JUDGMENT C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J. 1. This Second appeal had been filed by the 1st defendant namely, the Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Kallal in O.S.No.228 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Karaikudi. 2. O.S.No.228 of 1996 had been filed by the plaintiff T.N.S. Panchanathan Chettiar against the Commissioner Panchayat Union, Kallal and the District Collector, Sivagangai, seeking a Judgment and decree for declaration of title of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants or anybody else from putting up any construction in the suit property. 3. The suit property was described as three cents of natham land out of 1.35 acres in new survey no.414/6, old survey No.119/11 in Managiri Village, Thalakavur Panchayat, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District. 4. This suit came up for consideration before the learned District Munsif, Karaikudi, who, by judgment and decree dated 27.08.1997, dismissed the suit. The 1st appeal in A.S.No.1 of 1998, filed by the plaintiff came up for consideration, the Sub Court, Devakottai. By judgment and decree dated 28.07.1998, the appeal was allowed and the judgment in O.S.No.228 of 1996 was reversed. Challenging that judgment, the 1st defendant, the Commissioner Panchayat Union, Kallal had filed the present 2nd appeal. 5. This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :- 1. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in deciding that the respondent is entitled to the suit property when there are no documents like patta, chitta, adangal extract etc. to prove his possession or title either in his name or his predecessors in title ? 2. Whether the Lower Appellate Court committed an error in interpretation of Title-deeds like Ex.A.1 ? 3. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in relying upon the sale deed in Ex.A.1 to give title to the respondent in respect of the suit property ? 6. O.S.No.228 of 1996 The suit had been filed by T.N.S Panchanathan Chettiyar against the Commissioner Panchayat Union, Kallal and the District Collector, Sivagangai seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to the suit property measuring 3 cents out of 1.35 acres in new survey No.411/6, old survey No.119/11 in Managiri Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District. According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to his grandfather C.N. Nachiyappa Chettiyar. It was purchased on 20.07.1922. According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to his grandfather C.N. Nachiyappa Chettiyar. It was purchased on 20.07.1922. It was stated that from that date the family of the plaintiff had been in possession of the suit property. It was a joint family property. Agriculture was cultivated in the said property. It was stated that the former President of the Panchayat, Arjunan Ambalam had granted a certificate dated 2.6.1990 stating that the suit property belonged to the family of the plaintiff. Thereafter, by resolution dated 15.02.1991, the fact was also recorded in the panchayat records and a certificate was also given on 22.04.1991. It was stated that the plaintiff and his family members often went to Tirupur for business purposes several occasions and the absence was taken advantage by several people who tried to encroach into the property. It was stated that the Panchayat Union of Kallal decided to construct a Kalyana Mandapam in the said property. They also commenced the construction. This was protested by the plaintiff. When the plaintiff issued a notice dated 17.07.1996, a reply was issued with false allegations. The plaintiff had submitted an application seeking patta for the property. Since the defendants tried to interfere with his possession and attempted to put up construction, the suit had been filed seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction from putting up construction in the suit property. 7. The 1st defendant filed written statement. In the written statement it has been stated that the description of the property in the suit and the description of the property in the documents filed along with the suit totally varied. It had been stated that the property was never the family property of the plaintiff. It was further stated that the plaintiff was not in possession of the property and consequently, the relief of injunction cannot be granted. It was specifically denied that the plaintiff had done agricultural activities in the property. It was further stated that in the revenue records the land was shown as poromboke land. Patta had not been granted to anybody for the said lands. It was classified as Natham Poromboke land in the revenue records. It was therefore stated that the plaintiff was not entitled for the relief of declaration of title. It was stated that the suit should be dismissed. 8. Patta had not been granted to anybody for the said lands. It was classified as Natham Poromboke land in the revenue records. It was therefore stated that the plaintiff was not entitled for the relief of declaration of title. It was stated that the suit should be dismissed. 8. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the learned District Munsif, Karaikudi framed the following issues for consideration : 1. Whether the suit property belonged to the plaintiff ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction ? 3. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to ? 9. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and another independent witness was examined as P.W.2. On the side of the defendants three witnesses were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.3. The plaintiff marked Exs.A.1 to A.15. Ex.A.1 is the sale deed in the name of Nachiappa Chettiyar dated 20.07.1922. Ex.A.2 is the resolution of the panchayat dated 15.02.1991. Ex.A.4 is the Advocate notice issued by the plaintiff. Ex.A.7 is the letter written by the Kallal Panchayat Union Commissioner dated 17.07.1996. Ex.A.14 dated 18.02.1993 is the petition submitted by the plaintiff seeking patta. 10. On the side of the defendants Exs.B.1 to Exs.B.5 were marked. Ex.B.1 dated 25.02.1991 is the copy of the proceedings of the panchayat. Ex.B.2 dated 27.08.1996 is the letter written by the Tahsildhar to the 1st defendant. Ex.B.3 & Ex.B.4 are the FMB sketch and adangal for the suit property. During trial, the Commissioner's report was marked as Ex.C.1 and rough sketch was marked as Ex.C.2. 