Judgment :- This Second Appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.75/2005 on the file of Sub-Court, Tiruvarur reversing Judgment of the trial Court and thereby dismissing Plaintiffs suit for Permanent Injunction and also Mandatory Injunction. 2. Suit property relates to 10 cents of lands in S.No.95/4B of Pozhagudi village, Nannilam Taluk. Case of Plaintiff is that Plaintiff had entered into an agreement of sale with one Subramania Bakthar and his wife Kamaladevi in the year 1992 and has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from 1992. Plaintiff had purchased the suit property under Ex.A1 sale deed [23.02.1998] from the said Subramania Bakthar and his wife Kamaladevi Patta for the suit property was transferred in the name of Plaintiff under Ex.A2-Proceedings of Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Nannilam. Defendant owns land in S.No.95/3 on the western side of the suit property. Further case of Plaintiff is that there had been enmity between Plaintiff and Defendant and on 012. 2000, Defendant with an intention to encroach the suit property, cut four Teak wood trees and one Siva Siva tree and carried them away. Plaintiff gave Ex.A3 complaint to Peralam Police Station on 012. 2000 and the same was acknowledged by Peralam Police under Ex.A3-acknowledgement. Since Defendants daughter was then Superintendent of Police in Cuddalore District, Peralam Police did not act upon the complaint given by Plaintiff. Stating that Defendant has no right in the suit S.No.95/4B, Plaintiff had filed suit for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant from in any way encroaching or interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for Mandatory Injunction for recovery of four Teak wood trees and one Siva Siva tree. 3. Resisting the suit, Defendant filed Written Statement contending that Defendant is entitled to S.No.95/3 which is on the western side of suit S.No.95/4B. According to Defendant, four Teak wood trees and one Siva Siva tree cut and removed were only in S.No.95/3 which belongs to the Defendant and that Plaintiff cannot question the act of Defendant in removing Teak wood trees and Siva Siva tree. 4. On the above pleadings, trial Court framed three Issues. On the side of Plaintiff, Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and Advocate-Commissioner was examined as PW2. Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. 4. On the above pleadings, trial Court framed three Issues. On the side of Plaintiff, Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and Advocate-Commissioner was examined as PW2. Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On the side of Defendant, husband of Defendant viz., Ganesan was examined as DW1 and one Krishnakumar who was working as Assistant in Taluk Office, Nannilam was examined as DW2. Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. Advocate-Commissioners Reports and Plans were marked as Exs.C1 to C6 respectively. 5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence and by referring Exs.C3 and C4 [Report and Plan] and evidence of Advocate-Commissioner [PW2], trial Court held that trees were cut and removed from the lands of Plaintiff – Suit S.No.95/4B. Trial Court further held that even though in Ex.B3-Adangal trees are shown to be in S.No.95/3, based upon Advocate-Commissioners report, trial Court held that trees were actually in suit S.No.95/4B. Observing that there cannot be a Mandatory Injunction for recovery of trees cut and removed, trial Court directed the Defendant to pay damages of Rs.30,000/- to the Plaintiff and directed the Plaintiff to pay Court Fee on the damages of Rs.30,000/- under Sec.24 of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. 6. Being aggrieved by decreeing of suit, Defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.75/2005 before Sub-Court, Tiruvarur. Finding that Surveyor and Village Administrative Officer of Pozhagudi village were not examined, lower Appellate Court held that Plaintiffs case is unacceptable. Lower Appellate Court further held that Plaintiff has not proved the existence of trees in suit S.No.95/4B and that Plaintiff has not proved to be in possession of the suit property. Lower Appellate Court further held that even when Plaintiff has not sought for relief of compensation, trial Court erred in directing payment of compensation of Rs.30,000/- and on those findings, lower Appellate Court reversed the findings of trial Court and allowed the Appeal preferred by the Defendant. 7. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of suit, unsuccessful Plaintiff preferred this Second Appeal. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were formulated in the Second Appeal for consideration:- .(1) Whether suppression of fact of having the registered sale deed by respondent-defendant but not filing it for fear of losing her claim would give her any relief to her claim of title to the disputed property? At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were formulated in the Second Appeal for consideration:- .(1) Whether suppression of fact of having the registered sale deed by respondent-defendant but not filing it for fear of losing her claim would give her any relief to her claim of title to the disputed property? .(2) Whether suppression of such a fact can form a basis for reversing the judgment and decree of the lower court? .