Judgment P.R. Shivakumar, J. 1. This second appeal has been preferred against the decree dated 18.11.2005 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruppattur, Vellore District in A.S.No.68/2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruppattur. By the said decree, the decree of the trial court (District Munsif Court, Tiruppattur) dated 13.06.2005 made in O.S.No.1092/1990 came to be set aside and reversed by the lower appellate court. 2. Palani Gounder (deceased), Vadivel and Arumugam as plaintiffs 1 to 3 filed the above said suit originally against one Duraisamy Gounder and the respondents 12 and 13 in the second appeal ranking them as defendants 1 to 3 respectively for the following reliefs: (1) a declaration that the plaint 'B' schedule property belonged to them; (2) recovery of possession of plaint 'B' schedule property from N.K.Duraisamy Gounder (first defendant); (3) a declaration that they were entitled to half share in plaint 'C' schedule property; (4) a permanent injunction against Duraisamy Gounder (first defendant) not to prevent their joint possession and enjoyment of undivided half share in plaint 'C' schedule property; (5) a mandatory injunction directing the respondents 12 and 13 (defendants 2 and 3) to issue patta in the name of first plaintiff Palani Gounder removing the name of Duraisamy Gounder, the first defendant from the patta; (6) a mandatory injunction directing conversion of Patta in respect of 'C' schedule property into a joint patta in the names of Palani Gounder, the first plaintiff and N.K.Duraisamy Gounder (second defendant) and (7) a direction to the defendants to pay cost to the plaintiffs. During the pendency of the suit, the first plaintiff Palani Gounder died and the appellants 2 to 5 were impleaded as plaintiffs 4 to 8 in their capacities as the legal heirs of deceased Palani Gounder. Similarly, the third plaintiff Arumugam also died and his legal heirs were impleaded as plaintiffs 9 to 14 in the original suit. They figure as the appellants 6 to 12 in the second appeal. The trial court decreed the suit in part and granted the reliefs sought for in respect of the property described in plaint 'B' schedule and dismissed the suit in respect of plaint 'C' schedule property. 3. As against the decree passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of plaint schedule 'B' property, the first appeal before the lower appellate court was filed. 3. As against the decree passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of plaint schedule 'B' property, the first appeal before the lower appellate court was filed. Since the first defendant M.K.Duraisamy Gounder passed away on 29.05.2005 viz. after the trial court passed the decree, his legal representatives, who are the respondents 1 to 11 in the second appeal, preferred the appeal in A.S.No.68/2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruppattur challenging the decree of the trial court dated 13.06.2005 made in O.S.No.1092/1990 insofar as it related to the plaint 'B' schedule property. The learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruppattur (lower appellate judge), allowed the appeal, set aside the decree granted by the trial court in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property and dismissed the suit in entirety. 4. As against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated 18.11.2005, the present second appeal has been filed by the surviving plaintiffs on various grounds set out in the memorandum of grounds of second appeal. In order to avoid confusion and achieve clarity, the parties are referred to in accordance with their ranks in the original suit and in appropriate places, wherever it is necessary, their ranks in the second appeal shall also be furnished. 5. The plaintiffs and the first defendant are close relatives. The suit properties and other properties were jointly purchased by Pattan @ Subramani Gounder (the father of the deceased first plaintiff) and Periya Kullan @ Muruga Gounder (the father of the first defendant M.K.Duraisamy Gounder) from one Annamalai Chettiar under a sale deed dated 01.12.1926. As such, Pattan @ Subramani Gounder and Periya Kullan @ Muruga Gounder were entitled to half share each in the properties jointly purchased by them. Since Pattan @ Subramani Gounder passed away and since the properties purchased under the said sale deed were the zamin properties, under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, patta came to be issued jointly in the names of the deceased first plaintiff Palani Gounder and Periya Kullan @ Muruga Goundar, the father of the first defendant M.K.Duraisamy. According to the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff Palani Gounder and the above said Periya Kullan @ Muruga Gounder measured the properties and divided equally between them in the year 1939. According to the first defendant, the partition took place in 1927 itself. According to the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff Palani Gounder and the above said Periya Kullan @ Muruga Gounder measured the properties and divided equally between them in the year 1939. According to the first defendant, the partition took place in 1927 itself. After such partition, they were in possession and enjoyment of the respective portions allotted to their share. In the well dug in S.No.290/8, described as 5th item of plaint 'A' schedule property, the deceased first plaintiff and Periya Kullan @ Muruga Gounder (father of the first defendant) had got half share each. After the death of Periya Kullan @ Muruga Gounder, the first plaintiff purchased the half share of the first defendant in the said well by a sale deed dated 15.02.1971 and thus the first plaintiff became the owner of the the property in S.No.290/8. The facts stated above are undisputed. 