Judgment :- The plaintiff who lost his case in the Trial Court as well as in the lower appellate court, is the appellant herein. The suit is for declaration of title and possession and injunction in respect of the plaintiffs property. 2. The case of the appellant/plaintiff, in brief, is as under: The appellant/plaintiff purchased the suit property of 59 cents from one Ganapathy Iyer vide Ex.A.1, sale deed dated 01.12.1966 under Old Survey Nos.3933/7 and 3933/8. While the lands were resurveyed, the appellant/plaintiff was given patta for Resurvey No.502/9 as against Old Survey No.3933/7 and for Resurvey No.502/10 as against Old Survey No.3933/8, the area of both the new survey nos. being 25 cents and the balance area of 34 cents was included in Resurvey No.517 which is classified as poramboke. Though the appellant/plaintiff issued suit notice to the respondent/defendant, since there was no reply for the same and B-Memo was also issued to the appellant/plaintiff, the suit came to be filed by the appellant/plaintiff. 3. The defendant-State, in its written statement, though admitted that the appellant/plaintiff purchased the lands in Old Survey Nos.3933/A7 and 3933/A8 and Resurvey Nos. were also allotted to the appellant/plaintiff even according to his case, contended that no portion of the appellant/plaintiffs property was included in Resurvey No.517 which is a poromboke land belonging to it. 4. On the side of the appellant/plaintiff, two witnesses were examined of whom P.W.1 is the appellant/plaintiff himself and as many as eight documents were marked. In support of the respondent/defendants case, the Village Administrative Officer was the sole witness in addition to eleven exhibits. 5. The Trial Court, after framing four issues and after examination of oral and documentary evidence, concluded that the appellant/plaintiffs property was not merged with Resurvey No.517 and as such, the reliefs prayed for cannot be granted. The Trial Court, further concluding that the appellant/plaintiff cannot claim adverse possession against the State, more so when he has instituted the suit after twenty years of allotting resurvey nos. and that if at all there was some mistake in allotting resurvey no., he should have instituted the suit within three years of resurveying and in case of seeking relief of declaration of title, he should have instituted the suit within a period of twelve years, dismissed the suit. 6. and that if at all there was some mistake in allotting resurvey no., he should have instituted the suit within three years of resurveying and in case of seeking relief of declaration of title, he should have instituted the suit within a period of twelve years, dismissed the suit. 6. The lower appellate court too, in the absence of any additional evidence produced before it, endorsing the findings of the Trial Court in all respects, confirmed its judgment and as against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the present Second Appeal. 7. At the time of admission of this Second Appeal, the following substantial question of law was formulated: "Whether the Courts below applied the correct principles of law in adjudicating on the question of adverse possession?" 8. Heard Mr K.N. Thampi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff and Mr. D. Ghandiraj, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/defendant-State. 9. On the point of adverse possession based on which alone this Second Appeal was admitted, the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has contended that merely by virtue of the appellant/plaintiffs long, unobstructed, continuous and hostile possession for seventy years, the judgments of the Courts below should be set aside and the appeal allowed. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, in support of his contention that the Survey and Boundaries Act does not bar the aggrieved party from moving the Civil Court to establish his title to the property, has placed reliance on para 18 of a judgment of this Court reported in (2002) 1 MLJ 434 in the matter of Ponnu alias Kondappa Naicker and another vs. Marammal and another which reads as under: "It is therefore clear from the aforesaid decisions and discussion that although after notice, under Survey and Boundaries Act, the property has been sub-divided, it will not bar the aggrieved party from moving the Civil Court to establish his title to the property." 11. To add substance to his contention that the appellant/plaintiff can take the plea of adverse possession, the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has relied on a judgment of this Court reported in 2005 (1) CTC 494 in the matter of N.S. Spance vs. D.S. Kanagarajan and another and the relevant para reads as under: "As submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is for the person, who claims adverse possession to prove that his possession had become adverse to the real owner, as held in Naran Behera vs. Mohan Jethi, AIR 1985 Ori 40 and mere possession over a statutory period is not sufficient to succeed in the plea of adverse possession, unless it is accompanied by adverse animus as held in Venkatachalaiah vs. Nanjundaiah, AIR 1992 Kar. 270 . It is also held in the above decision that the alternative plea of adverse possession set up by the plaintiff cannot, therefore, be accepted, which does not mean that alternative plea is not permissible, since adverse animus has not been established in that case. The above decision may not come to the aid of the defendant in this case, in view of the hostile possession established, that too to the knowledge of the first defendant. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, that the possession must be without title against a person with original title and then only adverse possession would arise, is not acceptable, since a person, who is in possession of the property is entitled to take alternative plea, as pointed out supra." 12. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate has contended that since it has been concurrently held by the Courts below that the land in Resurvey No.517 is a river poromboke and no portion of the property of the appellant/plaintiff has been included in this Resurvey number and as per Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, since river poromboke is a property of the Government, the relief of declaration of title and possession and injunction cannot be granted to the appellant/plaintiff. 13. 13. In support of his argument that the appellant/plaintiff is estopped from claiming adverse possession when he claims title by way of Ex.A.1, Sale Deed, the learned Government Advocate has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court reported in 2005 (2) CTC 58 in the matter of Neelavathi vs. Shanmugam and another in which para 7 reads as below: "Again, when plaintiff had relied upon a particular document of title, namely Ex.A.1, gift deed, in order to claim right and title to suit property, she cannot claim it by adverse possession, because when once she claims title upon a particular document, then whatever right plaintiff claims would be flowing if at all under that document, in which case there is no element of adverse nature of possession in order to make out a case of prescription by title. Thus, the substantial question of law is answered against the appellant/plaintiff and I find no reason to allow this Second Appeal." 14. The Government Advocate, in support of his contention that mere possession of the property for long number of years is not sufficient to claim adverse possession and that the person so claiming adverse possession should have the intention to possess the suit land, has drawn the attention of this Court to a Full Bench judgment of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in the matter of T.N. Anantha Balaraje Urs. vs. Smt. Gunamba Nanjaraje Urs and the relevant para goes as follows: "...Mere long possession for a period of more than 12 years by the defendant without intention to possess the suit land adverse to the title of the plaintiff and to the latters knowledge cannot result in acquisition of title by prescription..." 15. From a reading of the judgment first cited by the Government Advocate, it is clear that the principle involved in deciding adverse possession is that if a person claims possession upon a particular document in order to claim right and title to the suit property, he cannot claim adverse possession because once he claims title upon a particular document, whatever right would be flowing if at all under that document, would flow only under that document and in such a case, there is no element of adverse nature of possession in order to make out a case of prescription by title. A reading of the judgment cited second makes it clear that mere long, undisturbed and continuous possession for more than twelve years alone without intention to possess the suit land adverse to the title of the actual owner, cannot result in acquisition of title by prescription. 16. Admittedly, from the findings of the Courts below, it is seen that the appellant/plaintiff has not produced any evidence, either oral or documentary, to prove that his vendor was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property prior to 1966, the year in which he acquired the suit property vide Ex.A.1, sale deed. It is further seen that though he had marked Exs.A.2, A.3 and A.4, property tax receipts for the year 1968 and 1969, they do not pertain to the disputed portion of the suit property, in other words, they are not for the land in Resurvey No.517, but to other two Resurvey Nos. Even assuming but without conceding that they pertain to the land in question, the possession of the disputed land by the appellant/plaintiff subsequent to 1969 is not proved by adducing any evidence. Further, from the suit notice marked as Ex.A.5, it is stated that the trees in S.No.517 are about 40 years old. Whereas, the Advocate Commissioner, in his report, has stated that some of the trees are 65 years and some even 70 years old and this contradiction is certainly against the appellant/plaintiff. That apart, if at all the appellant/plaintiff files a suit claiming deficit of his lands, he can do so only against his vendor and not against the State in view of the reason that in the land in Resurvey No.517, a river poromboke which has an area of 83 cents, the Government is losing an extent of 35 cents. This is clear from Ex.B.1 and B.5, Village "A" Registers of Old Survey Nos.3933 and 3934/1 & 3939/1 respectively according to which the extent of land in those Survey Nos. should be 117 cents. Thus, when the Government is at a loss to find out as to where an extent of 35 cents is located in Resurvey No.517, the contention of the appellant/plaintiff that a certain portion of his land has been merged with Resurvey No.517 is really hard to believe. should be 117 cents. Thus, when the Government is at a loss to find out as to where an extent of 35 cents is located in Resurvey No.517, the contention of the appellant/plaintiff that a certain portion of his land has been merged with Resurvey No.517 is really hard to believe. From this, it is abundantly clear that the appellant/plaintiff should have purchased his property under Ex.A.1 for a lesser extent than what he actually claims and this is corroborated by his own evidence that he did not measure the extent of property when he purchased the same from Ganapathy Iyer vide Ex.A.1. 17. Thus, in nutshell, at the cost of repetition, in the absence of any evidence let in on the side of the appellant/plaintiff that the disputed portion of land was in his possession and enjoyment and in view of Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Encroachment Act which declares that a river poromboke is a property of the Government, it is clear that the appellant/plaintiff is estopped from claiming adverse possession against the respondent/defendant. 18. In view of the above findings, I am of the considered opinion that the Courts below have rightly concluded that the appellant/plaintiff cannot claim adverse possession and thereby, dismissed the suit. As such, the substantial question of law is decided in favour of the respondent/defendant. Accordingly, the judgments of the Courts below are upheld. In the result, the Second Appeal, as it merits no consideration, is dismissed. No costs.