The main legal point established in the judgment is that the presentation of revenue documents alone is not sufficient to establish title over ancestral property, and the burden of proof lies with the party claiming ownership. Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of proving the genuineness of documents in the manner known to law.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2017, passed in A.S.No.106 of 2015, on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Trichy, in confirming the judgment and decree, dated 02.03.2015, passed in O.S.No.917 of 2006, on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Trichy.)

1. The unsuccessful defendants in the suit are the appellants herein.

2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, in respect of the suit property.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property, which is a cultivable nanja land, bearing Old S.No.276, situated at Abisekarapuram Village, Trichy, originally belonged to one Late Mottaiyandi and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same till his death, i.e. on 28.03.1994. After the death of said Mottaiyandi, a portion of the property, in S.No.276 was converted as a Pathway and the remaining portion has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and the suit property is the ancestral property and they are claiming right over the same by virtue of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act').

3.1 It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the defendant-Railway got their lands, comprised in S.Nos.179/1, 11, 181/2, 181/4 and 196 etc., which are adjacent to the plaintiffs' properties at S.No.276 on the western side and the same is used for training centre for Railway Protection Force. However, the defendants taking advantage of the fact that plaintiffs' property is adjacent to their properties and are lying vacant, attempting to encroach their property. Hence, the suit is filed for the declaration and injunction, as stated above.

4. The defendant-Railway contested the suit, by filing a written statement, inter alia denying the averments made by the plaintiffs, by stating that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, as the defendant-Railway got the land fully owned by the Union of India, Ministry of Railways as per valid documents, proof plan, etc., and hence, the rough sketch, plan, etc., filed by the plaintiffs are not valid documents and support the case of the plaintiffs.

4.1 The defendant-Railway further stated that since the land belonged to Railway, they intend to plant saplings with a view to promote afforestation programme for clean ecology, and therefore, the allegation of encroachment/trespass made by plaintiffs is vexatious. Thus, by averring so, defendant-Railway sought for dismissal of the suit, as there is no cause of action for plaintiffs to file the same.

5. The Trial Court framed the following four issues:-

i) Whether averments of the plaintiffs that they are the owners of the suit property is true?

ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration in respect of the suit property, as sought for in the suit?

iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property, as sought for?

iv) To what relief, the plaintiff's are entitled to ?

6. Before the Trial Court, on the side of plaintiffs, one witness was examined as P.W.1 and totally, 22 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A22. On the side of the defendants, one witness was examined as D.W.1 and three documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B3. An Advocate Commissioner report and his plan were marked as Exs.C1 and C2.

7. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence adduced by respective parties, the Trial Court accepted the case of the plaintiffs and held that the suit property belongs to them and decreed the suit. This was challenged by the defendants in the first appeal and the First Appellate Court, concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the first appeal. Hence, this Second Appeal.

8. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following Substantial Questions of Law were framed by this Court:-

i) Whether the Courts below are right in