JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, against the judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 58 of 2002 dated 03.08.2004 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.900 of 1992 dated 31.01.1995 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram.)

The plaintiff is the appellant.

2. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.900 of 1992 before the Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction for an extent of 40 cents out of 3 acres and 30 cents in Survey Nos.3018 and 3019 correlated to R.S.Nos.139/1, 139/4, 86/2 and 75. The trial Court decreed the suit for an extent of 5 cents alone. The defendants filed A.S.No.58 of 2002 before the Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram. The first appeal was allowed dismissing the suit in entirety. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff has contended that the suit schedule property having an extent of 40 cents is located in old survey Nos.3018 and 3019 which are correlated to R.S.Nos.139/1, 139/4, 86/2 and 75. According to the plaintiff, the said 40 cents is located with definite boundaries and as a single property. The plaintiff further contended that he is in possession of the suit schedule property for more than 30 years. He has purchased the suit schedule property under Exhibits A1 and A2 from one Kolappa Pillai and Murugan. There are several coconut, cashew-nut and mango tress in the suit schedule property and he has developed the said property. He further contended that the defendants authorities have wrongly classified the said land as poromboke property. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule property has been wrongly classified by the plaintiff as odai poromboke. Even assuming that the said property is a odai poromboke, the plaintiff and his predecessor in title are in possession of the suit schedule property for more than 45 years and hence, they have acquired title by adverse possession.

4. The defendants filed a written statement contending that as per revenue records, the correlation for old Survey Nos.3018 and 3019 are 86/2, 139/1 part, 3,4,5 and 7 part. Only these properties are patta properties. The defendants further contended that old Survey number for R.S.No.75 is 3020A. The plaintiff did not have any title or possession for old S.No.3020A at any point of time. The said 3020A is a Government Poromboke, now it has been classified as odai poromboke. None of the patta property of the plaintiff has been classified as odai poromboke. The defendants further contended that as per old Survey, S.No.3020A was having an extent of 1 acre. Even after resurvey, it has been renumbered as R.S.No.75, the same extent of 1 acre is maintained. Hence, the contention of the defendants that the patta land has been annexed to odai poromboke and wrongly classified as odai poromboke is not correct. The defendants further contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any adverse possession over the Government property and the suit schedule property was never in possession of the plaintiff. The defendants further disputed the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants have unnecessarily interfered with the possession of the plaintiff over the patta property.

5. Based on the above said contentions, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the patta land located in Old Survey Nos.3018 and 3019 have not been included in odai poromboke during the re-survey proceedings and answered the issue as against the plaintiff. The trial Court relied upon the report of the Advocate Commissioner to arrive at a conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession of a particular extent of the suit schedule property for more 35 years.

6. The trial Court rejected the report of the Advocate commissioner on the ground that the Commissioner has not properly surveyed the property with reference to old survey n