Judgment :- The unsuccessful plaintiff before the Courts below is the appellant in this Second Appeal. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings in the suit. 3. The case of the plaintiff as per the averments in the plaint is as follows:- The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and possession of the suit property. Valliammal, who is the wife of Sambandam residing at Chellaneri Street, Thiruvannamalai Town was the owner of Town Survey No.78/3, measuring East-West 31 feet, North-South 79 feet on the western side and 77-1/2 feet on the eastern side, in view of the purchase as per sale deed dated 14.10.1960. In that property, the plaintiff purchased 31 feet on the East-West and 64-1/2 feet on the North-South as per sale deed dated 21.5.1966 and after purchase, he has been in enjoyment of the same by constructing a house. He also purchased property in survey No.78/3 measuring 31 feet on the East-West, 15 feet on the western side and 13 feet on the eastern side, viz., the suit property from Valliammal as per sale deed dated 13.3.1981 and has been in enjoyment of the same as vacant site. The defendant is owning only a vacant side on the northern side of the suit property and he has no right in the suit property. The defendant trespassed into the suit property on 12.6.1982, viz., on the northern side of Survey No.78/3. The plaintiff issued lawyer notice. The defendant replied for the notice caused by the plaintiff with false averments. Hence, the suit. 4. The suit was resisted in the written statement filed by the defendant. The plaintiff or his vendor Valliammal, or their ancestors were not entitled to the suit property or they were not in enjoyment of the same. The paternal great-grandfather of the defendant Narayana Nainar had two sons, viz., Appu and Venkataraman. Venkatraman died issueless. Munusamy and Subramaniam are the sons of Appu. Munusamy had four sons, viz., Vajjiravel, Sambandam, Subramaniam and Sekar alias Chandrasekar (defendant). Subramaniam, son of Appu, had three sons, viz., Munusamy, Murugan and Narayanan. They have been members of the joint family and they are necessary parties in the suit. Venkatraman died issueless. Munusamy and Subramaniam are the sons of Appu. Munusamy had four sons, viz., Vajjiravel, Sambandam, Subramaniam and Sekar alias Chandrasekar (defendant). Subramaniam, son of Appu, had three sons, viz., Munusamy, Murugan and Narayanan. They have been members of the joint family and they are necessary parties in the suit. The plaintiff was never in enjoyment of the suit property and same is proved from the wall measuring four and half feet height, which has been raised between the suit property and the property enjoyed by the plaintiff after purchase. The suit property and also some other items of the properties belonged to Appasamy Nainar's son Kuppusamy Nainar, who had two sons, viz., Manickam and Appasamy. Appasamy had four sons, viz., Thirunavukkarasu, Sundaramurthy, Annamalai and Arumugam(plaintiff). The defendant's ancestor Appu Nainar orally purchased the property 60 years before from Kuppusamy Nainar and he has been in enjoyment of the same since then. The defendant had perfected title of the suit property by adverse possession. A reference has been made about the oral purchase of the property by Appu Nainar, in the sale deed dated 23.4.1927 executed by Varada Nainar alias Munusamy Nainar in favour of Valliammal in the schedule of the property. Appu Nainar and his sons Munusamy and Subramaniam together usufructuary mortgaged the property on 14.5.1942 to one Kutti Mudaliar's son Ramasamy and obtained a sum of Rs.100/-, in which also a reference has been made about the oral purchase of the property by Appu Nainar. The plaintiff was never in enjoyment of the suit property. It is denied that the defendant trespassed into the suit property on 12.6.1982. The defendant and his ancestors have been in enjoyment of the suit property for more than 60 years. 5. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 before the trial Court and as against the evidence let in on the side of the plaintiff, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.6 on his side. Exs.C.1 to C.3, reports and plan of the advocate-commissioner were marked as Court documents. 5. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 before the trial Court and as against the evidence let in on the side of the plaintiff, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.6 on his side. Exs.C.1 to C.3, reports and plan of the advocate-commissioner were marked as Court documents. The trial Court, considering such evidence let in on both sides, recorded finding that no title deed was filed by the plaintiff in respect of the purchase from Valliammal and the defendant and his predecessors have perfected title to the suit property by adverse possession and accordingly, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The said judgment was challenged by the plaintiff and the first Appellate Court concurred with the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved at such judgment and decree, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. 6. After filing the Second Appeal, sole appellant died. Appellants 2 to 6 have been added as his legal representatives. 7. The following substantial questions of law have been framed at the time of admission of the Second Appeal:- (i) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? (ii) Whether the principle that possession follows title applies to the facts of this case? (iii)Whether the Courts below are right in relying on the boundaries recited in the mortgage deeds to prove the title of the defendant? (iv) Whether the Courts below misconstrued the documents in holding against the plaintiff? (v) Whether the defendant has prescribed title by adverse possession? 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the respondent. 9. The suit property is in Survey No.78/3, Chellaneri Street, Thiruvannamalai Town East-West 31 feet, North-South 15 feet on the western side and 13 feet on the eastern side and totally 448-1/2 square feet, bounded on the North of the plaintiff's site, on the East of Street, on the South and West of T.S.No.80 and Shanmugha Nainar's sale. The plaintiff claims title to the suit property, in view of purchase as per sale deed Ex.A-1 dated 13.3.1981. He also claims that before purchase of the suit property under Ex.A-1, he purchased property on the North of the suit property under Ex.A-2 dated 21.5.1966 and both purchase are from Sambantham's wife Valliammal. 10. The plaintiff claims title to the suit property, in view of purchase as per sale deed Ex.A-1 dated 13.3.1981. He also claims that before purchase of the suit property under Ex.A-1, he purchased property on the North of the suit property under Ex.A-2 dated 21.5.1966 and both purchase are from Sambantham's wife Valliammal. 10. According to the plaintiff, his vendor Valliammal purchased the property dealt with under Exs.A-1 and A-2 as per sale deed Ex.B-1 dated 14.10.1960 from Chellaneri Vadivel Nainar's son Varadha Nainar and two others. The property covered under Ex.B-1 is described as T.S.No.78.3 measuring to an extent of 2424 square feet bearing door No.45 including vacant site and thottam(garden) bounded with its specific boundaries thus:- @bry;byndhp tPjpapy; tPjpf;Fk; (t). Kdp!pgy; ruy; !;Ty{f;Fk; (nk). ntoag;gd; nfhtpy; bjU bjd;g[wk; re;Jf;Fk; (fp). mg;g[ eapdhh; fhyp $hfht[f;Fk; (bj). ,jd; kj;jpapy; fp?nk $hjpao 31. t?bj 1tJ jhf;F nky;g[uk; $hjpao 79?1-2. fpHg[uk; nkw;go mo 13. 2tJ jhf;F t?bj nkw;go mo 79?1-2. fpHg[uk; 64?1-2. ,jpy; fl;oa[s;s Tiu beL !rhy; rfy fl;Lf; nfhg;g[ rhkhd;fSld; fjt[ thrf;fhy; nrhog;g[fs; 2. cl;gl mokid kid njhl;lj;Jld; T.S.No.78/3. rJuo 2424. nlhh; be/45 cs;sJ/@ As per sale deed Ex.A-2 dated 21.5.1966, the property purchased by the plaintiff from Valliammal is thus:- "ehd;(vendor, Valliammal) epWj;jpf; bfhz;l fhyp kidf;Fk; (bj). o!;bgd;rhpf;F (nk). thzjuha ghisak; tPjpf;FnghFk; bjUt[[f;Fk; (fp). bfhz;lhgl;L nghFk; ghijf;Fk; (t). kj;jpapy; fp?nk rhjpao 31. t?bj nkw;go mo 64?1-2. ,e;jst[s;s fhypkidkhdJ T.S.No.78/3. rJuo 2424y; bjd;g[uk; rJuo 1995?1-2 cs;sJk.; nlhh; be/45y; cs;sJk; bghJ thptpjpg;g[ be/145 cs;sJkhd fhypkid mokida[ld;" It is claimed by the plaintiff that the property retained by the vendor Valliammal as referred to in Ex.A-2 dated 21.5.1966 has been conveyed to the plaintiff under Ex.A-1 dated 13.3.1981, viz., the suit property, which in the document Ex.A-1 is described as follows:- "bry;ynehp bjUtpy; ehd; Rakha; 14/10/60y; tuj eapdhh; tifauhtplk; fpuak; bgw;W