Judgment :- 1. This second appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S. 229 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli rendered in A.S. 181 of 1978. 2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The respondent herein as power of attorney agent of one Christudoss Shanmuga-sundaram filed the suit O.S. 229 of 1977 for declaration of respondents title to the plaint schedule property which comprises of a vacant site, the measurements of which are given in the plaint schedule and the superstructures thereon and for recovery of possession of the suit property and for mesne profits from date of suit till date of delivery of possession. According to the case of the respondent as stated in the plaint and borne out by evidence, the suit property originally belonged to one Sivananaindaperumal Pillai (Konar), grandfather of the respondent which is borne out by the sale deed in favour of Sivananaindaperumal Pillai dated 3.12.1868 marked as Ex A5. Sivananaindaperumal has a son Shanmugham and Shanmugham had in turn two sons Christudoss Shanmugha-sundaram and Sankaranarayanan. According to the case of the respondent, as per the registered partition deed, Ex.A1 dated 14.10.1934, the properties of Shanmugham were divided between the respondent and Sankaranarayanan and the suit property is allotted to the share of the respondent. Ex.A2 dated 14.8.1975 is the power of attorney executed by Christudoss Shanmughasundaram in favour of S. Ramakrishnan, on the strength of which the present suit is filed by the power agent. It is stated that Christudoss Shanmughasundaram subsequently had joined the Christian holy order and hence, this suit is filed by his power agent. According to the plaint allegations, taking advantage of the respondents temporary absence in or about January 1975, the appellant trespassed into the suit property and are in unlawful possession. Hence, the respondent was constrained to file the above suit for declaration, possession and mesne profits. 3. The case of the appellant, the defendant in the suit, is that he is the absolute owner and that he is in absolute possession of the suit property also in his own light for well over a statutory period. The suit property originally belonged to one Shanmugam, son of Sivananaindaperumal Konar of Tuticorin and it was purchased under an oral sale by one Packiathammal on 7.3.1918. The suit property originally belonged to one Shanmugam, son of Sivananaindaperumal Konar of Tuticorin and it was purchased under an oral sale by one Packiathammal on 7.3.1918. After Packiathammal, her son Muthuswami Karaiyalar inherited the property from his mother and was enjoying the same. On the death of Muthusami Karaiyalar, the suit property devolved upon his two sons Esakkimuthu Karaiyalar and Muthukrishna Karaiyalar and they sold the property to the appellants under a registered sale deed dated 17.4.1970 for a consideration of Rs. 1000. It is also the case of the appellants that even prior to the sale deed Ex.B1, the defendant was in possession of the suit property by virtue of Yadast Exs.B3, executed by Esakkimuthu Karaiyalar and Muthukrishna Karaiyalar permitting the appellants to be in possession of the property in lieu of the amount of Rs. 50 advanced as per the promissory note Ex.B2 dated 1.1.1956 and as such the defendant is in possession ever since 1956. According to the appellants, the present superstructure was put up in the year 1976 as per the plan and order marked as Ex.B5 and B6. The case of the appellants is that the defendant had been in possession in his own right for more than six decades openly, continuously and publicly and in any event, he had perfected title by adverse possession. 4. The trial Court on a consideration of the documentary evidence adduced on both sides and the oral evidence of the appellants as well as the respondents came to the conclusion that by virtue of the documents Exs.A1 and A2, preceded by the earlier title deed Ex.A5, the respondent has got a valid title to the suit property and at the same time negatived the title put forward by the appellants herein on the ground that the alleged oral sale by Shanmugham to Packiathammal had not been established. Regarding the case of adverse possession set up by the appellants, the trial Court found that in view of the documents produced, the appellants had been in possession for well over the statutory period asserting hostile title against the respondent. In view of the finding on the second question, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs. 5. Regarding the case of adverse possession set up by the appellants, the trial Court found that in view of the documents produced, the appellants had been in possession for well over the statutory period asserting hostile title against the respondent. In view of the finding on the second question, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs. 