The Appellate Court must provide reasons for disagreeing with the Trial Court's findings, and Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 presumes that all judicial and official acts are rightly and regularly done.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 r/w Order 42, Rule 1of C.P.C., as against the decree and judgment dated 27.09.2011 in A.S.No.95 of 2010 on the file of the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore reversing and setting aside the findings rendered in the Decree and judgment dated 06.10.2010 in OS.No.377 of 2010, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore.)

Judgment

1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this Second Appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to one Annamalai, the father of the 1st defendant. The mother in law of the plaintiff filed a suit against Annamalai in O.S. No. 1226 of 1978 for recovery of money under a promissory note. The suit was decreed and the amount was not paid by the said Annamalai as per the decree. Hence, E.P. No. 219 of 1986 was filed for execution of the decree. The suit property was attached and it was sold in a public auction held on 15.12.1986 and it was purchased by the plaintiff. The judgment debtor moved an application to set aside the auction sale and it was also dismissed. Thereafter, sale confirmation certificate was issued in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application in E.A. No. 1818 of 1987 for delivery of possession and the Amin took possession of the property and delivery was effected on 5.11.1987. To substantiate all these proceedings, Exhibits A1 to A7 were marked.

3. The further case of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant who is the son of Annamalai attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property by taking advantage of the patta standing in the name of his father. The plaintiff therefore filed a suit seeking for the relief of declaration of title to the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit property is a vacant land measuring an extent of 1.21 cents.

4. The 1st defendant filed a written statement. The case of the 1st defendant is that the suit property was never in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The further case of the 1st defendant is that his father Annamalai executed a Settlement Deed in his favour on 6.4.1983 (Ex.B1) and the possession was also handed over to the 1st defendant. The revenue records were also transferred in the name of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant also raised an alternative defence of adverse possession on the ground that he is in continuous possession and enjoyment from the year 1983 onwards and thereby, he has a prescriptive title over the suit property. The 1st defendant has therefore sought for the dismissal of the suit.

5. The Trial Court on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the oral and documentary evidence, held that the plaintiff has proved her case and decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st defendant filed an appeal in A.S. No. 95 of 2010 before the Additional Sub-Court No.1, Cuddalore and the Appellate Court by a Judgment and Decree dated 27.9.2011 allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed the Second Appeal before this Court.

6. The Second Appeal was admitted and the following substantial questions of law were framed:

a) Whether the lower Appellate Court went wrong in disregarding the delivery of possession that was recorded in the earlier proceedings after the completion of the court auction sale and whether it is contrary to the presumption as provided under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

b) Whether the lower Appellate Court was right in rejecting the evidence tendered by the Court staff to substantiate the delivery of possession effected during the execution proceedings and thereby disregarded the presumption under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that was substantiated through the evidence of PW4?

c) Whether the lower Appellate Co