JUDGMENT :

The defendant is the appellant herein.

2. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.510 of 1995 before the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur for declaration of title and permanent injunction over three schedules of properties. The trial Court decreed the suit with regard to 1st and 2nd schedule properties and dismissed the suit with regard to 3rd schedule property. Challenging the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.16 of 2000 before the Sub Court, Tuticorin. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff for 3rd schedule property also. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendant. The plaintiff is the owner of the 3rd schedule item of property and prayed for decree as prayed for.

3. On the other hand, the defendant filed a written statement disputing the genealogy claimed by the plaintiff and also disputed the title and possession of the plaintiff over all the suit schedule properties. The trial Court after consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff has established his title and possession over the 1st and 2nd items of the suit schedule properties and dismissed the suit with regard to the 3rd item of the suit schedule properties.

4. As against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff alone preferred A.S.No.16 of 2000. The learned First Appellate Court entertained an application for additional evidence and marked Exhibits A19 to A21. Even though the defendant has disputed the genealogy in the written statement, the First Appellate Court came to a conclusion that the defendant has admitted the genealogy claimed by the plaintiff. Further, the First Appellate Court based upon the documents received as additional evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff with regard to the 3rd schedule property also. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

“(1) Whether the learned Sub Judge is right in reversing the decree passed in O.S.No. 510 of 1995 by learned District Munsif, Thiruchendur, without setting aside the findings and title in respect of Item III Plaint Schedule Property in favour of the defendant/appellant as established by Exhibits B-1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 13?

(2) Whether the learned Sub Judge having held that the plaintiff/respondent has admitted that the northern half of original lands belonged to the defendants is justified in holding that item III of the Plaint Schedule is only the southern half and granting a decree on that basis?

(3) Whether the plaintiff/respondent has established his title to item III of Plaint Schedule Property in the absence of any material or evidence?

(4) Whether Exhibits B-1, B-5, and B-8, apart from the plaintiff's admission is not sufficient to prove defendants title to item III of Plaint Schedule Property?

(5) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in entertaining Additional documents Exhibits A-19 to A-21, which is not supported by pleadings or evidence and placing reliance on the same to allow the appeal?

(6) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in considering Exhibit A-20 and holding that genealogy of the plaintiff is established in the absence of any pleading or evidence?”

5. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant filed a memo seeking permission of the Court to raise additional substantial questions of law. The said memo was filed on 22.11.2021.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent was granted time to make his submissions on the additional substantial question of law and the matter was posted to 07.12.2021.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the First Appellate Court has received 3 documents as additional evidence and the documents have been marked without any oral evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the defendant/appellant has not satisf