5. As against the said judgment, the respondents filed A.S. No. 203 of 1978 on the file of the District Court, Tirunelveli which was subsequently transferred as A.S. 181 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. The learned Subordinate Judge on a reappraisal of the evidence while confirming the conclusion on the question of title arrived at by the trial court reversed the finding that the appellants herein had perfected title to the suit property by adverse possession on the ground that the identity of the property had not been established and the appellants possession was not in assertion of hostile title. As against the said judgment of the appellate Court in A.S. 181 of 1978, this second appeal is filed challenging the legality and correctness of the same. 6. Mr. T.R. Mani, learned counsel for the appellants raised the following contentions in support of his argument that the judgment and decree of the appellate Court are not sustainable in law (1) the title deeds, Exs.B1 to B3 along with the evidence of D.W.1 clearly establish the title of the appellants and both the courts below erred in coming to a contrary conclusion. (2) In any event in view of the absolute possession of the suit property ever since 1956 for well over the statutory period, the appellants had perfected title by adverse possession and the appellate Court erred in reversing the finding of the trial court in this regard. 7. With reference to the first contention raised on behalf of the appellants, the title deeds produced by both the parties in this case will have to be considered in the light of the evidence let in and a conclusion arrived at. The fact that the suit property originally belonged to Sivananaindaperumal Pillai (Konar) as per the sale deed Ex.A5, is admitted by both sides. It is also the case of both parties that Sivananaindaperumal Pillai had a son by name Shanmugham and that Shanmugham had in turn two sons Christu-doss Shanmugasundaram and Sankara-narayanan. The fact that the suit property originally belonged to Sivananaindaperumal Pillai (Konar) as per the sale deed Ex.A5, is admitted by both sides. It is also the case of both parties that Sivananaindaperumal Pillai had a son by name Shanmugham and that Shanmugham had in turn two sons Christu-doss Shanmugasundaram and Sankara-narayanan. The case of the respondent is that after Sivananaindaperumal Pillai, his son Shanmugham inherited the suit property and after the death of Shanmugham, his two sons, the respondents herein and his brother Sankaranarayanan divided the properties by means of a partition deed Ex. A1 dated 14.10.1934, by which the suit property is allotted to the share of the respondent. On the other hand, the case of the appellants is that Shanmugham conveyed the suit property by means of an oral sale to one Packiathammal on 7.3.1918 and after Packiathammal, her son Muthusami Karaiyalar inherited the property and after the death of Muthuswami Karaiyalar, his two sons, Esakkimuthu Karaiyalar and Muthukrishna Karaiyalar got the properties by succeession from their father and both of them executed a registered sale deed in favour of the appellant on 17.4.1970 for a sum of Rs. 1,000. It is also the case of the appellants that even prior to the date of sale 17.4.1970 Ex B1, the defendant was permitted to be in possession of the suit property as per yadast Ex B3 dated 1.1.1956 executed by Esakkimuthu Karaiyalar and Muthukrishna Karaiyalar, in consideration of the interest payable for the sum of Rs. 50 which the defendant advanced to both of them. As per the promissory note Ex.B2, dated 1.1.1956, both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the defendant had not established title to the suit property in view of the fact that the alleged oral sale in favour of Packiathammal by Shanmugham and the subsequent inheritance by Muthuswami Karaiyalar from Packiathammal had not been established. The conclusion arrived at by both the courts below that the respondent ha d proved his title to the suit property will have to be confirmed for the following reasons—(1) There is no proof of any sort relating to the oral sale by Shanmugham to Packiathammal and Muthuswami Karaiyalar, her son inheriting the said property from Packiathammal and no one has been examined to prove the oral sale and the subsequent inheritance by Muthuswami Karaiyalar. (2) If really Shanmugham had parted with the property, then the same should not have been dealt with in the registered partition deed between the respondent and his brother as per Ex.A1 dated 14.10.1934. (3) There is no acceptable evidence that Packiathammal and afterwards her son Muthuswami Karaiyalar and after Muthusami Karaiyalar his sons Esakkimuthu Karaiyalar and Muthukrishna Karaiyalar ever had title to the suit property. 8. I have no hesitation in confirming the finding of the trial Court that the respondent had proved title to the suit property. 