(3) Whether adangal record is a legal document to substitute the sale deed in establishing the dispute in title to the property? Whether holding such decision to reverse the lower court decree could hold good in law? 8. Drawing Courts attention to Ex.A1 sale deed [22. 1998], learned counsel for Appellant-Plaintiff contended that Plaintiff had purchased the property on the eastern side of Defendants property [S.No.95/3]. It was further contended that Defendant had not produced any document showing that he purchased the property including Teak wood trees. Assailing the findings of lower Appellate Court, learned counsel for Appellant contended that Ex.B3-Adangal was of recent origin obtained just 20 days prior to the Judgment and lower Appellate Court erred in placing reliance upon Ex.B3-Adangal. It was also contended that lower Appellate Court has miserably failed to note the authencity of Ex.B3-Adangal and lower Appellate Court did not analyse Exs.C1 to C6 [Reports and Plans] in a proper perspective. Main emaphsis was upon the Advocate-Commissioners Reports and Plans and evidence of Advocate-Commissioner [PW2] assert boundaries further west of "Kanni Vaikkal" (TAMIL). 9. Laying emphasis upon Ex.B3-Adangal, learned counsel for Respondent-Defendant contended that existence of Teak wood trees has been clearly stated in Ex.B3-Adangal and taking note of Ex.B3-Adangal, lower Appellate Court rightly reversed the findings of trial Court. Drawing Courts attention to Ex.A1-sale deed, learned counsel for Respondent contended that there is no mention about the Teak wood trees in S.No.95/4B and while so, Advocate-Commissioners report cannot be taken as a conclusive evidence to prove the existence of trees. It was further contended that in villages, it is customary to have "Kanni Vaikkal" as the dividing line and Plaintiff cannot claim any right further west of "Kanni Vaikkal". 10. Suit property is in S.No.95/4B – 10 cents of Pozhagudi village, Nannilam Taluk. It was further contended that in villages, it is customary to have "Kanni Vaikkal" as the dividing line and Plaintiff cannot claim any right further west of "Kanni Vaikkal". 10. Suit property is in S.No.95/4B – 10 cents of Pozhagudi village, Nannilam Taluk. For the purchase of suit property, even in 1992, Plaintiff had entered into an agreement of sale with one Subramania Bakthar and his wife Kamaladevi. Plaintiff purchased the suit property under Ex.A1 sale deed [22. 1998]. Patta was also transferred in the name of Plaintiff under Ex.A2. Advocate-Commissioner [PW2] was assisted by revenue authority and Surveyor and after fixing survey stones, Advocate-Commissioner has fixed the boundaries. In Ex.C4-Plan western boundary dividing the land of Plaintiff and Defendant is shown in Red line. On the eastern side of Red line boundary is the "Kanni Vaikkal" proceeding from North to South. According to Plaintiff, suit property is irrigated from the said "Kanni Vaikkal" and that demarcating line is further west of "Kanni Vaikkal" shown in Red line in Ex.C4-Plan. Per contra, case of Defendant is that "Kanni Vaikkal" is the boundary demarcating the land of Plaintiff and Defendant. 11. In Ex.A1 sale deed [22. 1998], western boundary of suit S.No.95/4B is stated as (TAMIL) [Defendant]. In Exs.C3 and C4 also Advocate-Commissioner has clearly noted "Kanni Vaikkal" on the western side and demarcating boundary line on further west of "Kanni Vaikkal". 12. As pointed out by the trial Court, Defendant had not produced her sale deed to show that "Kanni Vaikkal" is the demarcating boundary line. In his evidence, DW1 – husband of Defendant has stated as:- (TAMIL) But Defendant has not chosen to produce the sale deed. On the other hand, Defendant was content with adducing oral evidence. 13. Matured trees are shown in Defendants land [S.No.95/3] whereas in Plaintiffs land [S.No.95/4B] there were only small Teak wood trees. Learned counsel for the Respondent contended that when there were only small Teak wood trees in Plaintiffs land, it is quite improbable that the removed matured Teak wood trees are that of Plaintiff. It was further argued that when Plaintiff purchased the land in S.No.95/4B, Teak wood trees were not shown in the sale deed and Ex.A1-sale deed is silent about the existence of matured trees and while so, Plaintiff cannot claim right in Teak wood trees. 14. It was further argued that when Plaintiff purchased the land in S.No.95/4B, Teak wood trees were not shown in the sale deed and Ex.A1-sale deed is silent about the existence of matured trees and while so, Plaintiff cannot claim right in Teak wood trees. 14. As discussed infra, after measuring Plaintiff and Defendants lands, Advocate-Commissioner has noticed existence of Teak wood trees. In his report, Advocate-Commissioner has clearly noted that Teak wood trees and Siva Siva tree [Samanea Samana tree – Botanical name] cut and removed are in the suit property. When the Plaintiff has purchased the lands on the eastern side of Defendants property, non-mention of trees in Ex.A1-sale deed does not affect the Plaintiffs case. 15. In his evidence, DW1 has also stated that their vendors have raised Teak wood trees. If that be so, Teak wood trees would have been mentioned in the sale deed infavour of Defendant. DW1 has evaded the question by saying that existence of Teak wood trees in S.No.95/3 was omitted to be mentioned in their sale deed. It is pertinent to note that Defendants vendors have not been examined to show that they have raised Teak wood trees in S.No.95/3. 