j';fSf;F Vw;fdnt fpuak; bfhLj;Jtpl;lJ nghf kPjp ,Uf;Fk; fhypkidahd T.S.No.78-3. rJuo 2224y; j';fs; Kd; fpuaj;Jf;Fk; (t). bjUt[f;Fk; (fp). T.S.No.80 mg;g[ eapdhh; ,lj;Jf;Fk; (bj) & (nk). kj;jpapy; fp?nk $hjpao 31. t?bj nkw;go mo nky;g[uk; 15. fPH;g[uk; nkw;go mo 13. rJuo 2224y; j';fs; Kd; fpuaj;Jf;Fk; (t). bjUt[f;Fk; (fp). T.S.No.80 mg;g[ eapdhh; ,lj;Jf;Fk; (bj) & (nk). kj;jpapy; fp?nk $hjpao 31. t?bj nkw;go mo nky;g[uk; 15. fPH;g[uk; nkw;go mo 13. rJuo 448?1-2 cs;s fhypkid fpuak;" The plaintiff after purchase of the suit property under Ex.A-1 dated 13.3.1981 caused lawyer notice Ex.A-4 dated 28.6.1982 to the defendant that the defendant trespassed into the vacant site owned by the plaintiff as per purchase under Ex.A-1 in Survey No.78/3 on the northern side East-West 31 feet, North-South 15 feet on the West and 13 feet on the East 15 days before the notice. The defendant replied the lawyer notice Ex.A-4 through his lawyer under Ex.A-5 dated 27.7.1982 disputing the trespass by the defendant into the suit property and claiming title to the suit property as belonging to his family and further stating that the plaintiff or his vendor Valliammal are not entitled to the suit property and have not been in possession of the suit property. In the reply notice Ex.A-5, he did not state as to how the defendant and his family are entitled to the suit property. However, in the written statement filed on 20.1.1983, in paragraphs 8 and 9, it is stated that the suit property originally belonged to Appasamy Nainar's son Kuppusamy Nainar and from him, the defendant's ancestor Appu Nainar purchased the property orally 60 years before filing the written statement and have been in enjoyment eversince such purchase and as such, the defendant and his predecessors-in-title have perfected title by adverse possession. It is also stated in the written statement that in the sale deed (Ex.B-3) dated 23.4.1927 in favour of Varadharaja Nainar alias Muthusamy Nainar, the suit property is referred to in the boundaries. Further, it is stated in the written statement that Appu Nainar and his two sons Munusamy and Subramaniam mortgaged the property on 14.5.1942 under Ex.B-6(Original Ex.B-5) to one Ramasamy Mudaliar and as such, according to the defendant, the defendant's ancestors have been in enjoyment of the suit property for quite a long time and more than 60 years. Though it is stated so in the written statement, the evidence let in through the defendant as D.W.1, is that the property was purchased orally by defendant's grandfather Appusamy Nainar and that the defendant's father Munusamy Nainar and his parents Appu Nainar and Thangamani Ammal mortgaged the suit property under Ex.B-4 dated 9.7.1935. Though it is stated so in the written statement, the evidence let in through the defendant as D.W.1, is that the property was purchased orally by defendant's grandfather Appusamy Nainar and that the defendant's father Munusamy Nainar and his parents Appu Nainar and Thangamani Ammal mortgaged the suit property under Ex.B-4 dated 9.7.1935. Therefore, the claim in the suit property made by the defendant is, in view of the purchase orally by his grandfather Appu Nainar as early as 60 years before. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the property sold to Valliammal by Varatha Nainar under Ex.B-1 is 2424 square feet, viz., East-West 31 feet, first portion North-South 79-1/2 feet on the eastern side and 13 feet on the eastern side, and second portion North-South 79-1/2 feet on the eastern side and 64-1/2 feet on the eastern side out of which, the property conveyed by Valliammal to the plaintiff under Ex.A-2 is 1995-1/2 square feet, viz., East-West 31 feet and North-South 64-1/2 feet. The property conveyed by Valliammal to the plaintiff under Ex.A-1 is 448-1/2 feet, viz., East-West 31 feet, North-South 15 feet on the western side and 13 feet on the eastern side. It is also contended by the learned counsel that inasmuch as it is only the plaintiff and before his purchase his vendor Valliammal are the owners of the property since possession follows title, the suit property being vacant site. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the plaintiff failed to establish the title and possession for the suit property by the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the plaintiff cannot succeed on the weakness of the case of the defendant and it is the plaintiff to establish his title to the suit property, failure of which, the plaintiff is to be non-suited. As regards the claim to the suit property, the stand taken in both the Courts below by the defendant, is that the defendant's grandfather Appu Nainar purchased the suit property orally 60 years before and after purchase he had been in enjoyment and in reiterating the same, according to the learned counsel, the documents Exs.B-2 to B-6 have been marked that the defendant's grandfather Appu Nainar purchased the suit property. The learned counsel also relied on the following decisions:- (1) Lalita James – vs. - Ajit Kumar reported in AIR 1991 Madhya Pradesh 15, in which it is held that the plaintiff/purchaser is to prove that the vendor had necessary title and the plaintiff is to succeed on the strength of his own title and not by any weakness in the case of the defendant. (2) Manakkan and five others – vs. - Veera Perumal reported in 1998(II) CTC 157 , in which this Court held that the findings without pleadings and misreading of documents would constitute error of law warranting interference in second appeal and no documents produced to show that the suit property was in possession of plaintiff in his own right and possessory right cannot be recognised. The plaintiff should stand or fall on the strength of his own case and not rely on alleged weakness of defendant's case. 13. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellants, both the Courts have not recorded proper findings with regard to the title of the suit property. It is the definite case of the plaintiff that the entire extent of 2424 square feet in T.S.No.78/3 only belonged to Chellaneri Vadivel Nainar's son Varadha Nainar and he conveyed the same to Valliammal under Sale deed Ex.B-1 dated dated 14.10.1960. Thereafter Valliammal out of 2424 square feet, the property purchased under Ex.B-1, viz., East-West 31 feet, first portion North-South 79-1/2 feet on the western side and 13 feet on the eastern side and second portion North-South 79-1/2 and on the eastern side 64-1/2 feet, conveyed 1995-1/2 square feet, viz., East-West 31 feet and North-South 64-1/2 feet under Ex.A-2 dated 21.5.1966 after retaining northern side measuring North-South 15 feet and the same has been conveyed under Ex.A-1 on 13.3.1981 to the plaintiff. 14. In dealing with the property under Ex.A-1, the Northern and Eastern boundary is described as Appu Nainar site in T.S.No.80. In the sale deed Ex.B-1, as per which the plaintiff's vendor Valliammal purchased entire extent in T.S.No.78/3, viz., 2424 square feet, the northern boundary is referred to as Appu Nainar's vacant site. So, it is clear that Appu Nainar owned the property in T.S.No.80 on the North of the property of T.S.No.78/3 purchased by the plaintiff's vendor Valliammal under Ex.B-1. In the sale deed Ex.B-1, as per which the plaintiff's vendor Valliammal purchased entire extent in T.S.No.78/3, viz., 2424 square feet, the northern boundary is referred to as Appu Nainar's vacant site. So, it is clear that Appu Nainar owned the property in T.S.No.80 on the North of the property of T.S.No.78/3 purchased by the plaintiff's vendor Valliammal under Ex.B-1. Therefore, it is only the plaintiff, who is entitled to the suit property in view of the purchase under sale deed Ex.A-1 from Valliammal, who in turn purchased the same from Chellaneri Vadivel Nainar's son Varadha Nainar under Ex.B-1 dated 14.10.1960. 15. A feeble attempt has been made by the defendant to show that the suit property has been referred to as northern boundary to the property conveyed under Ex.B-3 dated 23.4.1927 and purchased by Devanthal Vadivel Nainar's son Muthusamy Nainar and by stating that the purchaser as per the said document is the vendor Varadha Nainar under Ex.B-1 in favour of Valliammal. Merely because for the property in T.S.No.78 conveyed under Ex.B-3, the northern boundary is referred to as the site sold to Appu Nainar, it cannot be said that what was sold to Appu Nainar is the suit property. Similarly, since in the mortgage deed Ex.B-4 dated 9.7.1935, the southern boundary is referred to as Varadha Nainar's house, no inference can be drawn that the property mortgaged as