R. Mahadevan, J.

This Second Appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2005 passed in A.S. No. 25 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar, in reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2003 passed in O.S.No. 279 of 2000, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they have inherited about 3.24 acres of land in ward No. 18, Survey No. 834 and 835. A lay out was formed in the year 1960, by leaving necessary space for the AA road proposed by the defendant Municipality. On 22.11.1960, the defendant purchased 12,807 square feet from the plaintiffs in Survey Nos. 833 and 834 and the AA road was laid on that land. Further, the defendant Municipality acquired the additional land through exchange deeds in 1964, because the proposed A1A1 road was to be laid to link with Aruppukottai road from the existing AA road. In those circumstances, the defendant Municipality notified the acquisition of land for the proposed A1A1 road and sought the objections from public. It is the stand of the plaintiffs that since the consent of three fourths of the land owners was not obtained for the proposed acquisition, they had filed their objections on 31.07.2000, however, the same was rejected by the defendant Municipality. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction, besides seeking a direction to the defendant Municipality to pay compensation, if they acquired the lands for the road project by way of a mandatory injunction.

4. In the written statement filed by the defendant, it is, inter alia, averred that the plaintiffs have to establish that they had developed a lay out and sold plots, wherein A1A1 road was in use by the public for more than 20 years. Based on the representations from the public, the defendant Municipality decided to notify the said road as a public road, in which, objections from the public were invited and compensation for the proposed acquisition was also decided to be given, however, the plaintiffs ignored the same. Therefore, the defendant Municipality prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Before the trial Court, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P.1 to P.13 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. On the side of the defendant Municipality, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D.1 to D.19 were marked.

6. The trial Court framed four issues and on consideration of the pleadings and evidence, the trial Court partly decreed the suit.

7. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed the appeal in A.S. No. 25 of 2004. The first appellate Court dismissed the appeal while setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court in partly decreeing the suit.

8. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, the plaintiffs have preferred the present second appeal.

9. At the time of admitting this Second Appeal, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law:

"(i) Whether the first appellate Court is right in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the property despite of several documents filed on the side of the plaintiffs?

(ii) Whether the action of the defendant is illegal due to the absence of any land acquisition proceedings?"

10. The learned Counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, drawing the attention of this Court to the judgments of both the Courts below, has contended thus:

10.1. The Courts below failed to appreciate the fact that the appellants/plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property and in such an event, they have to be compensated by the respondent/defendant Municipality.

10.2. The first appellate Court ought to have framed necessary issues before passing the impugned judgment and thereby, erred in dismissing the appeal.

10.3. The alleged scheme developed by the respondent/defendant Municipality is barred by limitation as per the provisions o