16. Burden of proof lies upon the party who asserts the fact. Case of Defendant is that four Teak wood trees and one Siva Siva tree cut and removed were only in their property [S.No.95/3]. Burden lies upon the Defendant to prove such assertion of fact. Excepting oral evidence of DW1 and Ex.B3-Adangal obtained just 20 days prior to the Judgment, no other evidence was adduced by the Defendant. Sale deed infavour of Defendant or examination of their vendors would have been the best attainable evidence; but Defendant has neither produced documents nor examined any independent witnesses. When best evidence is available and the party capable of producing such evidence has not chosen to do so, an adverse inference can be drawn against such party. In the absence of documentary evidence or independent witnesses, lower Appellate Court erred in reversing the Judgment of trial Court and Substantial Question Nos.1 and 2 are answered infavour of the Appellant-Plaintiff. 17. As there was dispute regarding identity/boundary of suit property, trial Court appointed Advocate-Commissioner to measure the suit property in S.No.95/4B and Defendants property in S.No.95/3 with the assistance of Surveyor. 17. As there was dispute regarding identity/boundary of suit property, trial Court appointed Advocate-Commissioner to measure the suit property in S.No.95/4B and Defendants property in S.No.95/3 with the assistance of Surveyor. Controversy between the parties is area of land or identification or location of property and fixing of boundaries. Advocate-Commissioner has inspected and measured the suit property [S.No.95/4B] and Defendants property [S.No.95/3] using expertise of the Surveyor. Advocate-Commissioner has marked boundary shown in Red line. As per Ex.C4-Plan, the stem of trees cut and removed are shown in suit S.No.95/4B. 18. Placing reliance upon 2006 (4) CTC 25 [Rajeswari v. Nagarajan and others], learned counsel for the Respondent contended that Advocate-Commissioners report is only one piece of evidence in support of the case and that parties should specifically allege and substantiate the same by acceptable oral and documentary evidence. It was further contended that trial Court erred in placing reliance solely upon the Advocate-Commissioners report as to location of Teak wood trees and lower Appellate Court rightly reversed those findings. 19. Advocate-Commissioner has filed the report in detail and exhaustive manner. Ample opportunity was given by the Court to Defendant to lead evidence. Defendant neither filed objection nor adduced cogent evidence. Advocate-Commissioner was also examined as PW2 and he was also cross-examined by the Defendant. While so, lower Appellate Court erred in ignoring the report of Advocate-Commissioner and there are no reasonings for discrediting the detailed report of Advocate-Commissioner. 20. Lower Appellate Court brushed aside the Advocate-Commissioners report on the flimsy ground that Surveyor was not examined. As pointed out earlier, Advocate-Commissioner has inspected the suit S.No.95/4B and Defendants property in S.No.95/3 and measured the same using expertise of Surveyor. Report of Advocate-Commissioner assists the Court for the purpose of appraising the evidence which Court records during the course of trial. Report of Advocate-Commissioner is one piece of evidence amongst other evidence to be led by the parties for determination of the Issues involved. Since no survey stones were available, while preparing Plan with the assistance of Surveyor, Advocate-Commissioner had fixed survey stones and measured both S.Nos.95/4B [suit property] and S.No.95/3 [Defendants property]. It is not as if Plaintiff is relying upon only the report of Advocate-Commissioner. As pointed out earlier, in Ex.A1-sale deed western boundary is mentioned as (TAMIL) is yet another piece of evidence relied upon by the Plaintiff. It is not as if Plaintiff is relying upon only the report of Advocate-Commissioner. As pointed out earlier, in Ex.A1-sale deed western boundary is mentioned as (TAMIL) is yet another piece of evidence relied upon by the Plaintiff. Report of Advocate-Commissioner is relied only in addition to oral and documentary evidence. 21. Order 26, Rules 9 and 10 C.P.C. do not contemplate tender of further evidence after Advocate-Commissioners report, except the examination of Advocate-Commissioner himself. When the Advocate-Commissioner was examined as PW2, lower Appellate Court erred in ignoring evidence of Advocate-Commissioner [PW2] on the flimsy ground that Surveyor was not examined. .22. Lower Appellate Court also observed that Village Administrative Officer was not examined and faulted the Plaintiff for not examining Village Administrative Officer. Village Administrative Officer may not be in a position to speak about exact physical location of the property in dispute which was identified by the Advocate-Commissioner with the assistance of Surveyor. When Advocate-Commissioner has inspected and measured the suit property with the help of Surveyor, lower Appellate Court ought not to have brushed aside the same on the ground that Village Administrative Officer was not examined. 