The admissibility and proper use of genealogies under the Evidence Act are crucial in establishing title to properties.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Court, Periakulam, dated 22.12.1994 and passed in A.S.No.15 of 1990 confirming the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam, dated 27.10.1989 and passed in O.S.No.4 of 1986.)

1. The plaintiffs are the appellants herein.

2. The plaintiffs had filed O.S.No.4 of 1986 before the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam for the relief of declaration of title, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction and for consequential reliefs. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiffs filed A.S.No.15 of 1990 before the Sub Court, Periyakulam. The learned Subordinate Judge was pleased to concur with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. As against the concurrent findings, the present Second Appeal has been filed.

3. The plaintiffs have contended that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to three persons namely, Velayutham Pillai, Arunachalam Pillai and Sankaralingam Pillai who are all the sons of one Adhinarayana Pillai. Each one of the brothers were entitled to 1/3rd share and the Eastern portion belonged to Sankaralingam Pillai. After his death, it devolved upon his daughter Adhilakshmi Ammal. Thereafter, it devolved upon the son of Adhilakshmi Ammal, namely, Ponnusamy Pillai. Since Ponnusamy Pillai had died issueless in the year 1947, it devolved upon the junior uncle of Ponnusamy Pillai, namely, Thirumalai Pillai who is the husband of the first plaintiff. The said Thirumalai Pillai had passed away in the year 1952 and thereafter, it devolved upon first plaintiff being the wife and the second plaintiff being the son. The defendants who are adjacent owners have encroached a portion of the property in January 1985. Hence, the present suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction for removal of a wall put up by the defendants.

4. The defendants filed a written statement disputing the entire genealogy pleaded by the plaintiffs. The defendants also disputed the title as traced by the plaintiffs. The defendants have contended that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the defendants' family and they are residing in the said property. The defendants disputed the fact that they are encroachers of the suit schedule property. The defendants further contended that some of the necessary parties have not been impleaded and hence, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

5. The trial Court after consideration of oral and documentary evidence, arrived at a conclusion that there is no proof whatsoever to establish the genealogy pleaded by the plaintiffs. Except the deposition of P.W.1 that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to one Adhinarayana Pillai, absolutely there was no documentary or oral evidence to establish the sale. Since the date of death of the parties mentioned in the genealogy have not been mentioned, the applicability of the relevant provisions of the Succession Act could not be established. The trial Court further found that the Advocate Commissioner's report has established that it is a vacant site. Hence, the house tax receipts relied upon by the plaintiffs under Exhibits A8 to A18 and A22 to A27 have nothing to do with the suit schedule property. The trial Court further found that the mortgage deed marked by the plaintiffs as Exhibit A21 does not have any boundary recitals to support the case of the plaintiff. Based upon the said findings, the trial Court dismissed the suit.

6. The First Appellate Court concurred with all the findings of the trial Court and held that the plaintiffs are not established their title to the suit schedule property by tracing their title to Adhinarayana Pillai. The First Appellate Court further found that the property dealt with under Exhibit A3 has nothing to do with the present suit schedule property. That apart, the present defendants were