Judgment : 1. Third defendant before the Principal District Munsif and third respondent before the Second Additional Sub Judge is the appellant in S.A. No.285 of 2002. Defendants 1 and 2 before the Munsif Court and respondents 1 and 2 before the Sub-court are the appellants in S.A. No.548 of 2002. 2. The respondents in both these appeals had filed a suit for declaration that the document dated 17.5.1994 executed by the first and second defendants (M/s. Arumuga Thevar and Vadivoo Ammal) in favour of the third defendant (M/s. Mohan Breweries) in the suit is null and void and for a direction to the third defendant to deliver the possession of the suit property and for a mandatory injunction to remove all the structures and machineries and fixtures. The suit was dismissed by the Munsif Court, but on appeal, the suit was decreed in favour of the respondents. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows : An extent of 1 acre 9l/z cents of land was purchased by Palavesakonar, the father of the second plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated 16.6.1921. The revenue records continued in the name of Palavesakonar and he died intestate on 3.10.1947, leaving behind him, four daughters namely : (1) Tmt. Valliammal, (2) Tmt. Velammal, (3) Tmt. Nambiammal and (4) Tmt. Subbammal. Except Tmt. Vellammal, all others died. The first plaintiff is the only son of late Valliammal and the grandson of late Palavesakonar. The third and fourth plaintiffs are the grandsons of Palavesakonar through his daughters and they are the existing legal heirs of the deceased Palavesakonar and were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, even though the lands were uncultivated. According to the plaintiffs (the respondents in this appeal), when they attempted to pay the kist on 6.3.1995, they were informed that the revenue records had been changed in the name of the third defendant (appellant herein) and the kist was refused to be accepted. After taking the encumbrance certificate, they came to know that defendants 1 and 2 have sold away the property to the third defendant. Alleging that defendants 1 and 2, without any authority and fraudulently created the documents of conveyance and that the same are not legally valid and enforceable, the above suit came to be filed. 4. After taking the encumbrance certificate, they came to know that defendants 1 and 2 have sold away the property to the third defendant. Alleging that defendants 1 and 2, without any authority and fraudulently created the documents of conveyance and that the same are not legally valid and enforceable, the above suit came to be filed. 4. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs are aware of the sale and they denied the right over the property to the vendors of Palavesakonar. They pleaded that the suit properties originally belonged to the father and mother of defendants 1 and 2 and they have acquired title by prescription. After the demise of the parents, they are enjoying the same by paying kist and thereafter, they conveyed the same to the third defendant for valid consideration. 5. The third defendant, the appellant in S.A. No.285 of 2002, contended that the plaintiffs haven o right to the property. They adopted the case of defendants 1 and 2 and pleaded that the suit has been filed only to get money from them. 6. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed the judgment and granted the decree. The appeals are against this judgment and decree. 7. The main submission of the learned senior counsel Mr. G. Masilamani is that the appellant in S.A. No.285 of 2002 had taken possession of the property and had constructed a huge wind mill at an enormous cost and the respondents, having kept quiet all these years, are estopped by acquiescence and cannot claim any right under equity. According to him, the respondents have not proved their relationship with Palavesakonar and their title to the property. It is argued that the rejection of Exs.B.l, B.3 to B.7 is illegal and that the respondents did not prove their title and possession and that the burden has been wrongly placed. 8. Learned counsel Mr. S.S. Sundar appearing on behalf of the appellant in S.A. No.548 of 2002 namely the vendors to M/s. Mohan Breweries submitted that the suit as such is not maintainable without seeking a relief for declaration of title and that the respondents have not proved their title. Inasmuch as the respondents have not proved their possession within 12 years prior to the filing of the suit, they are barred from seeking the relief of recovery of possession. Inasmuch as the respondents have not proved their possession within 12 years prior to the filing of the suit, they are barred from seeking the relief of recovery of possession. According to him, defendants 1 and 2 have proved their case of adverse possession on the admitted evidence of P.W.I himself. 9. Mr. Peppin Fernando appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that there is no plea regarding the claim of equity and there was no evidence let in as to the construction, structures and the value of the alleged improvements made. This being a new plea not taken and considered earlier, the question of equity will not arise in this case. He challenges the stand of the defendant in the suit that there is no need to get a legal opinion or going through the document of title before the sale or purchase of the suit property and this would only show that they have made a fraudulent transfer in order to defraud the rights of the respondents. He further submits that the lower appellate court has perfectly construed the case and no substantial question of law, therefore, arises for consideration in the above matter. 10. I have heard the counsel for the appellants and the respondents and considered the matter carefully. 