JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 26.06.2000, passed in A.S.No.10/98 on the file of the Sub ordinate Court, Chidambaram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.06.1998, passed in O.S. No.168 of 1996, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Parangepettai. 2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court. 3. Suit for permanent injunction. 4. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that the suit property, originally a natham poromboke property was encroached by the first plaintiff's husband and the father of the second plaintiff more than 50 years ago and residing therein by putting up a thatched house and recognising their possession, patta had also been granted and the first plaintiff's husband, Rathinasamy regularised his possession by conforming to the conditions for the grant of the patta and thus, Rathinasamy became absolutely entitled to the suit property and thereafter, he also put up a pucca brick built house in the property and residing with his family members and in 1973, the Government made the grant of patta to Rathinasamy absolutely and thus Rathinasamy and thereafter the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by paying necessary house tax receipts etc., and on account of the long and continuous enjoyment, they had also perfected their title to the suit property by way of adverse possession. The first defendant, who is the brother of the deceased Rathinasamy and the second defendant is the wife and the third defendant is the son of the first defendant and they are residing in a thatched house in the site situated to the east of the suit property. It is also a natham poramboke property and while so, the defendants taking advantage of the absence of demarcation of the suit property and their property situated to the east of the suit property, attempted to encroach into the vacant portion of the suit property forcibly to which they are not entitled to and hence the suit for appropriate relief’s. 5. The case of the defendants, in brief, is that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The case of the defendants, in brief, is that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is true that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased Rathinasamy and the suit property is the undivided joint family property of the plaintiffs and the defendants and after the death of the Kuppa padaiyachi, the first plaintiff's husband being the elder member of the family was managing the family and accordingly, out of the income of the joint family, put up the house structure on the suit property and paying tax etc., and thus, the suit property is the undivided joint family property of the parties concerned and the suit property belonging to Rathinasamy and his brothers and sisters and also the legal heirs of the deceased brother and sister, the house in the suit property and the site absolutely belonging to the first defendant's father Kuppa padaiyachi and accordingly, both the plaintiffs and the defendants are residing in the suit property and for convenient enjoyment, they had put up separate super structures in the suit property and a common well located therein and hence, it is false to state that the defendants are attempting to encroach into the suit property and in fact the suit property was mortgaged by the first defendant and his mother Anjalai ammal in favour of the Subbaiya mudaliyar for a sum of Rs.300/- on 19.6.91 and the said debt is not yet discharged and accordingly, Subbaiya mudaliyar is also sharing the proceeds with the plaintiffs and the defendants and hence, the suit laid without any cause of action is liable to be dismissed. 6. In support of the plaintiffs' case PW1 has been examined and Exs. A1 to A10 were marked and on the side of the defendants DW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B15 were marked. In the first appellate Court, additional evidence have come to be marked as Ex.C1 and C2. 7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions, both Courts were pleased to dismiss the suit laid by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved over the same, the present second appeal has come to be preferred by the plaintiffs. 8. At the time of the admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration: 1. Aggrieved over the same, the present second appeal has come to be preferred by the plaintiffs. 8. At the time of the admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration: 1. Whether the findings of the Courts below are vitiated by its failure to consider the documentary evidence Exs.A1 to A9 and patta granted under Ex.A10 considering the evidence of PW1 and also the admission of DW1 and the patta under Ex.B6 in favour of the respondent? 2. Whether the lower appellate Court is right in holding that the suit property is a joint family property of the first respondent and the first appellant's husband on the basis of the Ex.B1 in which first appellant's husband is not a party and the said document is void? 3. Whether the findings of lower appellate Court are vitiated by its failure to consider the evidence of C1 and C2 by which the suit property came to be identified? 9. Claiming the suit property to be the absolute property of the first plaintiff's husband Rathinasamy and being in his possession and enjoyment and after his death continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and alleging that the defendants are attempting to encroach into the suit property without any authority, the suit has come to be laid by the plaintiffs for the relief of permanent injunction. The defendants are resisting the claim of the plaintiffs to title over the suit property, on the footing that the suit property is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and the defendants, which had been originally acquired by Kuppa padaiyachi, the father of the first defendant and accordingly, after his demise, his heirs are entitled to succeed to the suit property and accordingly, it is their further case that the defendants are also residing in a portion of the suit property and for convenient enjoyment, separate house structures had been put up and hence, no question of the defendants encroaching into the suit property as put forth by the plaintiffs arises and thus the suit is liable to be dismissed. 