11. By judgment dated 27.08.1997, the learned District Munsif, Karaikudi discussed the evidence on record. He considered Ex.A.1 the sale deed dated 20.07.1922. It was found that the suit schedule property had the survey No.414/6. The total area of the said survey number was 1.35 acres, wherein, a Kalyana Mandapam, was sought to be built for 3 cents out of the 1.35 acres. He considered the contention of the defendants that the description of the suit property varied with the property mentioned in Ex.A.1. He examined Ex.A.1 and found that in Ex.A.1, the survey number of the property was not given. It was also found that there were differences in the boundary of the property given in Ex.A.1 and for the property in survey No.414/6. He examined Ex.A.1 and found that in Ex.A.1, the survey number of the property was not given. It was also found that there were differences in the boundary of the property given in Ex.A.1 and for the property in survey No.414/6. In Ex.A.1 the Southern boundary was given as the lands belonged to Rangappa Chettiyar and Karuppanan Chettiyar. On the other hand, in the plaint the southern boundary was given as East-West road. Even in the Commissioner's report the southern boundary was given as East-West road. Consequently, the learned District Munsif held that Ex.A.1 did not correlate to the suit property. The learned District Munsif also considered Ex.A.2 and found that again the boundaries differed. In view of the fact that there were differences in the boundaries, the learned District Munsif observed that the suit property had not been properly identified and consequently held that the relief of declaration of title cannot be granted. It was also found that in the revenue records, Survey No.414/6 had been classified as Natham poromboke land and consequently, he further held that both the reliefs of declaration of title and injunction cannot be granted. The suit was therefore, dismissed. 12. A.S.No.1 of 1998 Challenging the dismissal of O.S.No.228 of 1996 the plaintiff filed A.S.No.1 of 1998 before the Sub Court, Devakottai. This appeal came up for consideration before the learned Subordinate Judge and by Judgment dated 28.07.1998, the learned Subordinate Judge, re-examined the evidences on record and framed points for determination. The learned Judge found that the property had been in possession of the family of the plaintiff for a considerable period of time from 20.07.1922. It was also found that under the instigation of the Panchayat President, a decision was taken to put up Kalyana Mandapam in the property. It was found that prior to this, permission of the plaintiff had been obtained to put up a shelter for Mothers and Children in Survey No.414/6. However, with respect to the decision to put up Kalyana Mandapam, the consent of the plaintiff was not obtained. It was also found stated that as a matter of fact a Maternity Hospital was also constructed and that the plaintiff had not raised any objection for such construction. However, with respect to the decision to put up Kalyana Mandapam, the consent of the plaintiff was not obtained. It was also found stated that as a matter of fact a Maternity Hospital was also constructed and that the plaintiff had not raised any objection for such construction. It was stated that when the plaintiff had not objected to put up construction of the Maternity Hospital and Shelter for Mother and Children, there were no reason why consent was not obtained to construct the Kalyana Mandapam. It was stated that consequently, the property could not be natham poromboke land. During the pendency of the appeal, further documents were permitted to be marked on the side of the appellant as Exs.A.16 to A.20. Ex.A.16 is the sale deed dated 09.09.1903 in favour of C.N.Nachiyappa Chettiyar. Ex.A.17 is the sale deed dated 20.10.1911 in the name of Kallungappa Chettiyar, Exs.A.18 to A.20 are the pleadings in another suit filed by the defendant in District Munsif Court, Devakottai. Even during the pendency of the appeal, a commissioner was appointed and he filed two reports and two rough sketches which were marked as Ex.C.3 to Ex.C.6. On the basis of these documents, holding that the plaintiff has established title to the property and also holding that the defendants had continued put up construction pending suit, the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.228 of 1996. 13. S.A.No.1862 of 2000 Challenging the said judgment and decree of the 1st appellate Court, the 1st defendant, the Commissioner, Kallal Panchayat Union had filed the present appeal. As stated above, the 2nd appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in deciding that the respondent is entitled to the suit property when there are no documents like patta, chitta, adangal extract etc. to prove his possession or title either in his name or his predecessors in title ? 2. Whether the Lower Appellate Court committed an error in interpretation of Title-deeds like Ex.A.1 ? 3. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in relying upon the sale deed in Ex.A.1 to give title to the respondent in respect of the suit property ? 14. 2. Whether the Lower Appellate Court committed an error in interpretation of Title-deeds like Ex.A.1 ? 3. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in relying upon the sale deed in Ex.A.1 to give title to the respondent in respect of the suit property ? 14. Pending the appeal, the 1st respondent T.N.S.Panchanatha Chettiyar, who was the plaintiff in O.S.No.228 of 1996 died and his legal heirs were brought on record as respondents 3 to 8. The 3rd respondent also died and since her legal heirs were already on record, a memo was filed to that effect. During the course of hearing, the name of the 6th respondent, which had been wrongly given as Balu, was corrected as Banumathi. 15. Heard, arguments advanced by Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Additional Government Pleader for 2nd respondent and Mr.S.Karthik, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 8. 16. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendants. The 1st defendant is the appellant and the 2nd defendant is the 2nd respondent. The legal heirs of the plaintiff are the respondents 4 to 8. 