JUDGMENT :

The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.Nos.114 and 337 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam, is the appellant in these second appeals. The appellant filed the suit along with his mother. The case of the plaintiffs is that the property described as 'A' schedule in the plaint was originally purchased by one Vaithiyalingam Pillai through Court auction on 29.06.1966. Subsequently, the said Vaithiyalingam sold the same in favour of one Govindaraj vide sale deed dated 05.12.1966. From the said Govindraj, the appellant's mother namely., Subbammal purchased vide sale deed dated 14.06.1977. The defendant/Swaminathan in O.S.No.337 of 2004 owns the adjacent property bearing D.No.15, Veerapandiya Kattabomman Street, Madhalampettai, Kumbakonam. According to the plaintiffs on 26.02.2001, the defendant encroached a portion of the suit property covered under Door No.14B to an extent of 4 feet by 20 feet on the southern side of the suit property belonging to the first plaintiff and started digging foundation for the purpose of construction of wall. In the face of obstruction and resistance from the plaintiffs, the defendant went ahead with the construction. The encroached the portion has been described in the 'B' schedule property. Seeking the relief of permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction for removal of offending construction, the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.68 of 2001 (Later renumbered as O.S.No.337 of 2004).

2. The defendant filed his written statement controverting the claims of the plaintiffs. The stand of the defendant was that he had not committed any encroachment and he pressed for dismissal of the suit. The Trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner who submitted more than one report in this regard after conducting spot inspection.

3. The plaintiffs subsequently filed O.S.No.279 of 2004 before the very same Court seeking compensation for the damage caused to the wall of the plaintiffs' property bearing D.No.14A, Veerapandiya Kattabomman Street, Madhalampettai, Kumbakonam.

4. The plaintiffs alleged that on account of the new construction, put up by the defendant, their wall got badly damaged and cracks had also developed in the wall.

5. The defendant filed his written statement contending that the wall of the plaintiffs' house is a very old one and that it was made of mud and mortar and that the cracks had occurred in natural course and on account of improper maintenance by the plaintiffs. In paragraph No.6 of the written statement, the defendant had denied the plaint allegations made in paragraph No.6. The defendant pressed for dismissal of the suit.

6. Both the suits were taken up together and common evidence was let in. The appellant herein examined himself as P.W.1 and three other witnesses were examined on the side of the plaintiffs. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and two other witnesses. On the side of the plaintiffs Exs.A.1 to A.18 were marked. On the side of the defendant Exs.B.1 to B.8 were marked. The reports of the Advocate Commissioner, his sketches and plan were marked as Exs.C.1 to C.9.

7. The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record by judgment and decree dated 23.01.2007 dismissed both the suits. During the pendency of the suit, the first plaintiff passed away. Since the second plaintiff namely., Dhanapal, the son of the first plaintiff was already on record, the second plaintiff filed A.S.Nos.114 and 132 of 2008 before the Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam. By judgment and decree dated 22.04.2010, both the appeals were dismissed and the decision of the Trial Court was confirmed. Challenging the same, these second appeals have been filed.

8. S.A.(MD)No.542 of 2011 arises out O.S.No.337 of 2004. It was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

(a) Are the Courts below correct and justified in negativing the claim of the plaintiff/appellant when the defendant has not produced any document of title to his property in which he has made an off