Judgment :- The plaintiff is the appellant herein. He filed the suit for declaration of title of the suit property and for permanent injunction. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The defendants filed an appeal challenging the same before the lower appellate Court. While partly allowing the appeal, the lower appellate Court confirmed the decree in respect of declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff, however, set aside the decree in regard to permanent injunction holding that the respondents are in possession of the property. Hence, the second appeal by the plaintiff. 2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: "The suit property was purchased by the plaintiff's father one Subbiah Gounder in Court auction pursuant to the execution proceedings in E.P.No.64 of 1943 in O.S.No.209 of 1942. The plaintiff's father was in possession and enjoyment of the property since the date of purchase in the Court auction. After the death of his father, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. While so, the defendants attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction." 3. According to the defendants through written statement, the Court auction sale is not true and binding and the property was not taken possession by the plaintiff in pursuance of the Court auction sale and the defendants have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. During the course of trial, on the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1, the plaintiff was examined and Exs.A1 to A32 were marked and on the side of the defendants, second defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B38 were marked. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the trial Court and the report and plan filed by him were marked as Exs.C1 and C2. 5. The trial Court on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, accepted the plaintiff's contention and held that the plaintiff is entitled to the property by virtue of the Court auction sale and found that he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 6. As noted above, the respondents/defendants filed an appeal before the appellate Court. 5. The trial Court on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, accepted the plaintiff's contention and held that the plaintiff is entitled to the property by virtue of the Court auction sale and found that he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 6. As noted above, the respondents/defendants filed an appeal before the appellate Court. Ultimately, the appellate Court allowed the appeal in part by not granting the relief of injunction but however, confirmed the finding regarding title. Hence, the second appeal by the plaintiff. 7. When the matter came up for admission before this Court, this Court was not inclined to admit the same, however, by the order dated 6.3.1998, notice of motion was issued. After the appearance of the counsel for the respondents, the matter came up for disposal. Both the counsel agreed for the final disposal. Accordingly, both the counsel were heard. 8. As indicated above, this Court did not admit this appeal and merely ordered notice of motion. In other words, this Court did not think it fit to formulate any substantial question of law. However, on the basis of the memorandum of grounds, the learned counsel for the appellant would make the submissions raising the following points relating to the various questions of law: 1) The lower appellate Court committed an irregularity in not considering the evidence relying upon the proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer. 2) The lower appellate Court erred in law in relying upon the entries in the Adangal produced by the defendants to hold against the plaintiff which are neither documents of title nor it can be relied for the purpose of possession as against the title-holder. 3) The lower appellate Court being a final Court of fact is bound to follow the mandatory provisions contained in Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C. by framing the points for determination and the same was not followed. 9. The counsel for the appellant to substantiate the above points cited the authorities in MURUGAIYAN v. SUBBAIYAN ( 2001(3) CTC 393 ), JAYARAMA UDAYAR v. RAJAMANICKAM (AIR 2001 MADRAS 82 and MAHADEBA v. DEENABANDHU (A.I.R.1971 ORISSA 152). 10. 9. The counsel for the appellant to substantiate the above points cited the authorities in MURUGAIYAN v. SUBBAIYAN ( 2001(3) CTC 393 ), JAYARAMA UDAYAR v. RAJAMANICKAM (AIR 2001 MADRAS 82 and MAHADEBA v. DEENABANDHU (A.I.R.1971 ORISSA 152). 10. In reply to the said submissions, the counsel for the respondents on the strength of the decisions in DURGA THATHERA v. NARAIN THATHERA(FB) (A.I.R.1931 Allahabad 597), SIVAPRAKASAM MUDALIAR v. SELVARAJ PADAYACHI (1990 II M.L.J.499), MANI v. BATCHA SAHIB ( 2000(IV) CTC 329 ) and SAHUL HAMEED, D. v. SWAMY NELLAIAPPAR SRI KANTHIMATHI ( 2000(III) CTC 232 ) contended that framing of the points for determination by the lower appellate Court is not mandatory requirement, especially when the said Court has adverted to relevant materials on record for reaching the correction conclusion. 11. Regarding the failure to frame the points for determination relating to the issues as correctly held by this Court in 2000(III) CTC 232 and 1990 II M.L.J.439 (supra), it cannot be said that the judgment is vitiated for want of framing of the points for determination, as in this case, the lower appellate Court has considered the entire evidence on record and discussed the same in detail and ultimately, came to the conclusion. Therefore, it shall be construed that there is a substantial compliance with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C. 12. Let us now go to the other details about the facts of the case. 13. It is not in dispute that the suit property is relating to S.Nos.155 and 156. It is also not seriously disputed that in respect of the suit property, there was a Court auction sale and the father of the plaintiff purchased the said property under Ex.A5. 