Judgment : This second appeal is filed against the judgement and decree dated 16.11.2005 passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, in A.S.No.101 of 2004 reversing the judgement and decree dated 16.6.2004 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam, in O.S.No.14 of 2001. This second appeal is focussed by the plaintiff, animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 16.11.2005 passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, in A.S.No.101 of 2004 reversing the judgement and decree dated 16.6.2004 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam, in O.S.No.14 of 2001, which was filed for declaration and permanent injunction. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. Compendiously and concisely the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: (a) The plaintiff filed the suit O.S.14 of 2001 for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of an extent of 5 acres of land in S.No.73/4, Dindivanam Division, Marakanam Sub Division, Nadukuppam Village. The defendant filed the written statement and resisted the suit. (b) Whereupon issues were framed. The plaintiff on his side examined himself as Ex.P.W.1 along with Exs.P.W.2 to P.W.4 and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. The defendant on his side, examined himself as Ex.R.W.1 along with R.W.2 and R.W.3 and Exs.B1 to B20 were marked. (c) Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit. (d) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the defendant preferred the appeal and after hearing both, the appellate Court reversed the judgement of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. 4. Challenging and impugning the judgement of the appellate Court, the plaintiff filed this second appeal on various grounds, inter alia thus: The appellate Judge wrongly understood the actual dispute involved in this case. The evidence of P.W.3 was mostly relied on by the appellate Court as though his evidence supports the case of the defendant that Vasu Naidu became the owner of S.No.73/4. However, the fact remains that Ranganatha Gounder was granted with the land in S.No.73/4 measuring an extent of 5 acres as per the patta issued to him. Accordingly the appellate Court wrongly upset the well reasoned judgement of the trial Court, warranting interference in the second appeal. 5. However, the fact remains that Ranganatha Gounder was granted with the land in S.No.73/4 measuring an extent of 5 acres as per the patta issued to him. Accordingly the appellate Court wrongly upset the well reasoned judgement of the trial Court, warranting interference in the second appeal. 5. While admitting the second appeal my learned predecessor framed the following substantial question of law: "Whether or not the lower appellate Courts findings regarding the title of the defendant is perverse in the absence of examination of Vasu Naidu and illegality of Ex.P-9 sale deed which is in violation of conditions of assignment? 6. However, the aforesaid substantial question of law is reframed as under, by virtue of the proviso appended to Section 100 of C.P.C. Whether the findings of the appellate Court as well as the trial Court are based on insufficient materials relating to Revenue records, which are ex facie and prima facie found tampered with illegally and unauthorisedly and whether decisions were rendered without getting the best evidence even though should have been available with the Government officials? 7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff advanced his arguments which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: (a) The patta was admittedly issued in favour of Ranganatha Gounder relating to Survey No.73/4 measuring an extent of five acres and the same was exhibited before the Court as document No.Ex.A8. (b) The deposition of P.W.3 during chief-examination is out and out in favour of Ranganathan Gounders title over S.No.73/4 measuring an extent of 5 acres. However, during cross-examination, he at the fag end would state as though based on the amended Revenue records, Vasu Naidu was given with patta relating to S.No.73/4 measuring an extent of five acres and he would further add that in S.No.73/3 an extent of five acres was allotted to Ranganatha Gounder without having the backing of any records. (c) The learned counsel for the plaintiff would ultimately make a submission that there are certain grey areas in the evidence and that has to be cleared, for which, this Court might remand the matter either to the first appellate Court or to the trial Court, so that additional evidence could be let in. 8. (c) The learned counsel for the plaintiff would ultimately make a submission that there are certain grey areas in the evidence and that has to be cleared, for which, this Court might remand the matter either to the first appellate Court or to the trial Court, so that additional evidence could be let in. 8. By way of challenging and refuting the arguments as put forth on the side of the plaintiff, the learned counsel for the defendant would set forth and put forth his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: The first appellate Court appropriately and appositely, correctly and convincingly analysed the matter and placed reliance on Exs.B2 to B4 and decided that Vasu Naidu was allotted with the land in S.No.73/4 measuring an extent of five acres. The latest Revenue records alone would be valid and not the earlier erroneous ones. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the second appeal itself. 