JUDGMENT

The fifth defendant in the suit is the appellant. The suit is filed for declaration of title and injunction with alternative prayer for recovery of possession. The first respondent/plaintiff also prayed for mandatory injunction seeking realignment of channels said to be obliterated by the appellant. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and on appeal filed by the first respondent/plaintiff, it was decreed. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court.

2. According to the first respondent/plaintiff, the suit properties were originally purchased by the mother of the first respondent/plaintiff and the respondents 2 to 5/defendants 1 to 4, namely, Alagammal from one Viralimayathevar under registered sale deed dated 23.07.1962, which was marked as Ex.A.2. The respondents 2 to 5 are the brothers of first respondent. The appellant/5th defendant is the purchaser from the respondents 2 to 5 and their father, namely, Kalyani. It was further claimed by the first respondent that Alagammal, mother of the respondents 1 to 5, sold the suit properties to her on 28.09.1993. The appellant herein tried to interfere with the possession of the first respondent during the middle of November, 1993 and hence, the first respondent was constrained to file a suit for declaration and other reliefs as mentioned above.

3. The respondents 2 to 5 remained exparte and the suit was contested only by the appellant/5th defendant. It was a specific case of the appellant that the suit properties were the ancestral properties of the father of the respondents 1 to 5. The title of Viralimayathevar, vendor of the mother of respondents 1 to 5, namely, Alagammal was specifically denied by the appellant in his written statement. The appellant claimed title to the suit properties under three documents dated 18.05.1974, 07.07.1993 and 22.10.1993 respectively, which were marked as Exs.B.2, B.6 and B.1 respectively. The appellant also raised a plea of limitation.

4. Before the trial Court, the first respondent/plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and father of the respondents 1 to 5, namely, Kalyani was examined as P.W.2. On behalf of the first respondent/plaintiff, four documents were marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4. On the side of the appellant/5th defendant, he was examined as D.W.1 and he marked seven documents as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.7. The report and plan of the Surveyor appointed by the Court were marked as Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.4.

5. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the first respondent/plaintiff failed to prove the title of her mother's vendor namely, Viralimayathevar and hence, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent filed an appeal in A.S.No.42 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Court, Dindigul. The First Appellate Court, reversed the findings of the Trial Court and granted a decree for declaration and recovery of possession in favour of the first respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court.

6. At the time of admission of second appeal, the following substantial questions of laws were framed:

“1.Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in decreeing the suit as prayed for by the first respondent/plaintiff herein by relying upon Ex.P.1 & P.2, when the plaintiff has failed to explain as to how the transferor Viralimayathevar came to acquire the schedule mentioned properties?

2. Whether the suit was not barred by limitation?

3. Whether the appellant herein has not perfected his title over the suit properties by adverse possession?”

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the first respondent failed to prove the title of her vendor’s vendor, namely, Viralimayathevar, even though it was specifically denied in the written statement filed by the appellant. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that in a suit for declaration of the title, the plaintiff has to win or lose based on the strength of his own case and