JUDGMENT P.R. Shivakumar, J. 1. The first defendant in the original suit is the appellant in the second appeal. The plaintiff in the original suit is the first respondent in the second appeal. Defendants 2 and 3 in the original suit are the respondents 2 and 3 in this second appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in accordance with their rankings in the original suit and at appropriate places, their ranks in the second appeal also will be mentioned when the Court feels necessary. O.S. No. 635 of 1987 came to be filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 3 (appellant and respondents 2 and 3) seeking the following reliefs: (i) A declaration that the suit property absolutely belongs to the plaintiff; and (ii) for a perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. 2. The suit property is described to be 19 cents of land bounded on the North by defendants' land, South by the remaining land belonging to the plaintiff, East by land of Radhakrishnan and West by land belonging to Subramanian Vagayara. The said property is said to be part of re-survey No. 59/1 in Melmalayanur village, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District. The said reliefs were sought for based on the contention that an extent of 4.12 acres comprised in Survey No. 59/1, originally belonged to Rajaram Reddiar and Lakshmi Narayana Reddiar and in the oral partition that took place 20 or 25 years prior to the filing of the suit, Rajaram Reddiar was allotted 1.87 acres on the Northern part and the remaining extent of 2.25 acres on the South was allotted to Lakshmi Narayana Reddiar; that the 2.25 acres, which fell to the share of Lakshmi Narayana Reddiar, was purchased by the plaintiff under a sale deed dated 21.05.1985; that while executing the sale deed, the extent of the property conveyed was, by mistake, noted as 2.06 acres instead of 2.25 acres and that though the sale deed recited an extent of 2.06 acres as the property purchased by the plaintiff, she got possession of the entire extent of 2.25 acres. The further contention raised by the plaintiff is that there is a ridge dividing the southern portion purchased by the plaintiff having an extent of 2.25 acres and the northern portion having an extent of 1.87 acres, which fell to the share of Rajaram Reddiar; that the defendants, who purchased the share of Rajaram Reddiar, besides making an attempt to measure the property by submitting a petition to the surveyor for taking the excess extent of 19 cents allotted to the vendor of the plaintiff, were also making attempts to obliterate the ridge dividing the two portions and that the same forced the plaintiff to file the suit for establishing her title and for protecting her possession by seeking the reliefs of declaration and injunction. The plaintiff also incorporated a plea in the plaint that even if the case of the plaintiff that her vendor was allotted 2.25 acres in the partition could not be accepted to be correct, since she was in possession and enjoyment of 2.25 acres which included the 19 cents of suit property, she had perfected title by adverse possession in respect of the suit property. 3. The suit was resisted by the defendants contending that the plaint averment that there was in-equal partition in which Lakshmi Nara-yana Reddiar was allotted 2.25 acres, whereas Rajarama Reddiar was allotted 1.87 acres, was a false one; that on the other hand, without measuring the property, the said persons divided the property equally among them and thus, Lakshmi Narayana Reddiar got 2.06 acres on the South, whereas Rajarama Reddiar got 2.06 acres on the North; that the same was also reflected in the sale deeds under which the parties to the suit purchased their portions from their respective vendors and that hence the claim of title made by the plaintiff in respect of the suit property having an extent of 19 cents could not be sustained. It was their further contention that since they were the real owners of the property, the claim of injunction by the plaintiff against them also deserved to be rejected. Based on the above said pleadings, the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 4. The learned trial Judge framed necessary issues and conducted the trial. In the trial, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws. 1 and 2 and eight documents were marked as Exs. Based on the above said pleadings, the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 4. The learned trial Judge framed necessary issues and conducted the trial. In the trial, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws. 1 and 2 and eight documents were marked as Exs. A1 to A8 on the side of the plaintiff and three witnesses were examined as D.Ws. 1 to 3 and five documents were marked as Exs. B1 to B5 on the side of the defendants. 