per the said document is the suit property. In fact, it is clearly mentioned in the document Ex.B-4 that the property, viz., thatched house bearing door No.27 of the extent 02201 square feet as item No.1 and Item No.2 is mentioned as southern half of the said thatched house and therefore, it is clear that Appu Nainar was only entitled to the property in T.S.No.80 and not to the property in T.S.No.78/3. Though it is not mentioned as to how Appu Nainar was entitled to the property mortgaged under Ex.B-3, in the usufructuary mortgage deed Ex.B-5 dated 14.5.1942 by Appu Nainar and his two sons Munusamy Nainar and Subramaniam Nainar it is stated that the property usufructuary mortgaged is 480 square feet vacant site on the West of T.S.No.78 purchased orally by Appu Nainar from Kuppusamy Nainar of the extent 480 square feet out of 9142 square feet, viz., East to West 32 feet and North-South 15 feet and totally 480 square feet in door No.15. Though it is the claim of the defendant that he and his ancestors have been in possession of the suit property for more than 60 years and which property, according to the defendant, is referred to as Northern boundary in Ex.B-3 dated 23.4.1927, such a case has not been proved by the defendant and supported by documents. The defendant has also not proved that he has prescribed title by adverse possession. The suit is also not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, inasmuch as the case of the defendant that he has got title to the suit property, in view of the oral purchase by his paternal grandfather has not been proved. 16. The advocate-commissioner after inspecting the suit property filed the report Ex.C-1 and rough plan Ex.C-2. In the report Ex.C-1 and rough plan Ex.C-2 it is stated that entire suit property purchased by the plaintiff shown as by letter "F", and the property of the defendant is shown as by letter "E". The Commissioner has stated in his report Ex.C-1 with regard to measurement as follows:- "A to B is 13 feet, A1 to B1 is 14 and from B1 to C1 two feet. The plaintiff's house seems to have been constructed recently, i.e., about 2 or 3 years back. The measurement of the house is East to West 13 feet and north to south 21 feet. The remaining area is left vacant with basement to height 2 feet with granite foundation." "The suit property is bounded by(one foot breadth) wall on the north, thorn fence on the south and west and open space to facilitate access to it through defendant's house. In the suit property there is an old basement. There are a pappaya tree, a shoe flower tree and plants of december flower, Sundakkai and Ponnankanni. A big refuse heap is also seen there." 17. The plaintiff established the title for the suit property, viz., Town Survey No.78/3, measuring East-West 31 feet, North-South 15 feet on the western side and 13 feet on the eastern side, in view of purchase from Valliammal under Ex.A-1 dated 13.3.1981 and before that purchase, 13 feet on the East-West and 64-1/2 feet on the North-South as per sale deed Ex.A-2 dated 21.5.1966 was purchased from the same vendor Valliammal, who in turn purchased the same from Varadha Nainar alias Muthusamy Nainar under Ex.B-1 dated 14.10.1960. The entire extent in T.S.No.78/3 is 2424 square feet bearing door No.45 including vacant site and thottam and it is well settled that possession follows title. Both the Courts below committed error in recording finding that the suit property was already sold to Appu Nainar and in fact it appears Appu Nainar purchased only the property in T.S.No.80 on the North of the suit property. In fact, in Ex.A-3, the extract of field survey register, the name of registered holder is shown as the deceased first appellant, Arumugha Nainar in respect the suit property T.S.No.78/3 of the extent 2424 square feet. Therefore, such finding, recorded improperly which resulted in the miscarriage of justice, being erroneous, is to be set aside. 18. In the result, in the light of the discussions made above, the Second Appeal is allowed with costs throughout, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28.10.1993 in A.S.No.24 of 1993 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai, and the suit O.S.No.1034 of 1982 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai is decreed as prayed for.