Judgment :- 1. This second appeal is focussed by the plaintiff, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2007 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai in A.S.No.67 of 2007 in confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2007 passed by the learned District Munsif, Sirkali in O.S.No.27 of 2001. 2. 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 appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit property and for removal of the superstructure put up by the defendants in Survey No.131/3, Sirkali Taluk, 65 North Vadapathi Circle, Vaitheeswaran Koil Village on the main ground that the property belonged to the temple and the defendants' shortly before the filing of the suit by the plaintiff had put up the huts and started occupying them. (b) Per contra, the defendants', viz.,D1 the father and his son D2, resisted the suit on the main ground that the suit property is a Natham land relating to which the proposed patta was issued in favour of the father (D1), who in turn executed the sale deed in favour of his son (D2). The plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property and accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit. (c) The trial Court framed the relevant issues. (d) Up went the trial, during which on the plaintiff's side one Muthukumaraswami was examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On the defendants' side, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked and the Court documents Exs.C1 to C8 were also marked. 4. Ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit, as against which the appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed by the first appellate court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. 5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgments and decrees of both the courts below, this second appeal has been filed on various grounds, suggesting the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the courts below are legally right in relying on Ex.B1 when the same was obtained behind the back of appellant? 2. 5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgments and decrees of both the courts below, this second appeal has been filed on various grounds, suggesting the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the courts below are legally right in relying on Ex.B1 when the same was obtained behind the back of appellant? 2. Whether the courts below have committed an error of law in refusing to decree the suit for recovery of possession when appellant's prior possession over suit property is proved? 3. Whether the judgments of court below are vitiated by non-consideration of Ex.A1 which proves appellant's right over suit property? (extracted as such) 6. Heard both sides. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would pyramid his argument, which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: (i) Ex.A1 the property register maintained by the temple as per the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act would evince and evidence, display and demonstrate that the suit property belongs to the temple. However, both the courts below failed to take note of the same. Placing reliance only on the proposed patta, which was obtained during the year 1998 by D1 and the sale deed executed by D1 on the strength of that patta in favour of D2, the courts below dismissed the suit as though the defendants' had better title than the plaintiff. (ii) Both the courts below miserably failed to look into the fact that the smaller extent of the suit property measuring an extent of 2-½ cents is situated within the larger extent of 25 cents in Survey No.131/3. DW1 candidly and categorically, pulling no punches admitted that only two months' anterior to the filing of the suit by the plaintiff, he had put up the huts. In such a case, even by phantasmagorical thoughts, it cannot be visualised that the defendants' acquired title over the suit property. Ignoring the evidence which is against the defendants'; and the evidence in favour of the plaintiff, both the courts below decided the lis, warranting interference in this second appeal. 8. In such a case, even by phantasmagorical thoughts, it cannot be visualised that the defendants' acquired title over the suit property. Ignoring the evidence which is against the defendants'; and the evidence in favour of the plaintiff, both the courts below decided the lis, warranting interference in this second appeal. 8. Per contra, in a bid to torpedo and pulverise, slap down and mincemeat the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants' would advance his arguments, the warp and woof of the same would run thus: (i) The courts below au fait with law and au courant with facts analysed the evidence available on record and clearly and pellucidly pointed out that there is no iota or shred, shard or miniscule extent of evidence available on the side of the plaintiff to establish that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff. (ii) There should be precise evidence to the effect that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff and then only recovery of possession could be ordered in favour of the plaintiff. In this case, in the absence of such evidence available, both the courts below correctly dismissed the suit and as against the concurrent findings of facts, no second appeal would lie. (iii) The specification in the self-serving document, viz., the property register, Ex.A1 maintained by the plaintiff, cannot be taken as a conclusive evidence to prove the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property. Accordingly, he would pray for the dismissal of the second appeal. 9. At the outset itself, I would like to fumigate my mind with the following decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2012(8) SCC 148 [Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and another], an excerpt from it would run thus: "59. Section 100 CPC provides for a second appeal only on the substantial question of law. Generally, a second appeal does not lie on question of facts or of law. Section 100 CPC provides for a second appeal only on the substantial question of law. Generally, a second appeal does not lie on question of facts or of law. In SBI v. S.N. Goyal (2008) 8 SCC 92 , this Court explained the terms "substantial question of law" and observed as under: (SCC p.103, para 13) "13......The word "substantial" prefixed to 'question of law' does not refer to the stakes involved in the case, nor intended to refer only to questions of law of general importance, but refers to impact or effect of the question of law on the decision in the lis between the parties. 