The defeated defendants are the appellants herein.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.409 of 1991, before the learned District Munsif, Pattukottai, for the relief of declaration of title to the suit property, recovery of possession and also for mesne profits.

3. After contest, the learned District Munsif, Pattukottai, by Judgment and Decree, dated 24.11.1997, dismissed the suit with costs.

4. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned District Munsif, Pattukottai, the respondent/plaintiff preferred an appeal, in A.S.No.5 of 1998, before the learned Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai.

5. On re-appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai, by Judgment and Decree, dated 26.06.1998, allowed the appeal, set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned District Munsif, Pattukottai, and decreed the suit.

6. Challenging the correctness of the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai, the defeated defendants have preferred the present second appeal.

7. The brief averments of the plaint that are necessary to decide this appeal are as follows:

The suit property is situated in Thiruvathevan Village, comprised in Survey No.335, measuring an extent of 13.64.5 Ares. The suit property comprised in Survey No.335 and the lands comprised in Survey Nos.336 and 337 were originally in possession of one Sundaram Pillai. On 11.04.1977, the plaintiff's wife, namely, Rasul Beevi purchased northern portion of the land comprised in Survey No.335, measuring an extent of 6 Acres and 57 Cents, from the said Sundaram Pillai. Prior to the said purchase, the southern portion of the said Survey No.335, measuring an extent of 5 Acres was purchased by one Pathamuthu Ammal, from the said Sundaram Pillai. Thereafter, on 13.10.1982, from the said Pathamuthu Ammal, the plaintiff purchased the said southern portion measuring an extent of 5 Acres. There is a balance land in Survey No.335 adjacent to the southern portion of 5 Acres and the same has been purchased by the fifth defendant. There is a pathway between the lands purchased by the plaintiff and the fifth defendant. The plaintiff's land is situated on the northern side and the fifth defendant's land is situated on the southern side of the pathway. Since the plaintiff always goes abroad and his wife is also a Kosha woman, the fifth defendant managed the lands purchased by them. Taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff, during the year 1985, the fifth defendant shifted the pathway towards northern side and destroyed the old pathway. The land situated between the old pathway and the newly formed pathway by the fifth defendant is the suit property. When Patta was given under UDR Scheme, the land situated on the northern side of the pathway was renumbered as Survey No.335/1 and accordingly UDR Patta was given to the plaintiff and the pathway land was renumbered as Survey No.335/2 and its extent is 22 Ares. The land situated on the southern side of the pathway was renumbered as Survey No.335/3 and for which, UDR Patta was given to the fifth defendant. The total extent of the land purchased by the plaintiff and his wife is 11 Acres and 57 Cents. But, as per UDR Patta, there is a shortage of 2 Acres and 18 Cents in respect of the land in Survey No.335/1 and at the same time, there is excess of land in Survey No.335/3 belongs to the fifth defendant. The shortage land and the excess land has been shown as ABCDE in the Sketch and it belongs to the plaintiff. Therefore, he raised an objection before the Tahsildar concerned objecting the shortage of land. But, the Tahsildar informed the plaintiff to seek remedy before the Civil Court by filing civil suit. In the meantime, the fifth defendant had also put up fencing on the northern side of the newly formed pathway. The plaintiff is entitled to an extent of 11 Acres and 57 Cents in Survey No.335 and the remaining 22 Acres and 50 Cents alone is