Judgment : This second appeal comes for disposal after an earlier order of remand by this Court dated 19. 1998 to the trial court calling for a finding. The appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.85 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif, Gudiyatham and the appellant in A.S.No.103 of 1985 on the file of the District Court, Vellore. 2. In the plaint the plaintiffs sought for declaration of his right, title and interest to the extent of 16 cents in Survey No.131 in Jittapalli village Sub-Division No.131/2, for delivery of possession of the said encroached portion. It was contended by the plaintiff that he and the defendant are joint pattadar under patta No.119 in Survey No.131 of a total extent of 2 acres and 62 cents. The plaintiff was entitled to 1 acre 31 cents and similarly the defendant was entitled to the same extent. The Original patta book granted to the plaintiff was jointly with Muruga Gounder and the defendant. The original title deed dated 15. 1922 relating to the property covered entire extent of 2.62 acres was in the name of their ancestors Thimmappa Gounder. After the grant of patta on 22. 1975 sub-division was effected in 1979 and the plaintiff was entitled to 1 acre 31 cents in Survey No.131/2 and the defendant was entitled to an equal extent in Survey No.131/1. After the sub-Division, the defendant had encroached an extent of 16 cents on the northern side of the plaintiff’ portion. In spite of protest by the plaintiff, the defendant evaded handing over of the encroached portion. A lawyers notice dated 30.9.1980 was sent to the defendant which was fraudulently refused by him. The plaintiff is an innocent person and the defendant had taken the law into his own hands and he was now having 1.47 acres instead of 1 acre and 31 cents. Originally only the first defendant was impleaded and after his death, defendants 2 to 8 have been impleaded as his legal heirs. 3. In the written statement filed by the defendant, it was contended that his father Pokka Goundar purchased the land in Survey No.131/2 from Kandappa Gounder by sale deed 9. Originally only the first defendant was impleaded and after his death, defendants 2 to 8 have been impleaded as his legal heirs. 3. In the written statement filed by the defendant, it was contended that his father Pokka Goundar purchased the land in Survey No.131/2 from Kandappa Gounder by sale deed 9. 1925 and the property conveyed through the sale deed was not measured and the extent conveyed through the sale deed was altered and therefore, the defendants father and the defendant were in possession of 1 acre and 47 cents from the date of purchase continuously and uninterruptedly. There was no encroachment of 16 cents as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendants father was in possession from the date of the sale deed and hence they have perfected title by adverse possession also and the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the same. 4. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and on appeal. the dismissal was confirmed by the appellate court. When the second appeal was taken up earlier, it was found that even though the defendant had pleaded adverse possession, the trial court did not frame any issue nor considered the same. The appellate court however, went into the issue and found that the defendant had perfected his title by adverse possession. The contention of learned counsel that he was prejudiced by such a finding was well founded and this Court without going into the merits of the appeal directed the trial court by calling for a finding as regards whether the defendant had perfected title by adverse possession or not after giving opportunity to both sides to let in oral and documentary evidence. 5. The defendant filed additional written statement denying the encroachment as alleged by the plaintiff. It was contended that the defendants are entitled to and continued to be in lawful possession of the property. The extent of 1.47 acres were in the possession of the family of the defendants ever since the date of sal eon 9. 1925 having taken actual possession of the said extent. In view of there continuous and uninterrupted possession, they have perfected title to the suit property. Plaintiff marked Exs.A-10 to A-20 while the defendant marked Exs.B-18 to B-34. Apart from the witnesses already examined, P.W.5 was examined on the side of the plaintiff while D.W.3 was examined by the defendant. 1925 having taken actual possession of the said extent. In view of there continuous and uninterrupted possession, they have perfected title to the suit property. Plaintiff marked Exs.A-10 to A-20 while the defendant marked Exs.B-18 to B-34. Apart from the witnesses already examined, P.W.5 was examined on the side of the plaintiff while D.W.3 was examined by the defendant. The trial court after analysis of the evidence found that the defendant had not proved his claim of adverse possession. 6. Thedispute relates to 16 cents of land. While the trial court held that the plaintiff had not proved his title. the appellate court held that the plaintiff has proved his title to the total extent of 1.31 acres of land as per the document of title filed before the court. But the plaintiff was non-suited on the ground that the defendant had perfected his title by adverse possession eversince 1970 and that the plaintiffs contention that the defendant had encroached into the land after 1974 was not true. 7. As far as the question of title is concerned, I have examined the evidence in detail along with the findings rendered by the courts below and I am inclined to confirm the findings of the appellate court. Ex.A-1 sale deed dated 15. 