5. The learned trial Judge, on an appreciation of evidence, discountenanced the contention of the plaintiff that Lakshmi Narayana Reddiar and Rajaram Reddiar were allotted in-equal extents in the admitted oral partition. On the other hand, the learned trial Judge held that the preponderance of probabilities pointed to the fact that equal extents were allotted to Lakshmi Narayana Reddiar and Rajaram Reddiar and the same was reflected in the sale deeds executed by them and that hence the claim of the title based on the alleged allotment of shares with in-equal extent could not be sustained. So far as the claim of adverse possession is concerned, the same was also negatived by the trial court holding that the necessary ingredients to constitute adverse possession were not proved to exist. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge, by a judgment and decree dated 11.10.1991, dismissed the suit with costs. 6. Aggrieved by the same and challenging the decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal on the file of the Sub Court, Tindivanam in A.S. No. 124 of 1991. In the said appeal, she filed an application in I.A. No. 74 of 1994 for reception of additional evidence. The learned lower appellate Judge, who allowed the said application, marked three documents produced by the plaintiff as Exs. A9 to A11 and took them also into consideration for deciding the issues that were raised in the appeal. 7. The learned lower appellate Court, by a judgment and decree dated 30.06.1999, accepted the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had perfected title by adverse possession in respect of the suit property having an extent of 19 cents, even though it held that the claim of the plaintiff that in the oral partition shares of in-equal extents were allotted to Lakshminarayana Reddiar and Rajaram Reddiar, was not substantiated. Accordingly, the learned lower appellate Judge allowed the appeal, set aside the decree passed by the trial court and decreed the suit in respect of both the reliefs. It is against the said decree of the lower appellate Court dated 30.06.1999, the present second appeal has been filed. 8. The second appeal was admitted on 05.08.2005 noting the following questions to be substantial questions of law that have arisen for consideration in the second appeal:- "(1) Whether the findings of the Courts below are vitiated by erroneously relying upon the chitta extracts and adangal, which came into existence after the suit under Ex. A9 to A11 in a suit for injunction on the basis of the title? (2) Whether the findings of the lower appellate Court are vitiated regarding the title of the suit property, especially when the documents of title relied upon by the first respondent do not cover in the suit property viz., 19 cents? (3) Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in holding that in any event that the first respondent is in possession of the suit property beyond the statutory period in the absence of any positive and acceptable evidence and the suit having been filed in the year 1987, two years after the purchase under Ex. A1?" 9. The arguments advanced by Mr. J. Antony Jesus, learned counsel for the first defendant (appellant in the second appeal) and by Ms. N. Mala, learned counsel for the plaintiff (the first respondent in the second appeal) are heard. The judgments of the Courts below and the materials available on record sent for from the Courts below are perused and they are also taken into consideration. 10. At the outset, this Court wants to point out that the substantial questions of law formulated at the time of admission contain some mistakes and hence, they need to be recast. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are re-framed and recast as follows:- "(1) Whether the finding of the Lower Appellate Court based on Exs. A9 to All, which came into existence after the filing of the suit, that the plaintiff (first respondent) has perfected title by adverse possession, is vitiated? Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are re-framed and recast as follows:- "(1) Whether the finding of the Lower Appellate Court based on Exs. A9 to All, which came into existence after the filing of the suit, that the plaintiff (first respondent) has perfected title by adverse possession, is vitiated? (2) Whether the finding of the Lower Appellate Court that the plaintiff (first respondent in the second appeal) had perfected title by adverse possession, in the absence of positive and reliable evidence, is perverse, especially in the light of the fact that the suit came to be filed within two years after the purchase made by the plaintiff under Ex. A1?" 