6. The suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs contending that the property purchased by Pattan @ Subramani Gounder and Periya Kullan @ Muruga Gounder on 01.12.1926 comprised a total extent of 42 Acres 14 Kuzhis (equivalent to 42.35 Acres); that in the partition that took place in 1939, the first plaintiff Palani Gounder and Periya Kullan @ Muruga Gounder were allotted 21 Acres 7 Kuzhis (21 Acres 17 1/2 cents) each; that they were in possession and enjoyment of the said extent of land allotted to them as per the partition; that however, the first defendant, taking advantage of his position as Panchayat President and also the fact that the first plaintiff was an illiterate, atrociously trespassed into plaint 'B' schedule property, got patta for the same in his name and was in enjoyment of the same and that in 1982 in the Updated Re-survey, patta was issued wrongly in the name of the first defendant in respect of S.No.290/5 described as plaint 'B' schedule property whereas the first plaintiff was entitled to the said property to the exclusion of the first defendant, the plaintiffs filed the suit for the relief of recovery of possession of the plaint 'B' schedule property, namely 0.13.0 hectare comprised in S.No.290/5 of Narianeri Village, Tiruppattur Taluk (Patta No.512). The suit claim was based on the plaintiffs' contention that the said 'B' schedule property was part of the property allotted to the first plaintiff and the first defendant, after wrongly getting patta in his name, trespassed into the same and occupied the same. In addition to the said claim made in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property, the plaintiffs also claimed that the first plaintiff did have half share in the well mentioned as plaint 'C' schedule property and prayed for an injunction against the first defendant not to prevent the plaintiffs' joint possession and enjoyment of the same', besides making the prayers for declaration that the plaintiffs were entitled to half share in the plaint 'C' schedule property and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants 2 and 3 for issuance of joint patta in favour of the first plaintiff/first defendant in respect of the plaint 'C' schedule property. 7. The suit was resisted by the first defendant contending that no part of the property allotted to the first plaintiff in the partition was encroached upon by the first defendant as averred in the plaint; that the plaint averment as if the property comprised in S.No.290/5 jointly belonged to the first plaintiff and the first defendant, but patta for the same was wrongly issued in the name of the first defendant was false and unsustainable and that hence the plaintiffs were not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in respect of the said survey number, namely S.No.290/5 shown as plaint 'B' schedule property. In respect of the plaint 'C' schedule property it was the contention of the first defendant that though the first plaintiff had been given half share in the well described as plaint 'C' schedule property in the partition, when the first defendant conveyed his half share in the well comprised in S.No.290/8 (shown as item No.5 of the plaint 'A' schedule) to the first plaintiff, the first plaintiff conveyed his half share in the well situated in S.No.290/2B shown as plaint 'C' schedule property in favour of the first defendant and thus the first defendant became the owner of the entire well to the exclusion of the first plaintiff. Based on the said contentions, the first defendant had prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 8. Based on the said contentions, the first defendant had prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 8. The learned trial judge framed as many as 10 issues and the issues thus framed by the trial court, are, as follows: "1. Is it true that the plaintiffs are entitled to the plaint 'B' schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim relief of permanent injunction and recovery of possession? 3. Whether the first defendant is obliged to hand over possession of plaint 'B' schedule property to the plaintiffs? 4. Whether the defendants should be injuncted from preventing the plaintiffs from exercising their right of joint enjoyment of plaint 'C' schedule property? 5. Whether the defendants 2 and 3 are bound to change the patta issued in the name of the first defendant to the first plaintiff in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property? 6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a joint patta in the names of the first plaintiff and first defendant in respect of plaint 'C' schedule property? 