10. In the plaint, while describing the suit property, it has not been specifically stated about the extent of the suit site and only the measurement of the house structure put up in the suit property has been furnished. No doubt, the boundaries had been given. 10. In the plaint, while describing the suit property, it has not been specifically stated about the extent of the suit site and only the measurement of the house structure put up in the suit property has been furnished. No doubt, the boundaries had been given. It is thus found that inasmuch as the plaintiffs are unaware of the actual extent of the suit site, it is seen that they had given the measurement of the suit site as 0.05 ½ cents out of hectares 3.61. As regards the claim of title to the suit property by the plaintiffs, as rightly determined by the Courts below, the patta documents relied upon by the plaintiffs as well as the defendants marked as Ex.A10 and B6 cannot be relied upon as such, as they have come to be in existence after the dispute had arisen between the parties. The tax receipts marked on behalf of the plaintiffs as Ex.A1 to A8 also do not denote the extent of the house site to which the plaintiffs claim title. PW1, examined on behalf of the plaintiffs, has admitted that she does not know the extent of the suit site to which she claim title and she has not measured the same at any point of time and as rightly determined by the trial Court, the actual extent of the suit site on ground has not been established by the plaintiffs through a Commissioner. Therefore, when there is no document on the part of the plaintiffs to show the actual extent of the site to which they claim title and further, when according to the plaintiffs, the Government had granted patta in their favour and when the said document is not forth coming, it is seen that the trial Court has rightly not accepted the plaintiffs' case and accordingly dismissed the same. 11. That apart, as rightly determined by the first appellate Court, it is found that even during the year 1991 by way of Ex.B1 the suit property had been mortgaged to one Subbaiya by the first defendant and his mother Anjalai ammal and the said fact has not been controverted by the plaintiffs, though would only deny that they are not entitled to mortgage the suit property as such. However, till date, as rightly determined by the first appellate Court, no valid challenge has been made by the plaintiff to the same in the manner known to law. It is found that the said debt had yet not been discharged and accordingly, when already the suit property had been mortgaged by the first defendant and his mother, no doubt, Rathinasamy had not joined the execution of the Ex.B1, it is still found that as the suit property had been the joint family property of the parties concerned, it is seen that the first defendant and his mother dealt with the suit property under Ex.B1 by way of mortgaging the same, in favour of Subbaiya. Further as rightly determined by the first appellate Court, when admittedly the defendants are residing in the eastern side of the house, where the plaintiffs are residing and when there is no clear demarcation of the plaintiffs house and the defendants house and when under Ex.B1 it is found that a larger extent of the whole property had been mortgaged, it is seen that as rightly determined by the first appellate Court, the plaintiffs having not clearly established the measurement of the suit property, had laid the false suit on the footing that the same exclusively belongs to them. However, when the claim of the plaintiffs that they have title to the suit property as described in the plaint, had not been established by acceptable and documentary evidence and when the materials placed would go to show that the suit property had been dealt by the legal heirs of Kuppa padaiyachi as such, it is seen that merely on the basis of the house tax receipts produced by the plaintiffs, it cannot be held that the suit property as described in the plaint is in the exclusive possession of the plaintiffs and that they have exclusive title to the same as put-forth by them. Even in the plaint, it has been mentioned by the plaintiffs themselves that the suit property, being a natham poramboke property, had been originally encroached upon by Rathinasamy and Kuppa padaiyachi and accordingly, it is found that when it has been admitted that Kuppa padaiyachi had originally encroached into the suit property, it is natural, as rightly put forth by the defendants, the patta would have been granted only in his name and accordingly, it is found that his legal heirs namely, the first defendant and Anjalai ammal had dealt with the property under Ex.B1. Accordingly, it is the specific case of the defendants that the suit property is the property belonging to Kuppa padaiyachi and after his demise, his legal heirs are entitled to the same and in such view of the matter, when there is no material placed on the part of the plaintiffs to evidence that they have exclusive title to the same and also exclusive possession, the Courts below have rightly not accepted the plaintiffs case for the grant of the equitable relief of permanent injunction. 12. In the light of the above discussions, it is found that as such in my considered opinion, no substantial question of law is found to be involved in this second appeal. In any event, it is found that the first appellate Court has rightly held that the suit property had been jointly dealt with by the family members of Kuppa padiyachi by way of Ex.B1 and that Exs. C1 and C2 do not serve any basis for deciding the issues involved in this case and they were accordingly not considered by the first appellate Court and accordingly, it is further seen that the Courts below have rightly considered the materials placed on record in the right perspective and accordingly, non-suited the plaintiffs, which does not call for any interference. In such view of the matter, the substantial questions of law formulated are answered against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants. 13. In conclusion, the second appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any is closed.