JUDGMENT :

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have perused the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 30.08.2011 passed by the Sub Court, Gingee (hereinafter referred to as First Appellate Court) in A.S.No.130 of 2005, the Judgment and Decree dated 28.06.2005 passed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Gingee (hereinafter referrred to as Trial Court) in O.S.No.471 of 2000 and documents which were filed along with this Second Appeal.

2. This appeal was listed for admission on 26.03.2012. However, on the said date, only notice of admission was ordered on the respondents. The respondents are thus represented by the learned counsel Mr. T. Dhanasekaran.

3. The appellant was plaintiff and is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 30.08.2011 passed by the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.130 of 2005.

4. By the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 30.08.2011, the First Appellate Court dismissed the aforesaid appeal filed by the appellant against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.06.2005 of the Trial Court in O.S.No.471 of 2000.

5. The appellant had filed the above suit for a declaration and for a permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit schedule properties stating that the appellant was the owner of the 71 Palm Trees, 5 Morinda Tinctoria Trees (Nona Trees) and 8 Neem Trees in 0.15.0 Ares of land in S.No.311/3B, covered by Patta No.1472, Kist 0.48.

6. The respondents resisted the suit by filing a written statement stating that the Trees in question which form part of the suit schedule property were under the possession and the control of the respondents from the time of his predecessors and therefore the suit was not maintainable.

7. The Trial Court had framed the following issues for consideration :-

i. Whether the palm trees are not stand in the suit property?

ii. Whether the palm trees are in the plaintiff's possession?

iii. Whether the palm trees are not handed over to the plaintiff?

iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for?

v. To what other reliefs?

8. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the suit for a permanent injunction even though the respondent admitted that the land in question where the Trees were situated belonged to the appellant.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that an Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the Trial Court and a report dated 10.09.2001 was filed along with a sketch which was however not marked as a document before the Trial Court while passing the its Judgment and Decree dated 28.06.2005. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that after the report was filed, the respondents had also filed an additional written statement, wherein, the respondents admitted that the area where the Trees were situated was indeed that of the appellant. However, the land to an extent of 0.15.0 Ares (37.1 Cents) in S.No.311/3B, Patta No.1472, Kist 0.48 along with trees were under the possession of the respondents right from the time of his ancestors/predecessors.

10. It is submitted that both the First Appellate Court and Trial Court committed error in dismissing the appeal and suit respectively stating that the appellant has not discharged the burden of proof that the appellant was in possession of the suit schedule property.

11. It is submitted that the First Appellate Court also committed an error in concluding that there is no evidence to substantiate the case that the appellant has been in enjoyment of the entire land on which the 71 palm tress and other trees were situated. It is also submitted that the First Appellate Court committed an error in concluding that Chitta, Adangal and Kist Receipts vie Exs.A4, A5 and A3 were obtained just prior to filing of the suit in respect of the property.

12. She further submits that the First Appellate Court has