11. The question formulated as second substantial question of law at the time of admission of the second appeal is omitted, because such a question does not arise and the said question seems to have been projected on an erroneous assumption that the lower appellate Court rendered a finding upholding the title of the plaintiff on the basis of the plaint averment that what she had purchased was 2.25 acres and not 2.06 acres as found in Ex. A1 and that there was a mistake in the sale deed produced as Ex. A1. In fact, the lower appellate Court has rendered a finding that the entire property comprised in S. No. 59/1 having an extent of 4.12 acres was equally divided between the vendors of the parties to the suit and the plaintiff purchased only an extent on 2.06 acres and not 2.25 acres as contended by her. However, the learned lower appellate Judge chose to uphold the claim of the plaintiff on the basis of the finding that she was able to prove her claim of perfection of title by adverse possession in respect of the excess extent, viz., 19 cents of land, which has been shown as the suit property. Hence the second question formulated at the time of admission does not deserve consideration, as the same came to be formulated on a misconception and misinterpretation of the judgment of the lower appellate Court. Hence, the two questions which have been re-formulated and recast alone remain to be answered by this Court in this judgment. 12. Hence the second question formulated at the time of admission does not deserve consideration, as the same came to be formulated on a misconception and misinterpretation of the judgment of the lower appellate Court. Hence, the two questions which have been re-formulated and recast alone remain to be answered by this Court in this judgment. 12. Admittedly, an extent of 4.12 acres comprised in S. No. 59/1 in Melmalayanur village jointly belong to Lakshmi Narayana Reddiar and Rajaram Reddiar and both of them were entitled to equal moieties. It is also an admitted fact that 20 or 25 years prior to the filing of the suit, the said property was orally divided between Lakshmi Narayana Reddiar and Rajaram Reddiar. According to the plaintiff, the shares allotted to them were not equal in extent and Rajaram Reddiar was allotted a lesser extent viz., 1.87 acres, whereas Lakshmi Narayana Reddiar was allotted larger extent viz., 2.25 acres. The said contention is refuted by the defendants contending that there was no such division allotting of shares in-equal in extent and on the other hand, each one of the above said two persons were allotted equal extent, viz., 2.06 acres. When the parties admit that there was an oral partition among the co-owners who were entitled to equal moieties, unless otherwise it is proved that in-equal shares in extent were allotted, it shall be presumed that the shares allotted were equal in extent and value. 13. The plaintiff, who came forward with the suit contending that her vendor Lakshmi Narayana Reddiar was allotted more extent, has not chosen to enter the witness box to substantiate her contention. On the other hand, her husband by name Ponnusamy alone deposed as PW 1. A perusal of the evidence of P.W. 4 will show that neither the plaintiff nor P.W. 1 were aware of the particulars of the partition effected between Lakshmi Narayana Reddiar and Rajaram Reddiar. In addition, a perusal of the testimony of P.W. 1 would reveal how unreliable he is. He goes to the extent of stating that it was he who filed the suit and his wife, viz., plaintiff, had nothing to do with the suit. In the light of the said evidence itself, the suit could have been thrown out. In addition, a perusal of the testimony of P.W. 1 would reveal how unreliable he is. He goes to the extent of stating that it was he who filed the suit and his wife, viz., plaintiff, had nothing to do with the suit. In the light of the said evidence itself, the suit could have been thrown out. Though the plaintiff claims that, in the oral partition between Lakshmi Narayana Reddiar and Rajaram Reddiar, her vendor Lakshmi Narayana Reddiar was allotted 2.25 acres, surprisingly, she got the sale deed under Ex. A1 on 21.05.1985 in respect of 2.06 acres alone. 14. The property purchased by the plaintiff under Ex. A1 has been described to be bounded on the North by the property of the defendants' land. Admittedly, the extent purchased has also been clearly noted as 2.06 acres. The defendants purchased the northern portion having an extent of 2.06 acres under Ex. B1, nearly six years prior to the purchase made by the plaintiff. P.W. 1 has made several admissions during cross examination, which will go against the plaintiff. The relevant portion in vernacular is extracted here under: (the exact deposition as recorded by the trial court with all mistakes without corrections have been reproduced) 15. The very fact that P.W. 1 made an admission at the time of purchase made by the plaintiff that he was not aware of the fact that there was an excess extent of 19 cents allotted to the vendor of the plaintiff and on the other hand the same came to his knowledge only when U.D.R. survey was made, will falsify the claim of the plaintiff that in the oral partition, Lakshmi Narayana Reddiar was allotted 2.25 acres and Rajaram Reddiar was allotted only 1.87 acres. The said inference shall be strengthened by the fact