Resisting the suit, the defendants would submit that the plaintiff is not the owner of the property. It is further submitted that the total extent of land measures 4 cents and the defendant is in possession of 1-1/2 cents. It is also submitted that they were in possession for more than 10 years and have put up superstructure and paying the tax regularly. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4.The Learned Trial Judge after considering the averments both in the plaint and written statement and arguments on either side counsel has framed necessary issues and on perusing the oral and documentary evidence viz., P.W.1, P.W.2, D.W.1, Exs.A1 to A6, Exs.B1 to B16 and Exs.C1 and C2, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.18 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pollachi.

5. The learned First Appellate Court has considered the argument advanced on either side and framed necessary point for consideration and confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Against the Decree and Judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.

6. At the time of admission of the above second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration.

"1. Whether Courts below misdirected themselves in dismissing the suit when the Appellant herein has better title than the respondents herein?

2. Whether the Courts below erred in law and misconstrued documentary and oral evidence of the appellant herein?

3. Whether Courts below erred in recording of a finding that the respondents are in possession of suit property for over 10 years without any evidence on record?

4. Whether Courts below erred in non-considering the exhibits C1 and C2, which is relevant and admissible evidence to show that respondents herein has put a new tiled shed recently?

7. Challenging the judgment and decree of both the Courts below, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that both the Courts below have not considered the fact that recognizing the possession of the appellant and her mother, Patta has been issued, which was marked as Ex.A1, wherein it was stated that in S.No.434/34, 193 sq.m. has been allotted to the appellant. Since the defendants encroached upon the suit property, notice has been issued and then, she filed a suit. But both the Courts below have held that p