JUDGMENT :

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

Challenging the reversal findings of the courts below, the defendants have preferred this Second Appeal.

2.Before the trial court, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.606 of 2000 before the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam for the relief of declaration and other consequential relief in respect of Survey No.58/1B to an extent of 2 acres 87 cents vide old Patta No.118, New Patta No.693 with four boundaries against defendants 1 to 5, who are neighbouring landowners.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties are denoted as per the ranking in the Suit.

4.The appellants/defendants contested the suit stating that the plaintiff is not entitled for 2 acres 87 cents, on the other hand, he is entitled for 2 acres 82 cents and the remaining 0.53.5 ares belong to defendants and patta also granted in their name. Eversince, they are in continuous and long possession. Therefore, they have disputed the plaintiff’s right.

5.Both parties adduced evidence before the trial court. Considering the evidence on record, three issues were framed and the trial judge finally concludes that as per the document relied on by both plaintiff and defendants, it reveals that plaintiff is entitled only 2 acres 62 cents in new Survey No.58/1B, Old Survey No.58/1. Accordingly, the relief of declaration was granted only for an extent of 2 acres 62 cents, the suit was partly allowed and in respect of 25 cents, the suit was dismissed.

6.Challenging the said findings, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 69 of 2004 on the file of Sub-Court, Nagapattinam. The first appellate judge independently analysed the facts and evidence on record, framed points for consideration and finally held that the plaintiff has proved his right and declaration for the entire extent of property by relying the Commissioner’s report. Accordingly, the first appeal was allowed and the findings of trial judge was confirmed. Challenging the said reversal findings, now, the defendants have preferred this Second Appeal.

7. Brief facts of the case is as follows :-

The plaintiff’s case is that the suit was originally filed by Pappu gounder stating that the property situated in Survey No.58/1B an extent of 2 acres 87 cents belong to him by way of purchase through sale deed dated 26.07.1963 including his other property. Thereafter, he applied for subdivision of the land purchased by him. Accordingly, the property was sub-divided as Survey Nos.58/1A, 58/1B and 58/1C. The suit property is pertaining to 58/1B, which is now under dispute. The plaintiff contended that the total extent of Survey No.58/1B is an extent of 2 acres 87 cents, but the defendants encroached 25 cents along with their land and falsely claimed right over the property and caused interference. Hence, the suit.

8. The defendants contested the suit stating that the subdivision was taken place in the year 1978 with the knowledge of plaintiff, but at that time, he has not raised any objection. Further, they have contended that they are also having land in Survey No.58/1. Considering the enjoyment of the land by the respective parties, subdivision was made and given separate subdivision numbers in the year 1978 itself. The defendants further contended that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property as per the subdivision and they have not encroached any of the property as claimed by the plaintiff. To that effect, they have also produced the revenue records, through which, the defendants contended that they are in enjoyment of 0.53.5 ares of land in Survey No.58/1, which was subdivided as 58/1C in the year 1978 itself.

9. The defendants would further submit that the plaintiff himself aggrieved that lesser extent was allotted during the subdivision proceedings. If any such mistake was committed, he ought to have raised objections by preferring an appeal under Sec.9 and 10 of Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, but, he has not preferred any appeal. If at all, he had any