7. Whether the causes of action alleged are wrong? 8. Whether the suit is undervalued and a lesser court fee has been paid? 9. Whether the court has got jurisdiction to try the suit? 10. Whether the parties are entitled to any other relief? If so, what?" 9. One witness was examined as PW1 and ten documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A10 on the side of the plaintiffs and one witness was examined as DW1 and seven documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B7 on the side of the defendants. 10. The learned trial judge, at the conclusion of trial, heard the arguments and appraised the evidence. Upon such an appreciation of evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in respect of plaint 'C' schedule property. However, it came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs' case in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property stood proved and hence decreed the suit as per the plaint prayers in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property alone. 11. As against the decree granted by the trial court against the defendants in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property, the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant preferred the appeal before the lower appellate court. 11. As against the decree granted by the trial court against the defendants in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property, the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant preferred the appeal before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court accepted their case, set aside the decree of the trial court in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property and dismissed the suit in its entirety. Aggrieved by the same, the surviving plaintiffs have come forward with the present second appeal on various grounds set out in the memorandum of grounds of second appeal. 12. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following questions were framed as the substantial questions of law involved in the second appeal: "1. Whether the First Appellate Court is right in law in suo motu conferring title over the 'B' schedule of the suit property by adverse possession in favour of the respondents, when they have not pleaded the same either in written statement or in evidence? 2. When the plaintiff categorically pleaded that the first defendant after obtaining patta in his favour encroached into the 'B' schedule property, whether the first appellate Court is right in law to hold that the plaintiffs have no cause of action for filing the suit for recovery of possession? 3. Whether the first appellate court has rightly appreciated Ex.A1 document and held that the total extent of land is 38.35 acres of land, but actually the total extent of land is recited as 42.35 acres of land excluding railways property?” 13. The arguments advanced by Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr.K.R.A.Muthukrishnan, learned counsel on record for the appellants and by Mr. Su.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 11 were heard. The materials available on record were also perused. 14. Though the plaintiffs have provided three schedules of properties in the plaint as A, B and C, they did not seek any relief in respect of the properties described in plaint 'A' schedule, as there was no dispute regarding their title in respect of the same. As many as 13 items of properties were included in plaint 'A' schedule. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that any cause of action arose for seeking any relief in respect of plaint 'A' schedule properties. As many as 13 items of properties were included in plaint 'A' schedule. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that any cause of action arose for seeking any relief in respect of plaint 'A' schedule properties. The same was the reason why, though 13 items were shown in the description of the property in plaint 'A' schedule, no relief was claimed in respect of the same. Then we may pose a question "what shall be the purpose for which those properties have been shown in the description of properties in the plaint as 'A' schedule properties?" Presumably it was done with the intention of showing that the plaintiffs had been granted patta and were in possession of a lesser extent of property than what they were entitled to as per the joint purchase made by the predecessors in title of the parties to the suit. 15. Admittedly all the properties described in plaint schedules, namely 'A', 'B' and 'C' schedules and other properties allotted to the father of the first defendant in the oral partition were purchased by Pattan @ Subramani Gounder (father of the first plaintiff) and Periya Kullan @ Muruga Gounder (father of the first defendant) from one Annamalai Chettiar under a sale deed dated 01.12.1926, registered as document No.378/1927 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Tiruppattur has been produced as Ex.A1. The property purchased jointly by the above said persons under the said sale deed has been described to be situated within four boundaries noted