The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove possession and ownership in property disputes, the admissibility of documentary evidence, and the role of Advocate Commissioners' reports as assisting the court.

1. Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2017 made in A.S.No.29 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Tambaram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2010 made in O.S.No.301 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.301 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram. The plaintiff who lost in both the Courts below has come out with the present Second Appeal. Appellant filed the said suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit property and interfering with the peaceful possession of the appellant. According to the appellant, she is the absolute owner of the suit property. The suit property belonged to her grandmother, Bakiyammal and after her death, the appellant's mother Mangammal inherited the same. After the death of her mother, the appellant inherited the suit property and she became absolute owner. She is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The 1st respondent is owner of adjoining land. The respondents 2 to 4 claim to have purchased portion of the suit property from the 1st respondent. They claim that appellant sold portion of the suit property to the 1st respondent. On 28.11.2005, one Raja inquired with the appellant for sale of the suit property and referred 1st respondent. The appellant is far away from the suit property. The respondents, taking advantage of the same, are trying to sell the suit property. The appellant has no intention to sell the property. She is in possession and enjoyment of the property. With the above averments, the appellant has filed the suit.

3. The 2nd respondent filed written statement and the same was adopted by the respondents 3 and 4. The respondents 2 to 4 denied all the averments made in the plaint. According to the respondents 2 to 4, appellant sold the suit property to the 1st respondent by the sale deed dated 28.03.1975, bearing document No.1343 of 1975. After purchase, the 1st respondent formed an unapproved layout. The 2nd respondent purchased Plot No.27 measuring an extent of 3480 sq.ft in Survey No.289/1A for valuable consideration of Rs.2,25,000; 3rd respondent purchased Plot No.28, measuring an extent of 3720 sq.ft in Survey No.289/1A for valuable consideration and 4th respondent purchased Plot No.20 in Survey No.289/1A. The respondents 2 to 4 filed O.S.Nos.32 to 34 of 2007 against the appellant and her three daughters for permanent injunction. The present suit is filed only to grab the property in the absence of real owners.

4. In the suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. After inspection, he filed report and sketch, which were marked as Exs.C1 and C2. The appellant, not being satisfied with the report, filed another application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The Advocate Commissioner was appointed in the said application and he inspected the suit property and filed report which were marked as Exs.C3 and C4. The learned Trial Judge considered both the reports. In the first Advocate Commissioner's report, Plot Nos.20, 27 and 28 were mentioned. In the second Advocate Commissioner's report, without any division as Plot, he has given rough sketch.

5. The 1st respondent remained exparte. All the four suits filed by the appellant and respondents 2 to 4 were tried together. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Trial Judge framed necessary issues and re-cast the issues on 30.03.2010 and evidence was recorded in O.S.No.301 of 2005. The appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked 7 documents as Exs.A1 to A7. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents and 18 documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B18. The Advocate Commissioners' two reports and sketches were marked as Exs.C1 to C4.

6. The learned Trial Judge considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit O.S.No.301 of 2005, filed by the appellant and decreed other three