Judgment Being aggrieved by Judgment in A.S.No.12/2002 dated 06.02.2006 reversing the Judgment of trial Court in O.S.No.25/2000 and thereby decreeing Respondent-Plaintiffs suit for declaration and permanent injunction, Defendant has preferred this Second Appeal. 2. Case of Respondent-Plaintiff is that his father Ganesan purchased suit properties in S.F.Nos.277/14A and 277/18A along with other properties under Ex.A1 sale deed [17. 1964]. Further case of Plaintiff is that a canal divides the properties of Plaintiff and Defendant and Ex.A1 sale deed mistakenly refers the extent purchased as 33 cents in S.F.No.277/14 and 21 cents in S.F.No.277/18 whereas the actual extent purchased was 37 cents in S.F.No.277/14 and 40 cents in S.F.No.277/18. Further case of Plaintiff is that as per Exs.A3 and A12, revenue records were also mutated infavour of Plaintiffs father Ganesan for the said extent of 37 cents and 40 cents respectively. According to Plaintiff, his father Ganesan had been in possession and enjoyment of the entire properties – 37 cents in S.F.No.277/14A and 40 cents in S.F.No.277/18A. Stating that Plaintiff and his brother Rajamanickam are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit properties for more than the statutory period and that Plaintiff has perfected title by adverse possession, Plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. 3. Resisting the suit, Defendant has filed written statement contending that suit is not maintainable after the lapse of more than three decades and suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party and co-owner, brother of the Plaintiff. According to Defendant, her mother [Pachayammal] was given 47 cents in S.F.No.277/14 and 61 cents in S.F.No.277/18 and Defendants mother was in possession and enjoyment of the same till it was settled infavour of Defendant by Ex.B3 settlement deed dated 110. 1997. Pursuant to Ex.B3 settlement deed, Defendant is in possession of the properties – 47 cents in S.F.No.277/14 and 61 cents in S.F.No.277/18. According to Defendant, Vaikkal is running in the Defendants land and it was created for the purpose of draining rain water from Defendants land and Plaintiffs family has got nothing to do with the said Vaikkal. Defendant has also referred to the earlier litigation between her mother Pachayammal and one Meyyappa Chettiar in O.S.No.1830/1973 in which Defendants mothers right was declared by Judgment of the Court dated 25.02.1975 to an extent of 47 cents in S.F.No.277/14 and 61 cents in S.F.No.277/18. Defendant has also referred to the earlier litigation between her mother Pachayammal and one Meyyappa Chettiar in O.S.No.1830/1973 in which Defendants mothers right was declared by Judgment of the Court dated 25.02.1975 to an extent of 47 cents in S.F.No.277/14 and 61 cents in S.F.No.277/18. Contending that Plaintiff cannot claim more than the extent purchased under Ex.A1 sale deed, Defendant prayed for dismissal of suit. 4. On the above pleadings, four Issues were framed in the trial Court. Plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and one Thangarasu was examined as PW2. Exs. A1 to A12 were marked on the side of Plaintiff. Defendant herself examined as DW1 and one Semban was examined as DW2. Exs.B1 to B20 were marked on the side of Defendant. Advocate-Commissioners report and plan were marked as Exs.C1 and C2 respectively. 5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court held that Ex.A2 is the Chitta issued in the name of Plaintiffs father Ganesan and Defendants mother Pachayammal and therefore, Plaintiff cannot be said to have established right in S.F.No.277/14A – 37 cents and S.F.No.277/18A – 40 cents. Trial Court further held that another co-owner, Plaintiffs brother [Rajamanickam] has not been impleaded as Plaintiff and the suit is not maintainable. Referring to Ex.B19 decree in O.S.No.1830/1973, trial Court held that even in 1975, Defendants mothers right in S.F.No.277/14 – 47 cents and S.F.No.277/18 – 61 cents was upheld. Trial Court negatived Plaintiffs contention that he is bound by the Judgment in O.S.No.1830/1973 and on those findings, trial Court dismissed Plaintiffs suit. 6. Being aggrieved by dismissal of suit, Plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.12/2002. Referring to Ex.A3 Patta [11. 1995] and Ex.A12 Patta [22.01.1985], lower Appellate Court held that Plaintiff is entitled to 37 cents in S.F.No.277/14A and 40 cents in S.F.No.277/18A. Lower Appellate Court further held that as against Ex.A3, Defendant had not produced any document to show that she is entitled to 37 cents in S.F.No.277/14A and 40 cents in S.F.No.277/18A. Observing that if no evidence was adduced by the Defendant, issue must be found against the Defendant, lower Appellate Court reversed Judgment of trial Court and decreed Plaintiffs suit for declaration and permanent injunction. 7. Being aggrieved by reversal Judgment, Defendant has filed this Second Appeal. Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Observing that if no evidence was adduced by the Defendant, issue must be found against the Defendant, lower Appellate Court reversed Judgment of trial Court and decreed Plaintiffs suit for declaration and permanent injunction. 7. Being aggrieved by reversal Judgment, Defendant has filed this Second Appeal. Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the first appellate court was correct in reversing the judgment of the trial court and granting the decree of declaration and permanent injunction, expecting the defendant to prove her defence and forgetting a while that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case? 2. Whether the lower appellate court is justified in entertaining and decreeing the suit after 35 years on the allegations that the entries regarding the measurements in Ex.A-1 have been wrongly entered and the plaintiff is entitled to have more extent over and above the Ex.A-1? 3. Whether the lower appellate court is correct in relying upon the Commissioners report in Ex.C-1 to conclude that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the properties for more than 40 years? 8. Mr.Kamadevan, learned counsel for the Appellant contended that in a suit for declaration of title, onus lies upon the Plaintiff to prove his title and while so, lower Appellate Court erred in casting burden of proof upon the Defendant. It was further argued but for Exs.A3 and A12 Pattas, Plaintiff cannot claim any right. It was also contended that when admittedly, suit properties belong to Plaintiffs brother Rajamanickam and admittedly, when there was no partition among them, in the absence of other co-owner being impleaded, suit cannot be maintained and trial Court rightly held that suit is not maintainable and this aspect has not been kept in view by the lower Appellate Court. 9. Mr.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for Respondent appointed through Legal Services Authority submitted that Exs.A3 and A12 Pattas would establish Plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Drawing Courts attention to Exs.C1 and C2 – Advocate-Commissioners report and plan and other physical features, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that physical features coupled with Exs.A3 and A12 Pattas would clearly establish possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of 37 cents in S.F.No.277/14A and 40 cents in S.F.No.277/18A by the Plaintiff and lower Appellate Court rightly decreed Plaintiffs suit. Placing reliance upon 2008 (1) CTC 446 [Krishnan v. Backiam and another], it was contended that factual conclusions recorded by the lower Appellate Court cannot be interfered with. 10. Total extent of S.F.No.277/14 is 80 cents out of which Plaintiffs father purchased 37 cents and total extent of S.F.No.277/18 is 82 cents out of which Plaintiffs father purchased 40 cents. A Canal divides the properties of Plaintiff and Defendant. Case of Plaintiff is that in Ex.A1 sale deed [17. 1964], the extent purchased was mistakenly stated as 33 cents in S.F.No.277/14 and 21 cents in S.F.No.277/18; but however father of Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of 37 cents in S.F.No.277/14A and 40 cents S.F.No.277/18A. 11. Ex.A3 is the Patta Pass Book in the name of Plaintiffs father Ganesan issued on 11. 1995. Trial Court dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that Plaintiff has not produced any document showing that prior to Ex.A3 [11. 1995], Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of 37 cents in S.F.NO.277/14A and 40 cents in S.F.No.277/18A. Ex.A2 is the Chitta issued in the name of Plaintiffs father and Defendants mother for fasali 1388 [1978-1979]. Ex.B2 is also joint Patta issued in the name of Plaintiffs father Ganesan and Defendants mother Pachayammal and one Arumugam. Trial Court erred in not keeping in view Ex.A2 Chitta for fasali 1388 [1978] and Ex.B2 Patta Pass Book jointly standing in the name of Plaintiffs father Ganesan and Defendants mother Pachayammal. 12. Trial Court proceeded under misconception that Patta stands in joint names of Plaintiffs father and Defendants mother and therefore, Court cannot arrive at conclusion how much extent Plaintiffs father is in possession and enjoyment. Ofcourse, in Ex.A2 Chitta and Ex.B2 Patta Pass Book, extent of actual possession of joint pattadar is not shown. But Ex.A2 Chitta is for fasali 1388 [1978-1979]. Thereafter in 1985 [fasali 1395] Ex.A12 UDR Patta was issued in the name of Plaintiffs father as under:- Table Ex.A12 UDR Patta issued for S.F.No.277/14A and S.F.No.277/18A clearly shows that Plaintiffs father Ganesan was in possession and enjoyment of 0.15.0 Hec. in S.F.No.277/14A and 0.16.0 Hec. in S.F.No.277/18A. Only in recognition of possession of the said extent, in 1985 Ex.A12 UDR Patta was issued in the name of Plaintiffs father for 0.15.0 Hec. (37 cents) in S.F.No.277/14A and for 0.16.0 Hec. (40 cents) in S.F.No.277/18A. in S.F.No.277/14A and 0.16.0 Hec. in S.F.No.277/18A. Only in recognition of possession of the said extent, in 1985 Ex.A12 UDR Patta was issued in the name of Plaintiffs father for 0.15.0 Hec. (37 cents) in S.F.No.277/14A and for 0.16.0 Hec. (40 cents) in S.F.No.277/18A. While so, trial Court erred in brushing aside Ex.A12 UDR Patta issued in 1985. From 1985 onwards Plaintiff and his father have been paying kist for Patta No.625 and from 1995 for Patta No.178. Without keeping in view Ex.A12 and the kist paid by Plaintiffs father and Plaintiff, trial Court was not right in contending that Plaintiff did not file any document prior to Ex.A3 Patta. Upon analysis of Exs.A2 Chitta and Ex.A12 UDR Patta and other documents, lower Appellate Court was right in reversing the finding of trial Court. 