therein in Manguppam Village, Tiruppattur Taluk, the then North Arcot District. There is no dispute regarding the boundaries provided for the property purchased by Pattan @ Subramani and Periya Kullan @ Muruga Gounder under Ex.A1. Since the same was the zamin property and the purchasers under Ex.A1 purchased it from the Mittadhar, survey numbers had not been provided. On the other hand, as many as five plots consisting of a single block within four boundaries have been described with reference to their names and with reference to the nature of cultivation to which they were put. While mentioning the total extent of the property sold under Ex.A1, it has been stated to be 42 Acres 14 Kuzhis. In the said land there were three wells. While mentioning the total extent of the property sold under Ex.A1, it has been stated to be 42 Acres 14 Kuzhis. In the said land there were three wells. Besides describing the total extent of land comprised within the four boundaries within which the three wells situated, the final sentence of the description of property provided that the property sold was excluding the Rail Road that was passing in the middle of the property. 16. Relying on the recitals found in Ex.A1, the plaintiffs contended that the total extent purchased was 42 acres 14 kuzhis (equivalent to 42.35 Acres) and that while effecting an oral partition in 1939, each one got an equal share towards his share. According to the plaintiffs, as an equal division was made and the first plaintiff was allotted to 21 acres 12 1/2 cents and the first defendant was allotted an equal extent in the oral partition. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that in the re-survey, patta in respect of two acres of land out of the total extent of 21 acres 17 1/2 cents allotted to the first plaintiff came to be issued wrongly in the name of the first defendant and the first defendant taking advantage of the same and taking advantage of his position as Panchayat President, annexed that 2.00 acres with his property and thereby deprived the plaintiffs of their right in respect of that 2.00 acres. However, in the plaint, no such clear averment came to be made. The averments made in the plaint are to the effect that in the updated re-survey made in 1982 patta in respect of the property described in plaint 'B' schedule was wrongly issued in the name of the first defendant. The property described in plaint 'B' schedule is one comprised in S.No.290/5 measuring an extent of 0.13.0 hectare, which is equivalent to 0.32 Acre. The extent of the property described in plaint 'C' schedule is 0.07.0 hectares. The plaintiffs claim half share in it. If the extent of half share is calculated it will be 0.03.5 hectares equivalent to 0.08 acres. If the extent in the property described as plaint 'B' schedule and half share in plaint 'C' schedule are added, the total extent claimed by the plaintiffs in respect of plaint 'B' schedule and 'C' schedule would come to 0.40 acres alone. If the extent of half share is calculated it will be 0.03.5 hectares equivalent to 0.08 acres. If the extent in the property described as plaint 'B' schedule and half share in plaint 'C' schedule are added, the total extent claimed by the plaintiffs in respect of plaint 'B' schedule and 'C' schedule would come to 0.40 acres alone. The total extent of the undisputed properties of the first plaintiff described in plaint 'A' schedule is 7.39.0 hectares equivalent to 18.26 acres. Even if the extents claimed by the plaintiffs in respect of plaint 'B' schedule and 'C' schedule are added, the total extent would come to 18.66 acres alone. If the total extent purchased under Ex.A1 is taken to be 42.35 acres, half of the same shall come to 21.175 acres. Even then there shall be a difference of 2 acres 51.5 cents. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiffs that the property described in plaint 'B' schedule was part of the property allotted to the first plaintiff in the partition and that in the updated re-survey, patta in respect of the same was wrongly granted in favour of the first defendant does not seem to be quite logical or probable. The question that may arise shall be, "where has gone the balance extent?" The answer given by the first defendant is that the total extent mentioned in Ex.A1 was inclusive of the Railway property measuring 4.00 acres; that if the 4.00 acres of Railway property is excluded, the remaining extent 38.35 acres alone would have been the property conveyed under Ex.A1 and that 50% out of the same would come to 19 acres and 17 1/2 cents. It was the contention of the first defendant that under such circumstances, the claim of the plaintiffs that they were entitled to 21 acres 17-1/2 cents was liable to be rejected as untenable. 