that both Lakshmi Narayana Reddiar and Rajarama Reddiar sold only 2.06 acres respectively to the plaintiff and the defendants. In fact, the defendants had purchased 2.06 acres, six years prior to the purchase made by the plaintiff, under Ex. B1. If at all in-equal extents were allotted in the partition, the same would have reflected in the sale deeds executed by the Lakshmi Narayana Reddiar and Rajaram Reddiar respectively under Ex. A1 and Ex. B1. In fact, the defendants had purchased 2.06 acres, six years prior to the purchase made by the plaintiff, under Ex. B1. If at all in-equal extents were allotted in the partition, the same would have reflected in the sale deeds executed by the Lakshmi Narayana Reddiar and Rajaram Reddiar respectively under Ex. A1 and Ex. B1. Since both the sale deeds purported to convey 2.06 acres each, the preponderance of probabilities will point out the fact that there was a partition in which shares with equal extent were allotted to both the sharers and that the contention of the plaintiff that Lakshmi Narayana Reddiar was allotted more extent has got to be rejected as untenable. 16. The learned lower appellate Judge has arrived at a correct conclusion that the vendor of the plaintiff and the vendor of the defendants were entitled to 2.06 acres alone as found in the sale deeds marked as Ex. A1 and Ex. B1. However, the learned lower appellate Judge proceeded further to hold that the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of a total extent of 2.25 acres and by such enjoyment, she was able to substantiate her case of perfection of title by adverse possession in respect of the excess extent of 19 cents of land. No document showing that the plaintiff was in possession of an extent of 2.25 acres, which included 19 cents of land shown as the suit property, came to be produced before the trial court. On the other hand, the lower appellate Court allowed three documents that came to be produced as additional documents and they are nothing but the copies of the adangal extract, copy of the settlement register and copy of the chitta. 17. Ex. A9 is the adangal extract relating to the faslis 1395 to 1400. They are in the names of Lakshminarayanan. The original suit came to be filed in the year 1987. The adangal extracts relate to the period starting from just three years prior to the filing of the suit. Ex. A10, extract of the settlement register, shows that patta for the Survey No. 59/1D having an extent of 0.91.0 hectares, came to be issued in the name of Lakshminarayana Reddiar and the revenue entries stood in his name for the faslis 1395 to 1400. The chitta extract for the faslis 1395 to 1400 has been produced as Ex. A11. Ex. A10, extract of the settlement register, shows that patta for the Survey No. 59/1D having an extent of 0.91.0 hectares, came to be issued in the name of Lakshminarayana Reddiar and the revenue entries stood in his name for the faslis 1395 to 1400. The chitta extract for the faslis 1395 to 1400 has been produced as Ex. A11. It shows patta No. 532 had been issued jointly in the names of Lakshminarayana Reddiar, Chakrapani Chettiar and Chinnakolandaiammal. Those three documents relate to the period subsequent to the execution of Ex. A1 sale deed by Lakshminarayana Reddiar in favour of the plaintiff. The copies of extracts of the revenue records came to be obtained only during the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate Court. Though those documents were obtained during the pendency of the appeal, they relate to the period 1395 fasli to 1400 fasli. Even if the said documents are taken into account, the same will not support the case of the first respondent/plaintiff that she had been in possession and enjoyment of the total extent of 2.25 acres including the 19 cents of land, which is shown as the suit property. Besides producing those documents, which relate to the periods subsequent to her purchase, plaintiff has not chosen to produce the revenue records showing the extent of property in the possession and enjoyment of the defendants. The documents produced by the plaintiff at the best would show that she was in possession and enjoyment of 2.25 acres of land including the suit property measuring 19 cents. But her contention that she had perfected title by adverse possession does not stand substantiated, as the said documents are not enough to prove that she was in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 2.25 acres including the suit property for more than the statutory period. 