JUDGMENT R. Tharani, J. Heard Mr.N.Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Athimoola Pandian, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal is filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil in A.S.No.80 of 2008 dated 14.07.2009 confirming the Judgment and Decree of the learned Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil dated 29.07.2008 in O.S.No.57 of 2007. 3. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent herein is the defendant in the suit. The case of the plaintiff appellant herein is that the properties belonged to the appellant's trust and it is a patta land. But it is wrongly stated in the municipal records as 'poramboke'. The respondent trespassed into the property and laid a road in a portion of the property and the respondent is trying to construct a drainage in the suit property and the appellant has filed suit for declaration of title and for mandatory injunction to remove the encroachment and for a permanent injunction. 4. The case of the defendant respondent herein is that the suit property is a poramboke land and the property was used as a street and the south side houses were given electricity connection through the EB post erected in the suit property. Even if the property belonged to the plaintiff, the rights of the appellant herein is affected by latches and acquiescence. After the trial, the learned District Munsif dismissed the suit. Against the same, the appellant filed a appeal in A.S.No.80 of 2008 before the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil. The learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil confirmed the Judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif. Against the concurrent Judgments of the lower Courts, the appellant has approached this Court by way of second appeal. 5. On the side of the appellant five substantial question of laws are raised, which are reads as follows (a) Whether the Courts below have formulated the necessary points under Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C., (b) Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that the plaintiff did not prove his case especially when the defendant admits the title of the plaintiff by raising the plea of acquiescence (C) Whether the Courts below are correct in shifting the burden on plaintiff (d) Whether the Courts below properly appreciated the oral documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff and traversed the pleading of the parties. (e) Whether the I Appellate Court has properly appreciated the document since final Court of fact finding Court 6. Since question no.(d) and (e) are not questions of law. Only questions nos.(a) to (c) are to be considered by this Court. 7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the suit property belonged to a private trust. But it was wrongly stated in the Municipal records, as 'Promboke' land and the appellant prayed for the declaration of the title. For proving the title, the appellant herein has marked Ex.A5, which is the copy of the Judgment of the Sub Court in O.S.No.102 of 1983 and Ex.A7, which is a tax receipt. It is seen that in Ex.A5, the suit property is cited as the item 12 schedule property and in Ex.A7, Survey No.125-2 is marked as Government Poramboke and Survey No.125-3 is in the name of Maadasamy, Sankaralingam, Ramaya and Manikam and Survey No.125-5 is in the name of Vinayakar Vakai Trust. It is stated that though the trial Court has considered these documents, it has decided that this documents did not confer any title to the appellant. 8. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that the burden is upon the appellant to prove the case and the appellant has failed to prove that A schedule and B schedule private channel are within the limits of his patta land. It is further stated that the appellant was examined as P.W.1 and he has deposed that Thar Road and lamp post are there for the past 40 years and he has admitted that for the past 40 years, the road is available. It is further stated that in Ex.A4, the suit property is stated as road and in Ex.A5, this suit property is not mentioned. Ex.A5 is relating to Survey No.125-8 and not related to the suit property and it is clear from Ex.A7 that the suit property is not in the name of the trust in the revenue records. It is further argued that the suit property is a road poramboke being used by the public for the past 40 years and the B schedule property could not be separated from A schedule property and the appellant has failed to take steps to measure the property to prove that a portion of his patta land is included in the schedule of property. It is further stated that Survey No.125-3, the portion mentioned as ABCD is used as public path way and the appellant failed to prove that the property belonged to the trust and the burden is only upon the appellant to prove the case and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 9. Records perused. The first question raised by the appellant is that in the Judgment of first Appellate Court, the points for determination is not stated under Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC. A perusal of the records reveals that the first Appellate Court has framed fresh points for consideration. The issues framed are stated in the fourth paragraph of the Judgment . Hence, it is decided that the first question law raised by the appellant is not correct to this case. 10. The appellant has not produced any document to show that the respondent has admitted the title of the appellant. There is no question of acquiescence’s. From the records, it is clear that the revenue documents are not in the name of the appellant. 11. The third question of law raised by the appellant is that the Court below is incorrect in shifting the burden on the plaintiff to prove the case. It is well settled law that the plaintiff has to prove his case. Even in the evidence of P.W.1, it is admitted that the suit schedule property is used as a road for the past 40 years. The Commissioner's report also reveals that the scheduled property is used as a public pathway. So it is wrong on the part of the appellant to state that the respondent has admitted the title of the appellant. Both the lower Courts are correct in fixing the burden of proof upon the plaintiff appellant. 12. In the above circumstances, there is no question of law to be decided in this case and the appeal is devoid of merits and the Second Appeal is dismissed confirming the Judgment passed by the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil in A.S.No.80 of 2008. No costs.