17. An attempt was made on behalf of the plaintiffs to contend that the total extent mentioned in Ex.A1 was exclusive of the Railway property, which is situated in the middle of the property purchased under Ex.A1. The said contention of the plaintiffs cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the description provided in the schedule of properties in Ex.A1 does not indicate that the total extent was mentioned therein after deducting the Rail road portion. The said contention of the plaintiffs cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the description provided in the schedule of properties in Ex.A1 does not indicate that the total extent was mentioned therein after deducting the Rail road portion. A perusal of Ex.A1 would show that the Rail road cuts across the property in the middle. If at all the extent available after excluding the portion occupied by the rail road alone was referred to as the total extent, then the property would have been described in two separate schedules, in which the rail road would have been shown as one of the boundaries for each plot. If such a description had been provided, then the contention of the plaintiffs may have substance in it. Admittedly 4.00 acres was occupied by the rail road out of the total extent of 42.35 acres. Though the plaintiff would have claimed that he was entitled to 21 acres and 17 1/2 cents, it is the clear admission of the first plaintiff as PW1 that 4.00 acres extent was occupied by the rail road leading to Krishnagiri from Tiruppattur; that the property purchased under Ex.A1 excluding the Railway property was divided between the father of the first defendant and the father of the first plaintiff 64 years prior to the filing of the suit and that as per the said division, the parties were in enjoyment of the respective portions allotted to them as their shares. 18. It is also an admission made by PW1 that under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, patta came to be issued as per the enjoyment and that separate patta was issued in favour of Pattan @ Subramani Gounder for the portions in his possession. He also admitted that for the portions in the possession of the father of the first defendant separate patta was issued in his favour. Even though the plaintiffs would have claimed that plaint 'B' schedule property was part of the property allotted to the share of the father of the first plaintiff and it was encroached upon by the first defendant, there is no concrete plea and also absence of evidence as to when such encroachment was made. It is an admission made by PW1 that Ryotwari patta came to be issued pursuant to the abolition of zamin estates. It is an admission made by PW1 that Ryotwari patta came to be issued pursuant to the abolition of zamin estates. But the plaintiffs have not chosen to produce their old patta issued pursuant to the passing of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, to show that their predecessors were granted patta in respect of 21 Acres and 17-1/2 cents and that the plaint 'B' schedule property was one among the properties in respect of which the plaintiffs' predecessors were granted patta. What is the year in which such Ryotwari patta came to be issued? also has not been stated either in the plaint or in the evidence of PW1. 19. On the other hand, the defendants have taken a clear plea that the oral partition was made after excluding 4.00 acres of Railway property and each one was allotted roughly about 19 acres and that consequent to the passing of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, ryotwari patta came to be issued to both the parties in accordance with their enjoyment as per the oral partition which took place before the Act coming into force. It is the clear testimony of DW1 that in 1952, the share of his father was divided among DW1 and his brothers; that in 1954 the properties were measured and separate pattas were issued in favour of the first plaintiff Palani Gounder in respect of the property in his possession, which had been allotted to his father in the earlier oral partition and that as against such issuance of patta long back in 1954, no one including the first plaintiff, raised any objection and on the other hand they admitted the correctness of the same. The above said testimony of DW1 stands unchallenged and uncontraverted. 20. On the other hand, the plea of the plaintiffs and the evidence of PW1 are with full of ambiguities regarding their contention as to whether they were in possession of about 19.00 acres as contended by the defendants or 21 acres 17 1/2 cents as claimed by the plaintiffs. The above said testimony of DW1 stands unchallenged and uncontraverted. 20. On the other hand, the plea of the plaintiffs and the evidence of PW1 are with full of ambiguities regarding their contention as to whether they were in possession of about 19.00 acres as contended by the defendants or 21 acres 17 1/2 cents as claimed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have not chosen to produce any document to show that they had been granted patta for 21 acres 17 1/2 cents at any point of time or that they were in possession and enjoyment of the said extent of land at any time after the oral partition which according to the plaintiffs that took place in 1939 and according to the evidence of DW1 took place in 1927. Having admitted that ryotwari patta came to be issued in the year 1954 to the father of the first plaintiff in accordance with his enjoyment of the property allotted to him in the partition, the first plaintiff had not chosen to produce such patta to show that before the updated