Judgment :- 1. This second appeal is focussed by the second plaintiff animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 29.3.2012 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Vellore, in A.S.No.22 of 2011 confirming the judgment and decree dated 2.12.2010 passed by the District Munsif, Katpadi, in O.S.No.1059 of 2009, which was one for declaration and permanent injunction. 2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. The epitome, and the long and the short of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: (i) The plaintiffs, namely, 1.Venkatachalam and 2.Selvam filed the suit seeking the following reliefs: "a) to declare that the 2nd plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property.” b) to grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 6, their men, agents and servants in any manner interfering with the 2nd plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property. c) to direct the defendants 2 to 6 to pay the cost of the suit to the plaintiff." (extracted as such) citing the following property in the schedule of the plaint, SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY Vellore District, Katpadi Taluk, Ammundi Village, Dry S.No.612 extent 6.08 acres in this 3.08 acres in this 1.90 acres on the Northern side kist Rs.3.19 bounded by east of defendants' land in S.No.642, West of S.No.610, North of Venkatachalam's other lands and South of Panchayat Road measuring East to West (56 links) 38 feet and North to South 86 feet house and vacant site value Rs.3000/-. setting out various averments, the gist and kernel of them would run thus: (a) The plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the land and building situated in S.No.612 of Ammudi Village, Katpadi Taluk ever since 1937. The first plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and he had put up nine huts in S.No.612 measuring an extent of 3 acres 8 cents out of 6.8 acres on the North Western side. (b) He rented it out to 9 persons, namely,1.Gurusami, 2.Rani, 3.Palani, 4.Perumal, 5.Dobi Panchaiyappan, 6.Thattakali Pandithar, 7.Jayaraman, 8.Ayyavu and 9.Manickam, and collecting rents. (c) He has also been cultivating the land and paying kists for the suit property and other properties. (d) The first plaintiff perfected his title by adverse possession over the suit property and other properties. (b) He rented it out to 9 persons, namely,1.Gurusami, 2.Rani, 3.Palani, 4.Perumal, 5.Dobi Panchaiyappan, 6.Thattakali Pandithar, 7.Jayaraman, 8.Ayyavu and 9.Manickam, and collecting rents. (c) He has also been cultivating the land and paying kists for the suit property and other properties. (d) The first plaintiff perfected his title by adverse possession over the suit property and other properties. (e) The first plaintiff sold the suit property to the second plaintiff orally on 1.7.1991 and whereby, the second plaintiff is in actual possession and enjoyment of the same. (f) The defendants are the owners of the land situated in S.No.642 at Ammudi Village, which is situated to the West of the suit property. (g) One Pernambut Govindan tried to interfere with the first plaintiff's possession under the guise of patta given to him by the Government in respect of S.No.612 measuring an extent of 1.90 acres, out of 3.08 acres on the Northern side; wherefore the first plaintiff earlier filed the suit O.S.No.385 of 1978 in the District Munsif Court, Vellore, and obtained a decree against the said Govindan. As such, the first plaintiff is in possession in respect of the said entire extent of 3.08 acres. (h) Earlier O.S.No.737 of 1983 and O.S.No.449 of 1980 were filed in the District Munsif Court, Vellore and Gudiyatham, respectively, in respect of the suit property by the first plaintiff and got injunction. Since the plaintiffs experienced threat at the hands of the defendants 1 to 6, they did choose to file the suit seeking the aforesaid relief. (i) Pending litigation, the first plaintiff died; whereupon his wife was added as P3/Radha Ammal. (j) During the pendency of the litigation, defendants 7 to 10, namely, (i)The Collector of Vellore District, (ii)The National Highways, rep. by its Chief Engineer, (iii)The Tahsildar, Katpadi Taluk Office and (iv)The President, Thiruppakuttai Panchayat Board, were added as defendants. (k) Defendants 1 to 6 jointly filed the written statement, the sum and substance of the same would run thus: (a) In the previous litigations referred to in the plaint, the defendants were not parties and hence those judgments will not be binding on them. (b) The description of the suit property is highly misleading. (k) Defendants 1 to 6 jointly filed the written statement, the sum and substance of the same would run thus: (a) In the previous litigations referred to in the plaint, the defendants were not parties and hence those judgments will not be binding on them. (b) The description of the suit property is highly misleading. (c) There is a public pathway between the Highways poramboke in S.No.612 and the patta land of the defendants in S.No.642, running from North to South, measuring 11.2 metres West to East, which is under the use of the public for over 60 years and it is a panchayat road. The said pathway is also used by the defendants to go to the National Highway Main Road abetting the sugar mill. (d) The plaintiffs with an intention to trespass into the said public pathway, did choose to file the suit with misleading facts. (e) The plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the said pathway and they want to usurp the said pathway. Accordingly, the defendants would pray for the dismissal of the suit. (l) Whereupon issues were framed. Up went the trial, during which, the second plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2-the advocate commissioner and marked Exs.A1 to A8. The second defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B5. (m) Ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit, as against which, only the second plaintiff preferred the appeal for nothing but to be dismissed by the first appellate Court, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 4. Challenging and impugning the judgments of both the Courts below, this second appeal has been focussed by the second plaintiff on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law. a) Whether the judgment of the Courts below are right in holding that the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs have not proved their right in respect of the suit property? b) Whether the 1st plaintiff is perfected title by the law of adverse possession pursuant to the earlier decrees under Ex.A1 to A6? a) Whether the judgment of the Courts below are right in holding that the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs have not proved their right in respect of the suit property? b) Whether the 1st plaintiff is perfected title by the law of adverse possession pursuant to the earlier decrees under Ex.A1 to A6? c) Whether the 2nd plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction under an oral sale from the 1st plaintiff for a valuable sale consideration dated 01.07.1991, which has not been disputed by the defendant at any point of time and who was put in possession and enjoyment of the property in axiomatic and stepping into the shoes of the 1st plaintiff and perfected title by adverse possession? (d) Whether the trial Court is right in dismissing the suit without framing the vital issue and render a finding in respect of adverse possession as claimed by the plaintiffs? (e) Whether the defendants are extinguished their right in respect of the suit property under the Transfer of Property Act, since the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties for more than three decades? (f) Whether the lower appellate Court right in rendering a decision without following the mandatory procedure under Order XLI Rule 26 of C.P.C? (extracted as such) 5 .Heard both sides. 