1922 clearly refers to the sale of an extent of 1.31 acres on the eastern side of the Survey No.131 as acquired by the predecessors in title of the plaintiff. Ex.A-5, the prior title deed of the defendant also discloses that his predecessor was entitled to an extent of 1.31 acres. It is not the claim of the defendant that he had purchased in excess of 1.31 acres. The plaintiff had also filed Ex.A-4, encumbrance certificate revealing that an extent of 1.31 acres was sold on 15. 1922. Therefore, there are clear materials to show that the plaintiff has title to the property. 8. As already stated the ground on which the appellate court dismissed the suit was that the defendant had perfected title by adverse possession in the absence of any specific issue in the said context by the trial court. 1922. Therefore, there are clear materials to show that the plaintiff has title to the property. 8. As already stated the ground on which the appellate court dismissed the suit was that the defendant had perfected title by adverse possession in the absence of any specific issue in the said context by the trial court. I have now examined the findings rendered by the trial court after taking fresh evidence both on facts and law, after taking into account, the submissions of both learned counsel as regards the findings rendered by the trial court as well as the memo of objections to the findings filed by the defendant/respondent. The trial court had rightly concluded that the evidence of the defendant coming into possession of the excess area of 16 cents, namely, of being in possession of a total extent of 1.47 acres, was available only from the year 1975. After referring to the patta and adangal extract pertaining to the earlier years, it was found that only in the Adangal of fasli 1385, the extent of the defendants holding had been mentioned as 1.47 acres in Ex.A-14. Likewise, the reduced holding by the plaintiff only to the extent of 1.15 acres was also recorded only from Fasli 1386 and the subsequent periods. Therefore, the earliest Adangal extract disclosing the extent of the defendants holdings as 1.47 acres is only from 1975 and the suit had been filed in the year 1980 itself. Separate patta has been issued in favour of the plaintiff only in 1975 and prior to the said date only joint patta had been issued. After analysing all the documentary evidence, the trial court had concluded that there was no revenue record to disclose the plaintiff being in possession of 1.47 acres prior to 1975. Even taking into account Ex.A-6. the sale deed dated 20.4.1970, under which the plaintiff derives title, the suit has been filed within 12 years. 9. As regards the oral evidence of D.W.3 who is the son of the first defendant, he has admitted that he cannot say who was in possession of the property prior to 1975. He cannot even say the exact extent of the land purchased by his grand-father and the boundaries. He was born only during 1964. A perusal of his cross-examination shows that he knows practically nothing about the extent of the land. He cannot even say the exact extent of the land purchased by his grand-father and the boundaries. He was born only during 1964. A perusal of his cross-examination shows that he knows practically nothing about the extent of the land. He would assert that there was a panchayat in the year 1975 and in the next sentence he would any knowledge about the panchayat. He has not even seen the document of title and does not even know the total extent of Survey No.131. Apart from the pleading of adverse possession, there is no evidence as regards possession of the disputed portion by the defendant prior to 1974 or 1975. 10. It is needless to point out that the burden of proof of adverse possession is on the party who claims adverse possession and in this case there is no evidence of possession by the defendant either oral or documentary prior to 1974 or 1975. The suit having been filed in 1980, the claim of adverse possession by the defendants had been rightly rejected by the trial court and hence I am inclined to uphold the said finding. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, very vehemently contends that by calling for a finding from the trial court he had been deprived of the right of appeal and an opportunity of being heard on facts by an appellate forum. He would contend that since scope of interference by this Court is limited to substantial question of law only, he was prejudiced by not being able to challenge the finding rendered by the trial court, on the basis of the evidence. He relies on the following judgments in support of his contention that it was not open to this Court to examine the facts either under Sec.100 or a revision under Sec.151, C.P.C. after calling for a finding from the trial court. In Balaji v. Vishnu , A.I.R. 1936 Nag. 140 a single Judge of the Nagpur High Court held that in such circumstances, the court has no power to scrutinise or review the evidence. The power of the High Court would be limited underSec.115, C.P.C. being a revision petition. 12. In Bal Kishen v. Jasoda Kuar Bal Kishen v. Jasoda Kuar Bal Kishen v. Jasoda Kuar , I.L.R. 7 All. The power of the High Court would be limited underSec.115, C.P.C. being a revision petition. 12. In Bal Kishen v. Jasoda Kuar Bal Kishen v. Jasoda Kuar Bal Kishen v. Jasoda Kuar , I.L.R. 7 All. 765 a Full Bench of Allahabad High Court held that the findings rendered upon the issues remanded by the High Court in second appeal cannot be challenged as in first appeal and the objections to the said findings have to be restricted to the limits of a second appeal. 