'Substantial questions of law' means not only substantial questions of law of general importance, but also substantial question of law arising in a case as between the parties ......any question of law which affects the final decision in a case is a substantial question of law as between the parties. A question of law which arises incidentally or collaterally, having no bearing on the final outcome, will not be a substantial question of law......There cannot, therefore, be a straitjacket definition as to when a substantial question of law arises in a case." (emphasis added) 10. In the same precedent, the following decisions are found referred to concerning the entertaining of second appeals. (1) AIR 1962 SC 3314 [Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. and Mgf. Co. Ltd.] (2) (2011) 1 SCC 673 [Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT] (3) AIR 1947 PC 19 [Bibhabati Devi v. Kumar Ramendra Narayan Roy] (4) (1949) 17 ITR 269 (Nag) [Suwalal Chhogalal v. CIT] (5) AIR 1957 SC 852 [Oriental Investment Co. (1) AIR 1962 SC 3314 [Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. and Mgf. Co. Ltd.] (2) (2011) 1 SCC 673 [Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT] (3) AIR 1947 PC 19 [Bibhabati Devi v. Kumar Ramendra Narayan Roy] (4) (1949) 17 ITR 269 (Nag) [Suwalal Chhogalal v. CIT] (5) AIR 1957 SC 852 [Oriental Investment Co. Ltd. v. CIT] (6) AIR 192 SC 1604 [Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh] (7) (1996) 5 SCC 353 [Parativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan] (8) (1998) 6 SCC 423 [Satya Gupta v. Brijesh Kumar] (9) AIR 2000 SC 534 [Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery & Co.] (10) AIR 2000 SC 1261 [Molar Mal v. Kay Iron Works (P) Ltd.] (11) (2010) 11 SCC 483 [Bharatha Matha v. R.Vijaya Renganathan] (12) (2010) 12 SCC 740 [Dinesh Kumar v. Yusuf Ali] (13) (2002) 3 SCC 634 [Jai Singh v. Shakuntala] (14) (2008) 12 SCC 796 [Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Singh] A mere running of the eye over it would connote and denote, exemplify and demonstrate that unless there is any substantial question of law is involved, the question of upsetting the findings of the courts below would not arise. 11. Hence, in view of the circumstances involved in this case, I would like to formulate the following substantial questions of law to the knowledge of both sides. 1. Whether both the courts below were justified in ignoring Ex.A1, the property register maintained by the temple authority and the authentic signature and seal of the official of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department in it, and in dismissing the suit? 2. Whether both the courts below were justified in overlooking the candid and categorical admission of DW2 (D1) that only two months' anterior to the filing of the suit, the superstructures were put up by the defendants' in the suit property? 3. Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the judgments and decrees of both the courts below? 12. All these points are taken together for discussion as they are inter-linked and interwoven, inter-connected and entwined with one another. 13. 3. Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the judgments and decrees of both the courts below? 12. All these points are taken together for discussion as they are inter-linked and interwoven, inter-connected and entwined with one another. 13. A mere running of the eye over the judgments of both the courts below would convey and portray that they were very much carried away by the fact that the proposed patta was issued in favour of D1 and that D1 on the strength of it executed the sale deed Ex.B2 dated 09.11.2000 in favour of D2. 14. The pertinent point to be noted here is that the suit itself was filed in the year 2001, whereas the proposed patta was issued by the authority concerned in the name of D1 only during the year 1998 and the sale deed Ex.B2 emerged at the instance of D1 in favour of his son D2 only on 09.11.2000. Wherefore, it is clear that just before the filing of the suit by the temple, those documents relied on by the defendants' emerged. 15. The analysis of Ex.A1 the property register would demonstrate and reveal that the property register was maintained by the temple authorities in accordance with the statutory requirements, so to say, as per the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The signature and seal of the official of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department could be seen in Ex.A1. As such, its authenticity is beyond doubt. The Advocate Commissioner visited the suit property twice with the assistance of the Surveyor and measured the suit property and also noted the physical features. Accordingly, he would give a clear picture of the topography of the suit property. In Survey No.131/3 there are two temples and there are several samadhis and the impugned huts were constructed by the defendants' just two months' anterior to the filing of the suit amidst the samadhis. 16. In such a case, I am at a loss to understand as to how both the courts below had developed an artificial suspicion about the location of the property and that too when it had been located by the Advocate Commissioner properly. In this case, both the courts below went tangent in doubting the location of the suit property. 17. In such a case, I am at a loss to understand as to how both the courts below had developed an artificial suspicion about the location of the property and that too when it had been located by the Advocate Commissioner properly. In this case, both the courts below went tangent in doubting the location of the suit property. 17. The term proposed patta itself would connote and denote, exemplify and demonstrate that it is a document, which cannot be relied on by the court as evidence and such proposed patta cannot be presented before the court of law for the purpose of being used as an evidence. In the second page of the said patta, it is clearly found spelt out that it was issued purely for the purpose of conducting an enquiry. In such a case, there is no knowing of the fact as to how both the courts below ignoring those glaring defect in Ex.B1 could rely upon it as a piece of evidence to uphold the title of the defendants'. 18. No doubt, the maxim Favorabiliores rei potius quam actores habentur – Defendants are held to be in a more favourable position than pursuers would be ushered in by the defendants' in the wake of the maxims -affirmantis est probare – He who affirms must prove andaffirmanti non neganti incumbit probatio: The burden of proof lies upon him who asserts and not upon him who denies. But once the plaintiff has discharged its burden by providing the authentic property register maintained under the statute, viz., the HR and CE, which bears the signature and seal of the official, the burden of proof is ambulatory and should be held to have got shifted from the plaintiff side to the defendants' side. But the documents produced on the defendants' side in the form of Ex.B1- the proposed patta before the court is only weak, meek and bleak and both the courts below readily accepted the defendants document as evidence and decided the lis in favour of the defendants', warranting interference in this second appeal. 19. The Commissioner's report would evince and evidence, display and demonstrate that the impugned huts are very much amidst the samadhis. 19. The Commissioner's report would evince and evidence, display and demonstrate that the impugned huts are very much amidst the samadhis. Over and above that between the two huts, the Commissioner could also trace the Samadhi, which is like any other Samadhi in the same vicinity and as such, in the wake of those clinching evidence, both the courts below have committed error in deciding the lis in favour of the defendants and as against the plaintiff, warranting interference in this second appeal. 20. On balance, (i) The substantial question of law No.1 is decided to the effect that both the courts below were not justified in ignoring Ex.A1, the property register maintained by the temple authority and the authentic signature and seal of the official of the HR and CE Department in it, and in dismissing the suit. (ii) The substantial question of law No.2 is decided to the effect that both the courts below were not justified in overlooking the candid and categorical admission of DW2 (D1) that only two months' anterior to the filing of the suit, the superstructures were put up by the defendants' in the suit property. 21. In the result, the judgments and decrees of both the courts below are set aside and the suit is decreed as prayed for. The decree shall follow accordingly. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.