14. Since these materials have not been seriously challenged, both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court would conclusively hold that the plaintiff/appellant would be entitled to declaration in respect of the suit properties. This finding has not been challenged before this Court by the defendants by filing a separate appeal before this Court. 15. The only question which remains to be considered is whether the conclusion arrived at by the lower appellate Court with reference to the possession is correct or not? 16. According to the plaintiff, immediately after the purchase in the Court auction sale, the possession of the property was taken by the plaintiff's family. 15. The only question which remains to be considered is whether the conclusion arrived at by the lower appellate Court with reference to the possession is correct or not? 16. According to the plaintiff, immediately after the purchase in the Court auction sale, the possession of the property was taken by the plaintiff's family. But, it was not stated in the plaint as to exactly on what date, the possession was taken. Admittedly, the plaintiff did not move before the Court concerned to get the possession from the defendants. Under those circumstances, the plaintiff has to prove as to when and how he took possession of the suit property. 17. In fact, the written statement has been filed by the defendant on 19.11.1985 stating that possession of the property was not with the plaintiff, but with the defendants from the beginning. Reply statement was filed by the plaintiff only on 9.1.1991 stating that the plaintiff's family had been in possession of the property from 15.5.1944. 18. As indicated above, either through oral evidence or through documentary evidence, the plaintiff failed to establish as to exactly when the possession was taken from the defendants, especially when the plaintiff did not approach the Court for obtaining the order from the Court concerned for taking possession within the time stipulated. 19. The only documents produced by the plaintiff are the mortgage deeds Exs.A6 and A7, patta Ex.A8 and encumbrance certificates Exs.A9 to A12. As pointed out by the lower appellate Court, these documents would not show as to when the plaintiff actually took possession in pursuance of the Court auction sale. Besides these documents, he filed Exs.A14 to A31, the kist receipts to show that he paid kists from the year 1963 to 1990 mentioning various dates between these years. But, these documents would not prove his possession, since the defendants also produced Exs.B6 to B35, the kist receipts from the year 1960 to 1994 to show that he paid kists in respect of the suit property. 20. Under those circumstances, the case of the plaintiff that he was in possession from the date of sale, cannot be accepted. On the other hand, the defendants filed two documents Exs.B36 and B37, the Adangal Extracts for the years 1985 and 1989 to show that the suit property was in possession and enjoyment of D.W.1, the second defendant. 21. 20. Under those circumstances, the case of the plaintiff that he was in possession from the date of sale, cannot be accepted. On the other hand, the defendants filed two documents Exs.B36 and B37, the Adangal Extracts for the years 1985 and 1989 to show that the suit property was in possession and enjoyment of D.W.1, the second defendant. 21. Apart from that, Exs.A32 and B38, the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities would show that the kists have been collected from both the parties. Under Ex.A38, the finding has been given by the Revenue Authorities that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property. 22. Of course, this finding is not binding on Civil Court. However, the lower appellate Court, while referring to various other documents produced by both the plaintiff and the defendants like Exs.A14 to A31 and B6 to B35 would make a reference about the finding of the Revenue Authorities also as contained in Ex.B38. 23. Therefore, on facts, the lower appellate Court has correctly concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove the fact of taking over possession of the property and his continuous enjoyment of the same and on the other hand, the defendants produced Adangal Extracts to show that the suit property has been in possession and enjoyment of the defendants. 24. The learned counsel for the appellant would cite two authorities, namely 2001(3) CTC 393 (supra) and A.I.R.2001 Madras 82(supra). The learned single Judge of this Court in 2001(3) CTC 393 would reiterate the dictum that possession follows title when there is no adequate evidence with regard to possession by either party. That legal position cannot apply to the present case, in view of the fact that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession. On the other hand, the defendants proved their possession by showing the Adangal Extracts. 25. A.I.R.2001 Madras 82(supra) also would not apply to the present case. In that case, the adangal produced by the defendant did not disclose the extent of defendant's occupation in the suit property. Therefore, it was held that the said adangal would not be of conclusive proof to hold that the property in question was in possession of the defendant. 26. That is not the case here. Both the parties would not dispute about the identity of the property in question. Therefore, it was held that the said adangal would not be of conclusive proof to hold that the property in question was in possession of the defendant. 26. That is not the case here. Both the parties would not dispute about the identity of the property in question. Under those circumstances, this Court is unable to hold that the finding rendered by the lower appellate Court with regard to possession in the light of the relevant materials produced by the defendants holding that the plaintiff would not be entitled to permanent injunction, cannot be said to be wrong or perverse. 27. In the light of the above fact situation, no substantial question of law would arise. Consequently, it is to be held that the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court is correct and the same is liable to be upheld. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs.