JUDGMENT : R. Mahadevan, J. This Second Appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2006 passed in A.S. No. 9 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Trichirappalli, in reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2000 passed in O.S. No. 1588 of 1993, on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Trichy. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, according to their litigative status before the trial Court. 3. The case of the plaintiffs, is as follows: 3.1. The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm doing Beedi Manufacturing business under the name and style of M/s. B.S. Sundaravadivel Mudaliar & Sons and the firm has been duly registered under the provisions of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act. The plaintiffs are the owners of the properties and the same has been purchased by the plaintiffs under a registered sale deed dated 11.10.1969 from one Renganatha Konar. Ever since the date of purchase, the plaintiffs have been in actual possession and enjoyment of the entire width of the property up to its eastern extremity. It has been a vacant site and has been enclosed by compound walls. The deceased first defendant, who is the wife of the deceased second defendant, purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 22.12.1976 from one Dhanalakshmi Ammal, to an extent of 15 feet east to west and 45 feet north to south. It was a tiled structure at the time of purchase by the deceased first defendant. Prior to that, the deceased second defendant, by a registered sale deed dated 14.12.1972, had already purchased an extent of 30 feet east to west and 45 feet north to south, which was a hut, lying immediately on the east of the property purchased by the deceased first defendant, under the registered sale deed dated 22.12.1976. The defendants pulled down the superstructure in the properties purchased by them in the year 1985 and had built up pucca structures as one unit in the properties purchased under two registered sale deeds. At that time, the defendants had encroached upon 3 feet east to west to the entire length of 45 feet north to south lying immediately west of their property on the western side and the eastern extremity of the plaintiffs' property. At that time, the defendants had encroached upon 3 feet east to west to the entire length of 45 feet north to south lying immediately west of their property on the western side and the eastern extremity of the plaintiffs' property. The defendants have no right or possession to that extent of the property, i.e. 3 feet east to west and 45 feet north to south aggregating to 135 sq. ft. The Commissioner, in his report and plan, in I.A.No.1100 of 1987 in O.S.No.753 of 1987, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Trichy, explained the same. The said suit in O.S.No.753 of 1987 was filed by the defendants against the plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction. From the report of the Commissioner, it is clear that the defendants encroached upon the property of the plaintiffs and constructed a septic tank in the middle and drainage covering the entire property from south to north. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.1588 of 1993 for delivery of possession of the property marked as 'CDEF' in the plaint plan after removing the offending construction put up by the defendants. 4. In the written statement filed by the defendants, it is, inter alia, averred as follows: 4.1. The defendants denied the averments made by the plaintiffs in the plaint and stated that there is no such encroachment. The defendants' constructions exist in the suit property including their north to south drain as also a septic tank. They have installed their sun-shades projecting their western wall into the suit property. They have also installed drain pipes for draining their water from the ground floor and first floor into the drain running north to south. The defendants denied the averment that they have trespassed into the suit property in April 1987. On the other hand, they stated that the suit property was in possession and enjoyment of the deceased first defendant and her predecessors for more than several decades and they have perfected their title tro the same by long enjoyment over and above the statutory period. Thus, the suit claim is barred by limitation and that the plaintiffs' right, if any, has become extinguished by long possession and enjoyment of the deceased first defendant and her predecessors in title. The plaintiffs' property was not enclosed by compound walls in full. In fact, there is no compound wall on the north of the suit property. Thus, the suit claim is barred by limitation and that the plaintiffs' right, if any, has become extinguished by long possession and enjoyment of the deceased first defendant and her predecessors in title. The plaintiffs' property was not enclosed by compound walls in full. In fact, there is no compound wall on the north of the suit property. The suit property forms and serves as a convenient access for the deceased first defendant to enter and carry out repair works to her property and also for whitewashing the same. Thus, the defendants are not liable to vacate and deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs and hence, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 5. The suit in O.S. No. 1588 of 1993 filed by the plaintiffs herein, for delivery of possession of the property marked as 'CDEF' in the plaint plan after removal of the constructions put up therein, and the suit in O.S.No.753 of 1987 filed by the defendants herein, for permanent injunction, were tried together by the trial Court and the common evidence was let in. 6. Before the trial Court, P.W.1 (4th defendant in O.S.No.1588 of 1993) was examined and Exs.P.1 to P.16 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.753 of 1987/ defendants in O.S. No. 1588 of 1993. 7. On the side of the defendants in O.S. No. 753 of 1987/plaintiffs in O.S.No.1588 of 1993, D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked and also Exs.C.1 to C.9 as Court documents. 8. On consideration of the pleadings and evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit in O.S.No.1588 of 1993 and decreed the suit in O.S.No.753 of 1987. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the appeals in A.S. Nos. 8 and 9 of 2005 were filed by the plaintiffs and defendants respectively. The first appellate Court allowed both the appeals and ultimately, dismissed the suit in O.S. No. 753 of 1987 and decreed the suit in O.S. No. 1588 of 1993. 10. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, the third defendant in O.S. No. 1588 of 1993 has preferred the present second appeal, raising the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether the decree passed by the lower appellate Court is amenable to execution, when Ex.B.1 shows that there must be a dispute in the south-north portion and is it right in law? (ii) Whether the property in question was properly identified as satisfied by the lower appellate Court? (iii) Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is supported by material evidence? (iv) Whether the grant of relief by the Court below for recovery of possession is right in law, while unobjectionable construction had been taken place in the suit property as per material on record? (v) Whether the old survey number referred to in the suit property can be tallied with the new survey number without correlation certificate?" 11. The learned Counsel for the appellant/third defendant contended that the first appellate Court failed to consider the documentary evidence, in particular, Exs.A.1, A.2 and B.1, which would directly throw light on the case of the appellant that the property of the plaintiffs is situated elsewhere and not the suit property, but, the same has not been taken into account by the first appellate Court while reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Further, he contended that the plaintiffs did not prove their case that the defendants had encroached upon the suit property and that the evidence let in by the Surveyor as well as the Commissioner was not at all considered by the first appellate Court and therefore, the first appellate Court has committed an error in passing a decree for delivery of possession of the property marked as 'CDEF' and hence, he prayed for setting aside the same. 12. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 argued that the trial Court failed to consider the factual aspects in the light of the report of the Commissioner, however, the same has been rectified by the first appellate Court in the appeal and after going through the materials available on record, the first appellate Court has rightly decreed the suit in O.S.No.1588 of 1993, which warrants no interference by this Court and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the present second appeal. 13. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/third defendant and the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 5/plaintiffs. There is no representation for the respondents 6 to 9. 14. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that the property of the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 1588 of 1993 is situated on the western side of the property of the defendants. 13. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/third defendant and the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 5/plaintiffs. There is no representation for the respondents 6 to 9. 14. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that the property of the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 1588 of 1993 is situated on the western side of the property of the defendants. The deceased first defendant and his predecessors were in possession and enjoyment of the property, which was situated on the eastern side of the property of the plaintiffs. The deceased first defendant purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 14.12.1972, the western portion of the suit property measuring an extent of 15 feet east to west and 45 feet north to south and the deceased second defendant purchased the eastern portion of the suit property which was vacant at the time of purchase, on 22.12.1976. But, the plaintiffs purchased the suit property as per Ex.B1, in the year 1969. 15. The first appellate Court has gone into the material evidence in depth and found that as per Ex.C.5 - Survey Sketch, there was some encroachment and the same was clearly mentioned in Ex.C.5 and the vacant space is 2' and the drainage is 1' and the septic tank was also constructed within the limits of the plaintiffs' property. However, the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in detail and thereby, rejected the claim of the plaintiffs. 16. Further, the first appellate Court has also considered the evidence of the Surveyor as well as the Commissioner in properly identifying the suit property and hence, the contention of the appellant/third defendant that the first appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence regarding the identification of the suit property, has no force at all. 17. Whereas, the first appellate Court, on appraisal of the entire materials available on record, rightly found that Ex.C.5 clearly revealed that though the plaintiffs are having right upon 140' on the northern wall, however, the compound wall is to an extent of 137', but the remaining 3' is a vacant space, wherein the defendants encroached upon and constructed a drainage as well as a septic tank. 18. Even as per the evidence of D.W.2, it is found that the septic tank as well as the drainage were situated in the plaintiffs' property. 18. Even as per the evidence of D.W.2, it is found that the septic tank as well as the drainage were situated in the plaintiffs' property. In such a case, the trial Court erred in rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs, but the first appellate Court has rightly decreed the suit, by granting the relief of delivery of possession in favour of the plaintiffs. Hence, the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court warrants no interference by this Court. 19. Thus, this Court finds that no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for consideration in this second appeal. 20. In the result, this Second Appeal fails and the same is dismissed, however, without costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.