re-survey, patta had been issued in the name of his father for 21 acres and 17 1/2 cents. In this regard, the pleadings of the defendants and the evidence of DW1 are quite clear and unambiguous that oral division was effected several years before the Estate Abolition Act came into force; that in 1954 patta came to be issued in accordance with the enjoyment of the parties and that the parties took pattas in their names without any murmur, as they were in accordance with the oral partition and in accordance with their enjoyment. It is also the clear assertion of the first defendant that no part of the property allotted to the plaintiffs' predecessors-in-title the oral partition was encroached upon by him at any point of time. It is the clear and categorical stand of the first defendant that the property described in plaint 'B' schedule was part of the property allotted to the father of the first defendant in the oral partition and that patta stood in the name of the first defendant. 21. It is the clear and categorical stand of the first defendant that the property described in plaint 'B' schedule was part of the property allotted to the father of the first defendant in the oral partition and that patta stood in the name of the first defendant. 21. It is also the clear case of the first defendant and evidence adduced on his behalf that as per the old patta and as per the enjoyment separate pattas came to be issued in the updated re-survey and that with oblique motive, the plaintiffs speculatively made the claim in the suit, as if the first defendant had encroached upon the property described in plaint 'B' schedule. Admittedly the updated re-survey was completed in 1982. If at all any encroachment in respect of plaint 'B' schedule had been made by the first defendant, it should have been made, it should have been made prior to 1982, since updated re-survey patta came to be issued based on the enjoyment at the time of updated re-survey. That being so, the plaintiffs, who have come forward with the suit for a declaration that they are entitled to the plaint 'B' schedule property, should have made a clear plea and adduced sufficient evidence as to when they lost possession. The plaintiffs were not in a position to state when the alleged encroachment of plaint 'B' schedule property was made by the first defendant. If at all the plaint 'B' schedule property was part of the property allotted to the predecessors of the plaintiffs and it came to be encroached upon by the first defendant, such an encroachment would have been known to the plaintiffs then and there itself. 22. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they caused measurement to be taken in the year 1991 and then only they came to know that plaint ‘B’ schedule property had been encroached upon by the first defendant. Such a stand of the plaintiffs can be inferred from the evidence of PW1, who stated in the chief examination itself that he measured the property with the help of the Village Administrative Officer in the year 1991 and then only he came to know that the first defendant was having more extent of land than what he was entitled to and that therefore the plaintiffs approached the trial court with a suit. It is pertinent to note that the suit itself was filed in the year 1990, more particularly on 22.11.1990. The fact that the suit was filed on 22.11.1990 itself will falsify the evidence of PW1 that he measured the property with the help of Village Administrative Officer in 1991 and thereafter filed the suit. However, reliance was sought to be made on Ex.B2-mortgage deed dated 09.08.1936 (discharged) whereby the wives of Periya Kullan @ Muruga Gounder, on behalf of their children, executed a mortgage deed in favour of one Muthu Gounder. In the said document, the total extent of property mortgaged had been recited as 21 Acres 7 Kuzhis, equivalent to 21 Acres 17 cents. Hence the plaintiffs contended that since 21 Acres 17 cents came to be mortgaged under Ex.B2, equal extent would have been available with the plaintiffs. It was contended further that since about 19 acres alone was available with the plaintiffs, the remaining extent would have been encroached upon by the first defendant. The same was nothing but an attempt to cast the burden of proving the defence case on the defendants without proving the case of the plaintiffs by making clear plea and adducing reliable evidence. 23. It is pertinent to note that even in Ex.B2, survey numbers have not been noted and the properties have been described with their names, corresponding to the description found in Ex.A1. It can be inferred from the description of property found in Ex.B2 that the description found in Ex.A1 were borrowed and half share in each plot, which went to the share of Periyakullan @ Muruga Gounder was sought to be mortgaged. The extent stated therein cannot be taken as an extent ascertained after measurement. It is more probable that the extent mentioned in Ex.A1 had been borrowed for describing the extent of the property mortgaged under Ex.B2. 24. The incongruity of the case of the plaintiffs will be seen from the fact that even the plaint ‘C’ schedule property is claimed to be the property in which the first plaintiff owns undivided half share. It is pertinent to note that in the well shown as plaint 'C' schedule property, the first plaintiff's half share was conveyed to the first defendant in 1971 itself and still the plaintiffs have claimed it to be the common property of the defendants and the plaintiffs. It is pertinent to note that in the well shown as plaint 'C' schedule property, the first plaintiff's half share was conveyed to the first defendant in 1971 itself and still the plaintiffs have claimed it to be the common property of the defendants and the plaintiffs. However, the plaintiffs, applying different yardstick, have made a plea that in respect of item 5 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule properties, which is also a well, the half share belonging to the first defendant had been conveyed to the first plaintiff. Ex.A2 is the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the first plaintiff conveying his half share in the well in S.No.290/8. Admittedly, in the partition, the said well and the well described in plaint ‘C’ schedule were kept as common wells and the first plaintiff and the first defendant did have half share in each one of the said wells. For the sake of convenient enjoyment, the parties decided to make the well in S.No.290/8 to be the absolute property of the first plaintiffs and the well in S.No.290/2B described as plaint ‘C’ schedule property as absolute property of the first defendant. Accordingly the first defendant conveyed his half share in the well in S.No.290/8 in favour of the first plaintiff under Ex.A2 sale deed registered as Document No.2610/1971 in the office of the Assistant Registrar, Tiruppattur. On the same day, the first plaintiff executed a sale deed conveying his half share in the well situated in S.No.290/2B in favour of the first defendant. The said sale deed has been registered as Document No.2609/1997 in the office of the Assistant Registrar, Tiruppattur. After the execution of those sale deeds, namely Exs.A2 and A3, the plaintiffs did not have any right in the well situated in survey number 290/2B described as plaint ‘C’ schedule property, whereas the defendants did not have any share in the well in S.No.290/8 shown as item 5 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property. Unmindful of the said transfers and suppressing the same, the plaintiffs seem to have filed the suit claiming half share in the property described as plaint ‘C’ schedule. Unmindful of the said transfers and suppressing the same, the plaintiffs seem to have filed the suit claiming half share in the property described as plaint ‘C’ schedule. Both the courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any right in the plaint ‘C’ schedule property and hence the prayer made in the suit in respect of the plaint ‘C’ schedule property was liable to be rejected in toto. 25. The very fact that the plaintiffs chose to make such an untenable claim in respect of plaint ‘C’ schedule property, coupled with the fact that they were not able to state at what point of time the property described in plaint ‘B’ schedule was encroached upon by the first defendant and also the failure to produce any concrete evidence to show that at any point of time they did have patta in respect of a total extent of 21 Acres 17 cents which included plaint ‘B’ schedule property, will make it clear that the plaintiffs miserably failed to substantiate their contention that the suit ‘B’ schedule property belonged to them and that the first defendant had encroached upon the same. 26. The other aspect to be taken into consideration in this case is that, apart from the failure to produce documents showing that the plaintiffs were in possession of more extent than for which they had been granted patta in the UDR survey. The plaintiffs have also admitted that Ryotwari Patta issued pursuant to the Estate Abolition Act was in accordance with the enjoyment, updaed resurvey came to be completed in 1982 and the UDR patta issued was accepted without any murmur. The same will improbablise their case of the plaintiffs that they were the owners of plaint ‘B’ schedule property and patta for the same wrongly issued in the name of the first defendant. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that they were not served with statutory notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land and Boundaris Act, 1923 so as to contend that the re-survey patta would not be binding upon them. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that they were not served with statutory notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land and Boundaris Act, 1923 so as to contend that the re-survey patta would not be binding upon them. From the documents produced as Ex.A3, it is obvious that notice under Section 9(2) of Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 came to be issued in the year 1981 itself and the UDR patta also came to be issued for the Fasli 1391 itself. Thereafter, the plaintiffs kept quiet for about 9 years and then came forward with the suit for a declaration that they are entitled to the plaint ‘B’ schedule property and also for a mandatory injunction against the defendants 2 and 3 to change the patta issued in respect of the said property in favour of the first defendant and issue patta in the name of the first plaintiff. Such an belated approach to the court would also make it clear that the plaintiffs had filed the suit only as a gambling and that the lower appellate court, on proper appreciation of facts and reappreciation of evidence, arrived at the correct conclusion that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in respect of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property. 