6. On hearing both sides, I was of the considered view that the following substantial question of law could be formulated. Whether the Courts below were justified in deciding the lis, by ultimately dismissing the suit without examining the public officials concerned and also summoning the public records concerning the disputed property.? 7. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant/2nd plaintiff would pyramid his arguments to the effect that both the Courts below have not appreciated the true facts to the effect that pattas were issued by the Government to various persons in the land bearing R.S.No.612/6; whereas, the learned Senior counsel for the contesting defendants/respondents would advance his arguement to the effect that both the Courts below adverting to the fact that the defendants who are the owners of the houses in S.No.642, which are situated to the West of the public pathway, have been using the said pathway for over six decades and when such is the position the plaintiffs were not justified in simply alleging as though there was no pathway at all. 8. 8. In the course of hearing, both the learned Senior advocates would submit that there is a serious dispute about the nature of the land in S.No.612/6. On the one hand the defendants 1 to 6 would vehemently contest by contending that it is a pattai poramboke, whereas, the plaintiffs would contend that there is no such pattai poramboke and it is a mere Government land and that was allotted to various occupants of that land by the Government. Hence, with an intention to find out the real truth, keeping in mind the famous adage 'every trial is a voyage, in which discovery of truth is the quest'. On earlier occasion, I directed the Government Advocate, who is appearing for R7, R8 and R9, to appear before this Court along with the Revenue officials concerned with relevant Revenue Registers. 9. Today, the Revenue Officials with public registers appeared along with the learned Government Advocate, and I permitted both side advocates for the second plaintiff and the defendants to peruse the records. 10. Certain facts transpired from the records concerning the same I do not make any observations in depth at this stage. But one fact is clear that relating to S.No.612/6 is concerned, lot of facts are involved and there are Government records exemplifying and demonstrating the existing features also. Even in respect of that, the learned counsel for the defendants would submit that the present Revenue records do not reflect the reality, but the earlier Revenue recores revealed about the pathway and all, and according to him, even in the Commissioner's report there is reference to the same. 11. Not to put too fine a point on it, both the Courts below were not justified in, without referring to the public records and also the evidence of the public officials, in deciding the lis. 12. The learned counsel for the defendants also would submit that the Highways Department, namely, R7 herein, would also be having a map of their own, that would also highlight the true facts in this case. 13. The murky situation resulted because the public officials remained ex-parte and they have not filed any written statement. 14. I would like to observe that the Government officials and Government Department should not remain ex-parte at all in Court cases and proceedings. 13. The murky situation resulted because the public officials remained ex-parte and they have not filed any written statement. 14. I would like to observe that the Government officials and Government Department should not remain ex-parte at all in Court cases and proceedings. Whenever they are in receipt of Court summons, they sould necessarily make their appearance through Government pleader concerned and there is no excuse in that regard. To put it in single syllable words whenever the Government Department or the Government official, in his capacity as a Government Officer, is arrayed as a party, it/he cannot abstain from Court, it/he should necessarily make appearance before the Court and file the statement and render all possible assisteance to the Court. But in this case, R7 to R9 have not filed any written statement and they have not even been summoned by the Court to give oral evidence and also produce records. 15. The Courts itself in this case should have suo motu issued summons for production of records by the officials concerned, but they failed to do so. The second plaintiff, with whatever documents which he had in his possession prosecuted the case; whereas the defendants similarly with the documents in his possession resisted the suit. Ultimately the Courts below applying only the principle of 'onus of proof' dismissed the suit without adjudicating the real dispute. 16. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is decided to the effect that the Courts below were not justified in dismissing the suit without examining the public officials concerned and also summoning the public records concerning the disputed property. 17. In my considered opinion in matters of this nature, certainly the Court itself should have taken the initiative of probing thoroughly into the matter and find out the truth. Inasmuch as in this matter necesarily in the aforesaid manner both oral and documentary evidence should be adduced, I am of the considered view that the judgement of the first appellate Court should be set aside and accordingly it is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first appellate Court, namely, Additional Subordinate Judge, Vellore, with the following direction: The first appellate Court shall entertain both oral and documentary evidence additionally from all the parties concerned. The parties are given liberty to adduce both oral and documentary evidence. The parties are given liberty to adduce both oral and documentary evidence. A specific direction is given to the defendants 7, 8 and 9/respondents 6 to 9 herein to produce the relevant Revenue Registers, maps with their report to the first appellate Court and at least one responsible Revenue official should be examined on the side of the respondents 6 to 9/D7 to D10 before the Court. Whereupon, after hearing both sides, the first appellate Court is expected to render the judgment. 18. Parties shall appear before the first appellate Court, namely, the District Munsif, Katpadi, on 5.6.2013. The learned Government Advocate there in the first appellate Court should assist the Court in this regard. 19. The second appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.