9. In so far as the second contention regarding adverse possession is concerned, both the courts below had not approached the question in the proper perspective and rendered a correct finding. When both the parties produced several documents, the first thing to be ascertained is whether the documents relate to the suit property. In this case, it is admitted by the appellants that the suit property is situate adjacent to his other property. In the plaint, only the town survey number is given and door number is not specified. In the registered partition Deed Ex.A1, dated 14.10.1934, the property is described as thatched structure bearing door No. 24. But the documents relating to payment of property tax produced by the appellants, viz, Ex.B6 to B48, show that property tax had been demanded and paid by the appellants for door No. 21A. In Ex.B49 the receipt for scavenging fees issued to Packiathammal, the doornumber is also mentioned as 24. Apart from the interested testimony of the appellants that the old door No. 24 had been changed into 21-A, no records of the Municipality are produced for establishing such a change in door number. In a case like this where rights of parties will have to be decided on the question of possession, both the courts below ought to have ascertained the correct door number of the suit property and then assessed the probative value of the documents evidencing possession. Since such a thing has not been done in this case, the findings of the appellate court in this regard will have to be reversed and the matter is sent back to the trial court for fresh disposal. Unless the property register of the Palayamkottai Municipality for the suit property is produced, it is not possible to ascertain whether the property tax receipts and the other documents relate to the suit property. Unless the property register of the Palayamkottai Municipality for the suit property is produced, it is not possible to ascertain whether the property tax receipts and the other documents relate to the suit property. Under the circumstances, the parties are given liberty to adduce further evidence relating to the identity of the suit property and possession. The trial Court will also examine the question whether the production of the tax receipts prior to Ex.B1 by the appellants will prove the Yadast Ex.B3 and also arrive at a proper conclusion, after taking into consideration the evidence let in by both sides. 10. An argument was advanced on the observation of the Appellate Court that the appellants had not established hostile title to that of the respondent. Mr. T.R. Mani, learned counsel for the appellants contended that all the elements that constitute adverse possession are present in this case and also relied upon several decisions in this regard in support of his argument. In the case reported in Secretary of State v. Debendralal 1, it has been observed that possession to be adverse should be overt w thout an attempt at concealment so that the person against whom time is running ought, if he exercises due vigilance, to be aware of what is happening and it is not necessary that it should be brought to the notice of the real owner. In the case reported in Srichandra v. Baijnath 2, it has been held that in order to constitute adverse possession, such possession must be adequate in continuity, publicity and extent. In the case reported in Kuppusami v. Kuppusami 3, this Court had found that adverse possession is possible even against a person who is detained in Andamans and such possession need not be made known to the real owner. In the case reported in Vaithilinga Gounder v. Kuppusami Gounder 4, a learned Judge of this Court had set out the principle to be adopted in the matter of ascertaining adverse possession in which the above principles have to be reiterated. Reliance is also placed upon the case reported in Kshitish Chandra v. Commissioner of Ranchi 5, where it has been observed that in order to constitute adverse possession, such possession must be open and without concealment and it is not necessary to bring such possession to the knowledge of the real owner. Reliance is also placed upon the case reported in Kshitish Chandra v. Commissioner of Ranchi 5, where it has been observed that in order to constitute adverse possession, such possession must be open and without concealment and it is not necessary to bring such possession to the knowledge of the real owner. The trial court will bear in mind the principles laid down in the above decisions in deciding the case. 11. In view of the above conclusion, the judgment and decree of the appellate Court are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court for considering the question of adverse possession raised by the appellants. There will be no order as to costs. The court fee paid by the appellants is directed to be refunded.