13. Defence plea is that her mother Pachayammal had got properties from her father long back and her mother Pachayammal was given 47 cents out of 60 cents in S.F.No.277/14 and 61 cents out of 82 cents in S.F.No.277/18 and she was in possession and enjoyment of the same and it was settled infavour of Defendant under Ex.B3 settlement deed [110. 1997]. Further case of Defendant is that she is in possession and enjoyment of the properties of an extent of 47 cents in S.F.No.277/14 and 61 cents in S.F.No.277/18. Defendant mainly relies upon earlier litigation between her mother Pachayammal and one Meyyappa Chettiar in O.S.No.1830/1973. As seen from Ex.B19 decree dated 25.02.1975, Pachayammals title for 47 cents in S.F.No.277/14 cents and 61 cents in S.F.No.277/18 was declared. Based upon Ex.B3 settlement deed and Ex.B19 decree, Defendant claims right in 47 cents in S.F.No.277/14 and 61 cents in S.F.No.277/18. Even though, Exs.B3 and B19 is to the effect that Defendants mother was entitled to 47 cents in S.F.No.277/14 and 61 cents in S.F.No.277/18, as discussed earlier, possession was with the Plaintiff in respect of excess 4 cents in S.F.No.277/14A and 19 cents in S.F.No.277/18A. 14. The location and physical features would also substantiate Plaintiffs case. In between Plaintiff and Defendants lands, there is a Canal/miz breadth of about 9 feet on the western side of Defendants lands and on the eastern side of Plaintiffs lands. The said Canal/miz in between Plaintiff and Defendant lands is stated to be the boundary between the lands of Plaintiff and Defendant. In between Plaintiff and Defendants lands, there is a Canal/miz breadth of about 9 feet on the western side of Defendants lands and on the eastern side of Plaintiffs lands. The said Canal/miz in between Plaintiff and Defendant lands is stated to be the boundary between the lands of Plaintiff and Defendant. In her evidence, DW1 has admitted that Canal/miz as the boundary between her lands and Plaintiffs lands. The relevant portion of evidence of DW1 reads as under:- Language That Canal/miz is the boundary between Plaintiff and Defendant lands and it is in existence for quite long time is the strong piece of evidence that Plaintiffs family was in enjoyment of 37 cents in S.F.No.277/14A and 40 cents in S.F.No.277/18A. The effect of evidence and materials on record was diluted by the trial Court by saying that assertion of Defendant as to existence of Canal/miz as boundary is out of ignorance and that no weight could be attached to such assertion. By reading of evidence of DW1, we find that in more than one place DW1 has asserted the existence of Canal/miz as boundary between Plaintiff and Defendant lands, Plaintiff has been in enjoyment of the lands on the western side of the Canal/miz. 15. As pointed out earlier, Ex.A12 UDR Patta was given in Plaintiffs fathers name for S.F.No.277/14A – 0.15.0 Hec. and S.F.No.277/18A - 0.16.0 Hec. Possession coupled with revenue records and payment of kist strengthens Plaintiffs case. Notwithstanding lesser extent in Ex.A1 sale deed, Plaintiffs family has been in enjoyment of 37 cents in S.F.No.277/14A and 40 cents in S.F.No.277/18A. To resist Plaintiffs case, Defendant has to prove better title. Even though, Defendants mother Pachayammal is the joint pattadar and has obtained decree in O.S.No.1830/73 under Ex.B19, actual possession and physical features clearly show that Defendant and his family are in lesser extent. 16. Upon analysis of materials and evidence on record, lower Appellate Court recorded finding of fact that Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of 37 cents in S.F.No.277/14A and 40 cents in S.F.No.277/18A. 16. Upon analysis of materials and evidence on record, lower Appellate Court recorded finding of fact that Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of 37 cents in S.F.No.277/14A and 40 cents in S.F.No.277/18A. As held by the Supreme Court in 2008 (1) CTC 446 [Krishnan v. Backiam and another], first Appellate Court is the last Court of facts and in Second Appeal, High Court cannot interfere with the finding recorded by the lower Appellate Court and the finding of lower Appellate Court is based upon evidence and materials on record and there is no infirmity warranting interference. 17. In the result, the Judgment of the lower Appellate Court in A.S.No.12/2002 dated 06.02.2006 on the file of Subordinate Court, Ariyalur is confirmed and the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.