23. Lower Appellate Court mainly placed reliance upon Ex.B3-Adangal. In Ex.B3-Adangal for fasalis 1407 and 1408, in Defendants Survey Number 95/3 trees – Tamarind, Mango and Teak wood are shown whereas in the suit property [S.No.95/4B] only Coconut trees and sugarcane crops are shown. Laying emphasis upon Ex.B3-Adangal, learned counsel for Respondent submitted that Adangal being document of authenticity, lower Appellate Court rightly relied upon Ex.B3-Adangal to reverse the findings of the trial Court. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for Appellant, Ex.B3-Adangal was obtained from Deputy Tahsildar, Nannilam only on 10.06.2005 just 20 days prior to passing of Judgment. If really as per Ex.B3-Adangal, Teak wood trees were in existence in Defendants property [S.No.95/3], Defendant could have produced the same at an earlier point. If as per Ex.B3-Adangal, Teak wood trees and Siva Siva tree [Samanea Samana tree – Botanical name] cut and removed were in existence in Defendants S.No.95/3, Defendant could have filed an objection to the Advocate-Commissioners report. When the Advocate-Commissioner has categorically stated that stems of Teak wood trees were only in Plaintiffs land [S.No.95/4B], Defendant has not chosen to file any objection. Observations of the Advocate-Commissioner in his report cannot be assailed. 24. When the Advocate-Commissioner has categorically stated that stems of Teak wood trees were only in Plaintiffs land [S.No.95/4B], Defendant has not chosen to file any objection. Observations of the Advocate-Commissioner in his report cannot be assailed. 24. Learned counsel for the Respondent mainly contended that Ex.B3-Adangal is a revenue record/public document having authenticity and Ex.B3-Adangal cannot be ignored. Ofcourse, revenue records are public documents having authenticity. But those documents are only to show as to who is in possession of the property. Revenue records are maintained only for the purpose as to who is in possession of the property and for collection of kist. Ex.B3-Adangal cannot be said to be a document of conclusive proof as to the standing trees in the suit property. More so, when Ex.B3-Adangal was obtained just 20 days prior to passing of Judgment. Lower Appellate Court erred in placing reliance upon Ex.B3-Adangal and reversing the findings of trial Court. 25. To show that Defendants sale deed [27. 1989] mentions existence of tamarind trees and mango trees which were then small and also to show that no Teak wood trees are in existence in S.No.95/3, learned counsel for Appellant produced copy of sale deed of the Defendant dated 27. 1989 and Adangal for subsequent fasali. Appellant has not filed Petition to receive additional documents nor made out any ground to receive additional documents. Having regard to the above conclusions, additional documents are not received nor referred to. 126. Plaintiff having purchased the property in S.No.95/4B on the eastern side of Defendants property, Defendant cannot contend that "Kanni Vaikkal" is the boundary line dividing Plaintiff and Defendants lands. Trial Court rightly held that four Teak wood trees were cut and removed from the suit property [S.No.95/4B]. .27. In so far as relief of Mandatory Injunction, for recovery of Teak wood trees, trial Court took the view that Mandatory Injunction directing recovery of Teak wood trees cannot be ordered. In his evidence, DW1 has stated that he has used the Teak wood trees for his own purpose. Referring to oral evidence of Plaintiff and DW1, trial Court fixed compensation at Rs.30,000/- for the Teak wood trees payable to the Plaintiff. Apart from oral evidence, Plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidence to show value of the trees cut and removed. In his report, Advocate-Commissioner has noted that Teak wood trees cut and removed are in the suit property. Apart from oral evidence, Plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidence to show value of the trees cut and removed. In his report, Advocate-Commissioner has noted that Teak wood trees cut and removed are in the suit property. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, compensation of Rs.30,000/- is reduced to Rs.15,000/- [Rs.3750/-per Teak wood tree]. 128. Lower Appellate Court adopted erroneous approach in placing reliance upon Ex.B3-Adangal and ignoring Advocate-Commissioners report. If the lower Appellate Court refuses to consider important evidence like Advocate-Commissioners report which has direct bearing on the disputed issue and error which arises is of magnified, High Court can interfere with the finding of lower Appellate Court. Where lower Appellate Court committed error in appreciating the evidence and its finding is incompatible with the evidence and materials on record, exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, High Court can certainly interfere with the findings of lower Appellate Court. Judgment of the lower Appellate Court is set aside and Judgment of the trial Court is confirmed with the modification of reducing compensation of Rs.30,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. 129. In the result, Judgment and Decree of the lower Appellate Court in A.S.No.75/2005 is set aside and the Second Appeal is allowed. Judgment of the trial Court granting Permanent Injunction is confirmed and damages of Rs.30,000/- is reduced to Rs.15,000/-. Appellant-Plaintiff is directed to pay Court Fee on Rs.15,000/- if he has not already paid Court Fee on the same within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in the Second Appeal.