13. The same view has been taken by a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court in Ishwara Bhatta v. Ishwara Bhatta , A.I.R. 1962 Mys. 61 and a Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Chatar Lal v. Ramdas , A.I.R. 1979 Raj. 87. 14. On the strength of the above decisions, learned counsel for the respondents contends that inasmuch as he is deprived of his right of appeal to challenge the correctness of appreciation of evidence by the trial court, the second appeal has to be sent to the appellate court where he could question the correctness of the findings. If the contention of learned counsel for the respondents is to be accepted, then it would go against the very scope of the power of the remand by the High Court in a second appeal by calling for a finding from the appellate or the trial court. It is not disputed that the provisions of O.41, Rules 23 to 27, C.P.C. dealing with the powers of the appellate court for remand, power to determine the case finally where the evidence on record was sufficient or to frame issues and to refer the same to the trial court and for admission of additional evidence etc. are equally applicable to the second appeals also. If so, to say that the finding should again go back to the appellate court, would go against the clear statutory provisions mentioned above. 15. It is also pertinent to note that under Sec.103, C.P.C. in any second appeal the High Court may, if the evidence on record was sufficient, determined any issue, necessary for the disposal of the appeal, which has not been determined by the lower appellate court or both by the trial court and the appellate court. 16. 15. It is also pertinent to note that under Sec.103, C.P.C. in any second appeal the High Court may, if the evidence on record was sufficient, determined any issue, necessary for the disposal of the appeal, which has not been determined by the lower appellate court or both by the trial court and the appellate court. 16. The apprehension expressed by learned counsel namely, that he is deprived of his right to be heard on facts is really without proper basis having regard to the following two judgments of the Supreme Court whereunder the Supreme Court had not only approved orders of remand by the High Court by calling for a finding from the trial court, but have also stated that in such cases, the High Court would be required to hear the whole appeal and also to scrutinise the findings of facts. 17. In Soundararaj v. Devasahayam , A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 133 as against the orders passed by the High Court in a review petition in second appeal remanding the suit to the trial court, on the facts, the Supreme Court held that the proper course which should have been adopted was to have framed additional issues and calling for findings of those issues from the trial court with liberty to both sides for adducing evidence. 18. This is precisely what has been done in the present case and there has been no demur before the Supreme Court that a right of appeal would be lost and that therefore, such a remand was not possible. 19. In Nasirul Haque v. Jitendra Nath Dey , A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1799 the Supreme Court dealt with a similar case of High Court in a second appeal calling for a finding of fact from the trial court, the Supreme Court held that when a finding was called for from the trial court by-passing the appellate court, the High Court should scrutinise the finding of fact in the second appeal with reference to the question of facts even in a second appeal. 20. Therefore, whatever might have been the opinion of the other High Courts relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents, the prevailing view is expressed by the Supreme Court is that the High Court in a second appeal is not deprived of its competency to examine the facts relating to the findings called for from the trial court. 20. Therefore, whatever might have been the opinion of the other High Courts relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents, the prevailing view is expressed by the Supreme Court is that the High Court in a second appeal is not deprived of its competency to examine the facts relating to the findings called for from the trial court. In the present case, I had already analysed the facts along with the evidence oral and documentary, with reference to the finding rendered by the trial court on remand. 121. Learned counsel for the respondent referred to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in G.Gurumurthy v. K.Ayyappa G.Gurumurthy v. K.Ayyappa G.Gurumurthy v. K.Ayyappa , A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1702. In that case it was held that where the High Court had framed an issue and referred it under O.41, Rule 25, C.P.C. to the trial court for a finding and had not remanded the whole case under O.41, Rule 23. C.P.C. the High Court should have heard the whole appeal and not confined the hearing only to the issue on which the findings are called for. 22. In the present second appeal, I have not only examined the finding rendered by the trial court on remand as regards the plea of adverse possession by the defendants, but also dealt with the question of title of the plaintiff being the only other issue to be considered in the appeal. 23. In the result, the title of the plaintiff being upheld and the claim of adverse possession by the defendant being rejected. The plaintiff is entitled to succeed. The second appeal is allowed and the suit is decreed as prayed for. No costs.