JUDGMENT :

M. Govindaraj, J.

1. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No. 3 of 2007 dated 07.09.2007 by the learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, reversing the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2006 passed in O.S. No. 2 of 2005 by the learned Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore, the present Second Appeal has been preferred.

2. The appellants are the plaintiffs; respondents 1 and 2 are the defendants 4 and 5; and respondents 3 to 5 are defendants 1 to 3 in the suit filed for declaration and mandatory injunction. For the sake of convenience, they are called as per their rankings in the suit.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit properties originally belonged to one Nallambalam Pillai, who is the grandfather of the plaintiffs and the defendants 4 and 5. He executed a WILL dated 12.05.1977 in favour of his grandsons, namely, the plaintiffs and the defendants 4 and 5. The said Nallambalam Pillai died in the year 1982. As such, the plaintiffs and the defendants 4 and 5 have become the owners of the suit properties in equal moiety. The properties were not divided between the legatees by metes and bounds, however, they were enjoying it according to their convenience.

4. While the matter stood thus, the second defendant, namely, the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Cuddalore, without issuing any notice, conducted resurvey and allotted new town survey numbers in respect of the suit property situated in T.S. No. 18 measuring an extent of 1 Acre 56 cents. The plaintiffs are entitled to 0.78 cents and the defendants 4 and 5 are entitled to 0.78 cents. However, in the resurvey proceedings, lesser extent has been recorded towards the share of plaintiffs due to wrong measurement. The plaintiffs made a request for resurvey, but it was rejected. Since the survey was not done in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 [ACT VIII of 1923) (shortly "the Act") the plaintiffs filed the above suit for a declaration to declare the resurvey conducted by the second defendant as illegal, unlawful and ultra vires and for mandatory injunction to measure the suit properties according to the documents produced by the plaintiffs, in the presence of defendants 4 and 5.

5. Defendants 1 to 3, the Government officials, remained ex parte. The fifth defendant filed a written statement and the same was adopted by the fourth defendant.

6. According to defendants 4 and 5, the properties were actually divided in the year 1982 immediately after the death of Nallambalam Pillai. Northern portion was allotted to the plaintiffs and southern portion was allotted to defendants 4 and 5. In the year 1985, a resurvey was conducted and the property was sub-divided into S. Nos. 962/1 and 962/2 and separate pattas were issued to the parties. Ever since they are in continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. They are enjoying as per the sub division and therefore, the enjoyment is adverse to the interest of anyone and therefore, they are entitled to title by adverse possession as they are enjoying the separate possession exclusively to the knowledge of the plaintiffs from the year 1982.

7. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiffs and defendants 4 and 5 are divided by virtue of the WILL dated 12.5.77 itself or whether the properties under the Will are still to be divided?

2. Whether the resurvey proceedings are illegal, unlawful and ultra vires?

3. Whether the suit claim is barred by limitation?

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the plaint?

5. To what relief plaintiffs are entitled to?"

8. On the basis of the admission made by the defendants 4 and 5 that the plaintiffs and the defendants 4 and 5 are entitled to equal share of 0.78 cents and that no notice was given, the Trial Court had decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. On the issue of limitation, the T