JUDGMENT :

Prayer : This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.1992 made in A.S.No.142 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ariyalur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 26.08.1989 made in O.S.No.139 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif, Jayamkondan.

This second appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.1992 made in A.S.No.142 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ariyalur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 26.08.1989 made in O.S.No.139 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif, Jayamkondan.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.

3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows :-

3.1. The suit is filed for declaration and injunction. The suit property belonged to plaintiff and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff's grandmother one Kuppammal was being the guardian, she was in possession of the property, since at that time the plaintiff was a minor. After attaining the majority, the suit property was handed over to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff paid all revenue dues and obtained patta in his favour. He mortgaged the suit property and also availed loan of Kodungur co-operative agricultural loan society. Thereafter, he fell in sick and therefore he was executed power of attorney on 09.03.1981 in favour of his brother-in-law. As such, the defendants have no title or interest over the suit property. While being so, the defendants disturbed the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by false document. Hence the suit.

4. Resisting the same the defendants filed written statement stating that the suit property never belonged to the plaintiff or his father at any point of time. They were never in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff never obtained any loan as against the suit property and in fact, the village Karnam was living in plaintiff's house. After making corrections in the revenue documents with the support of the Karnam, he filed the present suit with false patta, chitta and Adangal extract and they are not genuine one issued in respect of the suit property.

4.1. Originally, the suit property ad measuring 3.34 acres belonged to Saminatha Padayatchi, grandfather father of the second defendant. Thereafter, the suit property derived to his sons Athimoolam, Natesan and Narayanasamy and they partitioned the property, in which on northern side 1.10 acres alloted to Narayarasamy and middle portion ad measuring 1.12 acres alloted to Nataraja Padayatchi and southern portion ad measuring 1.12 acres alloted to one Athimoolam. For the said Narayanasamy the second defendant is the only son. The said Narayanasamy executed Will in respect of his allotment of property 1.10 acres comprised in S.No.43/3 along with other properties. Thereafter, the suit property is in possession and enjoyment of the second defendant and he is paying all revenue dues. Therefore he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. On the side of the plaintiff, he examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and were marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.38. On the side of the defendants, they examined D.W.1 to D.W.6 and were marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.13. Based on the material produced on record and considering both the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and also the submissions made, the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal suit in A.S.No. 142 of 1989 and the first appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred this present second appeal.

6. At the time of admission of this second appeal on 01.06.1993, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration:-

"1. Whether the Court below has not erred in law in ignoring Ex.B.2 which would clearly prove the partition be