9. From a plain reading of the entire evidence and also the analysis of the arguments as put forth before me on either side, what I could understand is that the evidence placed before the Court was totally insufficient to arrive at a just conclusion. P.W.3-the Assistant, who deposed on behalf of the Revenue Department and also relating to the Revenue records in fact was not at all competent to depose in the sense that he himself admitted that he was not working in the Department at the relevant time of corrections having been carried out in the Registers concerned and also at the time of issuance of pattas in favour of the parties. The Tahsildars alone are the competent persons, who could speak about the preparation of the Revenue records and also the corrections carried out therein. 10. This is a singularly singular case, in which the learned counsel for the plaintiff would place reliance on Ex.A8-the patta issued in favour of Ranganathan Gounder, so as to buttress and fortify the title of the plaintiff, nevertheless PW3 would depose that such patta was amended subsequently. 11. It is common knowledge that unauthenticated corrections in Revenue records cannot be looked into. If a public record is found tampered with or found corrected unauthorisedly, then no evidentiary value can be attached to it. 11. It is common knowledge that unauthenticated corrections in Revenue records cannot be looked into. If a public record is found tampered with or found corrected unauthorisedly, then no evidentiary value can be attached to it. The Government Officials, who are responsible for preparing those records and maintaining the same should come forward to explain the corrections found therein. But the evidence of P.W.3-the Assistant of Revenue Department is in no way helpful for getting clarifications on all those aspects. The first appellate Court found fault with the trial Court in misreading the evidence on record. When the records themselves are not clear, certainly the Court will not be in a position to arrive at a just conclusion. 12. At the earliest point of time it seems three persons, namely, Santhanam, Ranganatha Gounder and Vasu Naidu claiming themselves as land less poor persons applied for allotment of land, in respect of various extents in one and the same Survey number, i.e. S.No.73/1A, and subsequently in the applications relating to Ranganatha Gounder and Vasu Naidu certain corrections were found carried out, but those corrections were not initialled or authenticated. Subsequently, during the year 1970 in Ex.A11 alleged those unauthorised entries and unauthorised corrections, were found reflected. 13. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that this Court can very well place reliance on Ex.A11 and the plaintiffs case could be upheld. 14. Whereas, the learned counsel for the defendant would torpedo such a plea by pointing out that subsequently corrections were carried out in the Revenue records and accordingly fresh patta was issued in favour of Vasu Naidu. 15. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the defendant would submit that in favour of Vasu Naidu-the vendor of the defendant, patta was issued showing that he was allotted with the land in S.No.73/4 and Ex.B5-patta would reveal that Ranganathan Gounder was granted land in S.No.73/3. However, the very bedrock of the argument of the learned counsel for the defendant is based on subsequent corrections carried out in the Revenue records. 16. The core question that arises is as to when such corrections were carried out and how such corrections were carried out. 17. Without any proceedings the Revenue records cannot be corrected and it is anybodys understanding. But so far this case is concerned, peculiarly there is no evidence. 16. The core question that arises is as to when such corrections were carried out and how such corrections were carried out. 17. Without any proceedings the Revenue records cannot be corrected and it is anybodys understanding. But so far this case is concerned, peculiarly there is no evidence. As such, owing to dearth of evidence, the Court cannot come to a just conclusion. 18. There is one way of viewing the matter that the plaintiff has to prove his case and that in view of the plaintiff having not proved the case convincingly, his case should be dismissed; nevertheless, there is one another way of viewing the matter, so to say, the plaintiff should be given further opportunity to adduce evidence and enlighten the Court so as to find out the truth involved in this case. 19. I am of the view that when Government happened to be the original common owner and the Government is expected to have all the records and files with it properly, then the court cannot allow the parties to fight at arms length due to dearth of evidence from the Governments side. Hence, I would like to set aside the judgment and decree of the appellate Court and remand the case to the first appellate Court for taking additional evidence and deciding the lis, after giving due opportunity to both sides. 20. In the result, the second appeal is ordered, by remanding the matter to the first appellate Court, before which both sides should appear on 6.1.2011. The plaintiff is permitted to file necessary application for summoning the responsible Revenue officials with necessary files and documents, so as to adduce further evidence. Whereupon the defendant also is given opportunity to adduce additional evidence. I would also make it clear that on receipt of the summons, the Government officials shall take all endeavours to see that the Court is enlightened fully on this issue. The appellate Court shall do well to see that the matter is disposed of within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The second appeal is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.