18. In this regard, it is pertinent to point out that the suit came to be filed by her within two years after the purchase made by her under Ex. Al. 18. In this regard, it is pertinent to point out that the suit came to be filed by her within two years after the purchase made by her under Ex. Al. Besides the absence of documents to show that her vendor Lakshminarayana Reddiar was in possession of an extent of 2.25 acres including the 19 cents of land shown as suit property, there is total absence of evidence regarding the mental element to constitute the possession of Lakshminarayana Reddiar as an adverse possession against Rajaram Reddiar, the vendor of the defendants or the defendants after their purchase. In this regard, the plaintiff also failed to examine her vendor to prove that her vendor was in possession of 2.25 acres and his possession in respect of the excess extent was with an animus to possess the same adverse to the real owner, namely, the vendor of the defendants and after the purchase made by the defendants, against the defendants. The plaintiff, who has come forward with a plea that she perfected title by adverse possession, who may ever refer to the possession of her predecessor-in-title which was continued by her, ought to have proved by reliable evidence that the possession was not only physical, but it was coupled with the animus to constitute adverse possession. The evidence of P.W. 1, the husband of the plaintiff, makes it clear that there could not have been any such mental element (animus) to possess the excess extent adverse to that of Rajaram Reddiar and subsequently to the defendants. He has made a clear admission that what he purchased was only 2 acres and 6 cents; that he did not measure the land and that at the time of purchasing the land, he was not aware of the fact that there was an excess extent of 19 cents in possession of his vendor. It is the further admission made by him that only during the U.D.R. survey, he came to know that there was an excess extent and the total extent in his possession was found to be 2.25 acres. The above said admission will be enough to rule out the animus to constitute adverse possession in respect of the suit property. It is the further admission made by him that only during the U.D.R. survey, he came to know that there was an excess extent and the total extent in his possession was found to be 2.25 acres. The above said admission will be enough to rule out the animus to constitute adverse possession in respect of the suit property. Either due to the fact that the dividing ridge had been provided in such a way that the northern portion measures 1.87 acres and the southern portion measures 2.25 acres or because of the shifting of the dividing ridge northwards, the vendor of the plaintiff and, subsequent to Ex. A1, the plaintiff was in possession of 2.25 acres, which includes the suit property measuring 19 cents. In the light of the above said admissions made by P.W. 1 and in the light of the fact that there is absence of evidence to clearly prove that the plaintiff and her predecessor-in-title were in possession of the suit property for more than 12 years with the necessary animus to constitute their possession, an adverse possession against the real owners, the learned lower appellate Judge committed not only an error, but rendered a perverse finding that the plaintiff proved her plea of perfection of title by adverse possession in respect of the 19 cents of land, which is shown as the suit property. 19. The reasons assigned above will make it clear that the plaintiff failed to prove her derivative title in respect of the suit property and also miserably failed to substantiate her contention that she perfected title by adverse possession in respect of the suit property. The learned trial Judge, on proper appreciation of evidence, rendered a correct finding and dismissed the suit. The learned lower appellate Judge, on a misconception of the scope of the plea of adverse possession and without proper re-appreciation of evidence adduced on the side of the plaintiff and disregarding the fact that the plaintiff had not adduced sufficient evidence to prove perfection of title by adverse possession, rendered a perverse finding and the same resulted in the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court setting aside the decree of the trial Court and granting the decree of declaration and injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff. The said judgment of the lower appellate Court and the decree of the lower appellate Court are infirm, defective and liable to be interfered with and set aside, as the same is based on a perverse finding regarding the proof of perfection of title by adverse possession. Hence the two substantial questions of law which have been re-framed and recast in the second appeal are answered accordingly in favour of the appellant/first defendant and against the first respondent/plaintiff. For all the reasons stated above, this Court comes to the conclusion that the appeal shall succeed. In the result, the second appeal is allowed, the decree of the lower appellate Court is set aside, the decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit in entirety shall stand restored. However, there shall be no order as to costs, as the learned counsel for the appellant does not seriously press for the same.