11. The suit property is an extent of 1 acre 9l/2 cents of land in Survey No.992, Veppilankulam, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli Kattabomman District. The suit property is a vacant nanja land. The property was purchased by a registered sale deed executed by Sudalaimuthu Pillai and Chockalingam Pillai in favour of Palavesakonar on 16.6.1921. Though it is now argued that it was only a certified copy of the sale deed, no objection was raised before the courts below and the same was accepted. There is no dispute that Ex.A.l, sale deed covers the suit property. Palavesakonar died on 3.10.1947 intestate, leaving behind four daughters, of whom Valliammal alone was alive at the time of the filing of the suit. The first plaintiff is the only son of late Valliammal, the third plaintiff is the son of late Nambiammal and the fourth plaintiff is the son of late Subbammal. All the three were the grandsons of late Palavesakonar. The first plaintiff is the only son of late Valliammal, the third plaintiff is the son of late Nambiammal and the fourth plaintiff is the son of late Subbammal. All the three were the grandsons of late Palavesakonar. The genealogy of Late Palavesa Konar is given below : The title of the suit property is traceable to Ex.A.l and the same was not disputed before the courts below and the finding is that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff’s grandfather and the second plaintiffs father in the year 1921 under Ex.A.l. 12. From Ex.A.3, the encumbrance certificate in reference to the suit property, it is seen that there are only two entries, one sale deed dated 16.6.1921, Ex.A.l and the second sale deed dated 17.5.1994, Ex.A.10, which is the sale obtained by the appellant now in dispute. Therefore, insofar as the suit property is concerned, the title is absolute in favour of the plaintiffs from the year 1921 onwards. Ex.A.3, the encumbrance certificate which has not been challenged, puts an end to the case of the defendants/appellants that the property was purchased from Palavesakonar by Arumuga Thevar and Vadivoo Ammal, through whom defendants 1 and 2 claim. 13. Coming to the revenue records, Ex.A.2 dated 28.1.1994 is the kist receipt in the name of Palavesakonar in Fasli No. 1403, which is prior to the conveyance by the defendants. Ex.A.14 is the Village Account Extract, Ex.A.14 is the Settlement Jamabanthi in the name of Valliammal and Ex.A.15 is the Veppankulam Village Extract. In these documents, Patta No.705 is shown as a joint patta standing in the name of Valliammal, Velammai, Nambiammal and Minor Masanam. P.W.3, the Writer in the Taluk Office has clearly stated that Patta No.805 stands in the name of the plaintiffs and that the same is continued till date. From the above, it is seen that both the title as well as the revenue records stand in the name of the plaintiffs and the trial court has failed to consider the same properly. 14. While coming to the case of the appellants, I find there is absolutely no material document to prove the title in favour of defendants 1 and 2. 14. While coming to the case of the appellants, I find there is absolutely no material document to prove the title in favour of defendants 1 and 2. On the contrary, what they have described in Ex.A.10 sale deed is to the effect that the property originally belonged to their mother Valliammal in Patta No.556 and that the same has been succeeded to by them. There is no mention and description of the husband of Valliammal in their evidence. It has been stated that the defendant’s mother obtained the property by gift, from her father. Apart from a vague claim without any particulars, admittedly, they have no documentary evidence to claim title to the property, they have not marked the alleged Patta No.556. What they have marked is Ex.A.l, the extract of chitta wherein the names of the wife of Sivanu Devar, Valliammal and Vadivoo Ammal are mentioned. Ex.B.4 refers to the name of Sivanu Devar in Patta No.897. Exs.B.5 and B.7 are extracts of chitta wherein the names of V alliammal and Vadivoo Ammal are found. On the basis of these extracts, assuming that they refer to the name of the second defendant, it cannot be construed that she has got title to the suit property. 15. Yet another important factor to be taken note of is that the appellant in S.A. No.285 of 2002 is a private limited company which claims to have set up a wind mill at a huge cost. The Manager of the appellant company who has been examined as D.W.2 has stated in his evidence that he had vast experience in purchase of property and therefore, he need not get the legal opinion. He further says that he had perused the revenue records and encumbrance certificate before purchasing the property. He categorically says that he did not get any document of title from defendants 1 and 2. As rightly observed, it is ununderstandable as to how D.W.2, who claims that he need not obtain any legal opinion, has gone for the purchase of a vast extent of property by merely looking at the adangal and without even tracing the title of the vendors. 16. D.W.I is working as Sanitary Inspector in the Primary Health Centre from 1985. According to him, the suit property was obtained by his mother as a gift from her father Velayutha Thevar. 17. 16. D.W.I is working as Sanitary Inspector in the Primary Health Centre from 1985. According to him, the suit property was obtained by his mother as a gift from her father Velayutha Thevar. 17. Admittedly, the suit property was a dry vacant land without any cultivation. While so, the trial court, after having referred to the title under Ex.A.l, without rejecting the same and accepting the title as such, rejected the case of the plaintiffs/respondents only on the basis that the plaintiffs have not proved possession and enjoyment of the property. The trial court, on the alleged failure of the plaintiff in not filing the document in support of the title of Chockalingam Pillai, i.e. the vendor of Palavesakonar to the property, and in the absence of kist receipt in favour of Palavesakonar, has jumped to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the suit property and that they have not proved their title, possession and enjoyment of the property. Ex.A.l is a document of the year 1921. It is not explained as to why the purchaser in the year 1921 should get his vendor’s document. It is not seen how the defendants have established their title, possession and enjoyment of the property whe n they claimed to have sold the property in the year 1994. In my view, the trial court has miserably failed to consider the documentary and oral evidence properly. In the absence of any document to prove the title in favour of the defendants coupled with the oral evidence, the trial court failed to consider its implication and has conceded the erroneous claim of adverse possession without any pleading and proof. 18. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, there is no plea made by the appellants in S.A. No.285 of 2002 in the written statement of any equity in their favour, except stating that they have erected a wind mill. From the evidence of D.W.2, it is clear that without looking into the title, they have ventured into the purchase of a vacant land on a mere representation by defendants 1 and 2. He was satisfied on the basis of the power of attorney and the alleged encumbrance certificate. From the evidence of D.W.2, it is clear that without looking into the title, they have ventured into the purchase of a vacant land on a mere representation by defendants 1 and 2. He was satisfied on the basis of the power of attorney and the alleged encumbrance certificate. The stand of D.W.2 that they have gone through the encumbrance certificate cannot be correct, since if he had gone into the same, it would have shown that the property stood in the name of Palavesakonar and he should have enquired as to who are the legal heirs of Palavesakonar. A reading of the evidence of D.W.2 only shows that they have purchased the property only on the basis of the representation of defendants 1 and 2 and on seeing the adangal, but without seeing the encumbrance certificate. It is ununderstandable that a company, which is alleged to have purchased 500 acres of land costing several crores of rupees, has simply purchased the property without looking into the title deeds. It is obvious that the appellant, being a very big company, buying hundreds of acres of land and set up wind mills at a huge cost so that their title may not be questioned. In the above circumstances, it is clearly established that the defendants have no title to the suit property and that the sale deed Ex.A. 10 is not valid and does not convey any title or right on them over the suit property, 19. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment in R.S. Muthukrishna Gounder v. Arunachalam , 1980 T.N.L.J. 352 in support of his contention that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover possession of the property since they did not raise any objection till the buildings were constructed and therefore, it must be held that they have acquiesced to the acts of the defendants. In this case, it is seen that as soon as Ex.A.10, sale deed was executed on 17.5.1994, the plaintiffs have complained to the Tahsildar under Ex.A.12 stating that they are the owners of the suit property obtained by their grandfather late Palavesakonar from Sudalaimuthu Pillai and Chockalingam Pillai and that there is an erroneous entry in the adangal in favour of Sivanu Thevar and therefore, requested the Tahsildar to immediately correct the adangal accounts. The first defendant has sent a letter dated 17.10.1994 to the plaintiffs stating that they will talk and settle the matter with them, regarding the property, in person. To the suit notice issued to the third defendant purchaser, though it was acknowledged, there was no reply from them. Therefore, from the above, it is clear that the suit property is a vacant uncultivated dry land and remains without a division, and by making a false entry in the adangal in the name of defendants 1 and 2, they have sold the property to the third defendant and the plaintiffs have been taking earnest steps to get the relief before the Tahsildar and the respondents herein, and ultimately they were constrained to file the suit. From the facts, it is further clear that the respondents, knowing fully well that they have no right, title or possession, had entered into the land under the guise of a sale deed coupled with the corrected adangal entry and tried to defeat the interest of the plaintiffs. Hence, it cannot be stated that the plaintiffs had acquiesced to the rights of the defendants. 20. The learned Principal District Munsif has referred to the claim of the plaintiff in paragraphs 11 and 12, The learned Judge says that to prove the contention that the property was purchased by Palavesa Konar, Ex.A.l has been marked and that it is a sale deed executed on 16.6.1921 by Sudalaimuthu Pillai and Chockalingam Pillai in favour of Palavesa Konar, son of Subbaiah Konar. The learned Judge further goes on to say that Ex.A.2 is a kist receipt in the name of Palavesa Konar, son of Valliammal dated 28.1.1994. However, the learned Judge concludes by saying as follows : “From the above documents Exs.A. 1 and A.2,1 am not able to come to the conclusion that the schedule property belongs to Palavesa Konar and that he was in possession and enjoyment of the property till his death in the year 1947.” The learned Judge states that in the absence of revenue records for the mutation of records in the name of his four daughters, though the revenue tax receipts stand in the name of the first plaintiff, it cannot be considered that the plaintiffs are in possession. While coming to the evidence of the defendants in paragraph 13, without reference to any document of title and on the basis of Ex.B.l, chitta extract and Ex.B.4, copy of the ‘A’ Register standing in the name of one Sivanu Thevar, it is held tha t the schedule property belongs to Valliammal, wife of Sivanu Thevar. The conclusion of the learned Judge is nothing but perverse, unreasonable and opposed to the records available. There is no reference to the co-relation of the property or the title. The conclusion of the trial court is totally in disregard to the oral and documentary evidence. The learned Judge has jumped to a totally erroneous conclusion. The appellate Judge has rightly interfered with the judgment. 21. Hence, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in these second appeals. The second appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.Ps. are closed.