The plaintiff must prove the title over the suit property and cannot succeed based on the weakness of the defendant's case. The procedure for entertaining additional evidence must be followed, and proper reasons must be assigned for interfering with the Trial Court's findings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside Judgment and decree dated 28.08.2015, made in A.S.No.22 of 2013, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tiruttani in reversing the well considered Judgment and decree dated 30.09.2011 made in O.S.No.188 of 2007, on the file of District Munsif Court, Tiruttani by allowing the present second appeal.)

1. The defendants are the appellants in the Second Appeal.

2. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit seeking for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the first item of the suit property was purchased from one Vajeeravelu Reddi through a registered sale deed dated 19.04.1995, marked as Ex.A.1. The second item of the suit property was purchased from one Sembeti Muniammal through a registered sale deed dated 24.04.1995, marked as Ex.A.2. According to the plaintiff, the total extent of both the properties put together measures nearly 7 acres.

4. The further case of the plaintiff is that he became the absolute owner of the suit properties and Patta was also granted in the name of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is also paying the kist for the suit properties.

5. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the defendants attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property and were creating a cloud over the title of the plaintiff. Left with no other option, suit was filed seeking for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction.

6. The second defendant filed a written statement. He took a stand that the entire property in Survey No.69 was assigned in favour of 56 persons by allotting them various extents. According to the second defendant, the predecessor in title to the first item of the suit property namely Angala Velayutha Reddi was assigned only an extent of 0.26 cents for which Patta was granted by the Assistant Settlement Officer. That apart, neither the predecessor in interest nor the vendor of the plaintiff were in possession and enjoyment of the property. Insofar as the second item of the suit property is concerned, second defendant contended that Patta was granted in favour of Sembeti Muniammal only for an extent of 0.22 cents and neither the predecessor in interest nor the vendor of the plaintiff were in possession and enjoyment of the property. Thus, the second defendant took a stand that the vendors of the plaintiff did not have the right or title to convey an extent of 7 acres to the plaintiff. The second defendant also questioned the Patta granted in favour of the plaintiff. The second defendant further stated that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and he also relied upon Ex.B.2 and Ex.B.3 sale deeds executed in his favour in the year 1995. Accordingly the second defendant sought for the dismissal of the suit.

7. The 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th defendants also filed written statement and they also denied the right claimed by the plaintiff to an extent of 7 acres.

8. The Trial Court on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit through Judgment and Decree dated 30.09.2011. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed an appeal before the Sub-Court, Tiruttani in A.S.No.22 of 2013. The lower Appellant Court on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and after considering the findings of the Trial Court, was pleased to allow the appeal through Judgment and Decree dated 28.08.2015 and thereby the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court was set aside and suit was decreed as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have filed this Second Appeal.

9. When the Second Appeal was admitted, the following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court:

“(a) Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in decreeing the suit by reversing the well considered Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court, when admittedly the plaintiff did not prove