S. Vimala, J.—The plaintiff Muthu Gounder filed the suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction and in the event of defendants succeed in trespassing upon the suit property, for the relief of declaration and recovery of possession.

2. The suit was dismissed. Appeal was filed by the plaintiff in A.S. No. 72 of 2000. The appeal was allowed. The judgment and decree of dismissal was set aside. The suit was decreed granting the relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff. As against which, the defendants 2 to 6 have filed the second appeal.

3. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

“(1) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in ignoring Exs. B-1, B-3 and B-13, the documents, which establishes the title of the defendants?

(2) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in decreeing the suit after observing that the document under Ex. B-1 is an ancient document standing in the name of the appellants’ predecessor in title, viz. Chinnathambi and whether it is right in coming to a conclusion that the defendant had failed to establish Patta No. 17 correlates with the suit property, even in the absence of dispute?

(3) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in decreeing the suit solely on the basis of the revenue records, when the plaintiff had failed to prove his case of the suit property being his ancestral one?”

4. Brief facts:

The suit property is an extent of 0.39.0 areas in R.S. No. 142/4 situated at Seekampatti Village. Thiruvannainallur Sub Division, Villupuram District. The suit property originally belonged to plaintiff’s grandfather, Sanyasi Gounder. After his death, the plaintiff’s father. Kalluvaraya Gounder inherited the property as his only legal heir and later on the plaintiff is enjoying the property. The patta No. 321 was assigned in the name of the plaintiff. (U.D.R.)

5. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant died on 3.9.1997. The defendants 4 to 7 have been added as legal representatives of deceased, first defendant. The plaintiffs are in long, continuous and uninterrupted possession of enjoying the suit property.

6. The defendants tried to trespass into the suit property during 1995. The defendants got the patta transferred on 28.7.1995 in their name by giving false information. Plaintiff filed appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The defendants are continuously trying to trespass into the suit property. Hence, the suit.

7. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the following contentions:

(i) The suit property originally belonged to defendant’s father Chinnathambi.

(ii) The defendants are legal heir of Chinnathambi and they got the property divided by way of registered partition deed dated 3.3.1987. Northern 32 cents were allotted to first defendant, southern 32 cents were allotted to second defendant and middle 32 cents were allotted to third defendant.

(iii) Originally patta was in the name of the first defendant in old Patta No. 17. The plaintiff got the patta in his name under U.D.R. scheme. Therefore, the defendants legally got the patta transferred in their name. Therefore, the defendants rights cannot be disputed.

8. The Trial Court framed the following five issues:

(i) Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property?

(ii) Whether the partition deed dated 3.3.1987 is true and valid?

(iii) Whether the suit properties were in possession and enjoyment of the defendants?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration and permanent injunction?

(vi) To what other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?

On those issues, the Trial Court found that the partition dated 3.3.1987 is true and valid and that the plaintiff did not prove his possession. On this finding, the suit was dismissed:

9. The First Appellate Court reversed the finding of dismissal on the following findings:

(i) The plaintiff had established that he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of t