27. In this regard, it shall be noticed that the trial court, without taking into account the established principles and the statutory provisions regarding burden of proof, brushed aside the fact that the plaintiffs had not come to the court with a clear plea and they had also failed to adduce reliable and sufficient evidence to prove their contention by preponderance of probabilities, at least to the extent of causing the shifting of the burden on the defendants, erroneously made an observation that since the defendants had not produced their patta to show they had been granted patta for more than 19 acres an adverse inference shall be drawn against the defendants that the defendants and consequently the plaintiffs' case regarding the plaint ‘B’ schedule property should be upheld. Such an approach made by the learned trial judge seems to be erroneous leading to a perverse finding, wrongly casting the burden on the defendants and decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. Such an approach made by the learned trial judge seems to be erroneous leading to a perverse finding, wrongly casting the burden on the defendants and decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. The learned trial judge also failed to note that the plaintiffs could have produced RSR extracts and the adangal extracts to show what was the extent of property regarding which patta had been granted in favour of the defendants and the extent of property in the enjoyment of the defendants. Though such an opportunity was available to the plaintiffs, they had not utilised that opportunity to substantiate their case that plaint ‘B’ schedule property belonged to them and it was encroached upon by the first defendant. Without considering the said aspect and approaching the problem with a coloured vision, the trial court seems to have rendered a perverse finding and the lower appellate court has rightly setright the things by reversing the said finding and setting aside the decree of the trial court regarding the plaint ‘B’ schedule property. The lower appellate court has rightly modified the decree of the trial court as one of dismissal of the suit in its entirety. 28. However, the lower appellate court, while reversing the judgment of the trial court regarding the plaint 'B' schedule property and dismissing the suit in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property also, unnecessarily made an observation that the plaintiffs had lost title to the said property by ouster in case they had such a title in respect of the same before the alleged encroachment by the first defendant. Such an observation came to be made by the lower appellate court unnecessarily in the absence of any pleading and evidence on behalf of the first defendant to the said effect. The lower appellate court totally misconceived the issue forgetting the fact that the first defendant claimed that no part of the property allotted to the first plaintiff in the admitted oral partition was encroached upon by the first defendant; that his enjoyment was confined to the properties allotted to the father of the first defendant and that the extent allotted to each one was not 21 acres 17 1/2 cents as claimed by the plaintiffs and on the other hand, it was roughly 19.00 acres. On the basis of the said plea itself, evidence was led by both parties and the plaintiffs were not able to prove their case that the total extent purchased was 42 acres 35 cents and the properties allotted to the first plaintiff in the partition was 21 acres 17 1/2 cents and that any part of the property allotted to him was encroached upon by the first defendant. In the light of the above said facts pleaded and the evidence adduced, apart from coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had not proved their case that any part of their property had been encroached upon by the first defendant, the further finding made incidentally by the lower appellate court that even otherwise the first defendant would have perfected title by ouster and adverse possession in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property is quite unnecessary and unwarranted. The first substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 29. In view of the foregoing discussions, the second and third substantial questions of law are answered accordingly against the plaintiffs (appellants in the second appeal). This court finds no reason to interfere with the well-considered judgment and decree of the lower appellate court. There is no merit in the second appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. However, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.