17. The plaintiff, T.N.S.Panchanathan Chettiyar had filed O.S.No.228 of 1996 seeking declaration of title of the suit property and also permanent injunction restraining the Commissioner Panchayat Union, Kallal and the District Collector, Sivagangai, from putting up any further construction over the suit property. The suit property had been described in the schedule to the plaint as measuring 3 cents out of 1.35 acres in Natham new survey No.414/6, Natham old survey No.119/11 in Managiri village, Thalakkavur Panchayat, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District. The four boundaries of the property as given in the plaint are as follows: North - the land belonging to the joint family South - the road running east to west East - the lands belonging to N. Arockiya Udayar and North-South road & joint family property of the plaintiff West - the Shelter for Mother and Children and North-South road. 18. It is the claim of the plaintiff that the entire property in survey No.414/6 was purchased by his grandfather by sale deed dated 20.7.1922. This sale deed has been produced as Ex.A.1. 18. It is the claim of the plaintiff that the entire property in survey No.414/6 was purchased by his grandfather by sale deed dated 20.7.1922. This sale deed has been produced as Ex.A.1. In Ex.A.1, the boundaries are given as follows: South - the lands belonging to Rangappa Chettiyar and Karuppan Chettiyar North - N.Arockiya Udayar land West - North-South road East - North-South road and N. Arockiya Udayar land 19. It is also seen that in the said document, survey number of the land had not been given. It is therefore seen that a doubt has been created over the identity of the property. It is seen that the disputed property is 3 cents out of 1.35 acres. In Ex.B.1 dated 25.02.1991, the Panchayat Union had decided not to initiate any action and to resolve the dispute through Court. In Ex.A.2 which is the resolution dated 15.02.1991 it was mentioned that the property belongs to the plaintiff-s family and that there was no objection to grant patta. It is therefore seen that conflicting resolutions have been passed by the panchayat union. In Ex.B.4 which is the land register extract for survey No.414/6, the lands were classified as (meaning Government Natham Lands). It is also seen that the patta number had also not been given in the remarks column. It has been given as vacant land. It is therefore seen even in the revenue records, the land had been classified only as Government Natham poromboke lands. This classification has not been challenged by the plaintiff in the suit. During the course of the first appeal, additional documents were marked on the side of the plaintiff. It had been pointed out by learned Counsel for the 1st defendant that the procedure adopted is not proper. The documents were merely given exhibit numbers without affording any opportunity to mark the documents through witness and this procedure has deprived the defendants from cross examining the witnesses on the side of the plaintiff. The admissibility, relevancy and proof of the documents had not been established. It is also seen that during the pendency of the first appeal, a Commissioner was appointed and he had given a further report and also prepared rough sketch. The admissibility, relevancy and proof of the documents had not been established. It is also seen that during the pendency of the first appeal, a Commissioner was appointed and he had given a further report and also prepared rough sketch. Even otherwise it is pleaded that the property which is the subject matter of the suit namely, 3 cents have not been properly identified by the plaintiff himself before the appellate Court. It has been argued that the Maternity Hospital and the Shelter for Mother and children has been constructed in the lands of the plaintiff. However there are no such pleadings in the plaint to that effect. There is also no evidence regarding that regard. Consequently, those facts cannot be taken note of this Court. P.W.1 during his chief examination had only spoken about the averments in the plaint. He had marked the plaint documents. He had never spoken about the construction of the Maternity Hospital or the Shelter for Mother and Children in the suit property. These facts are also not been pleaded in the plaint. P.W.2 is a resident of the same area and he claimed that he knew the family of the plaintiff. He stated that the plaintiff had been in possession of the suit property. He also did not speak about the construction of the maternity hospital in the suit property. In the face of such oral evidence, the basis for the findings of the 1st appellate Court that the plaintiff's permission had been obtained for construction of Shelter for Mother and Children in the suit property is not known. The substantial questions of law which had been formulated at the time of admission is whether the appellate Court is right in deciding that the respondent is entitled to the suit property when there were no documents like patta, chitta, adangal extract etc. to prove his possession or title. I hold that the lower appellate Court had erred in granting declaration of title, in the absence of any documents showing clear title. The additional documents, marked during the 1st appellate proceedings, have not been proved in the manner known to law. I also hold that the lower appellate Court was not right in relying upon Ex.A.1 sale deed. It is seen from Ex.A.1, that the survey number is not mentioned in the schedule. The boundaries in Ex.A.1 differ from the boundaries given in the plaint. I also hold that the lower appellate Court was not right in relying upon Ex.A.1 sale deed. It is seen from Ex.A.1, that the survey number is not mentioned in the schedule. The boundaries in Ex.A.1 differ from the boundaries given in the plaint. The identity of the property has not been established and the title of the property has not been established. The possession of the property has not been established. 20. In view of these finding, I hold that the judgment and decree of the 1st appellate Court in A.S.No.1/1998 dated 28.07.1998 has to be necessarily set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside and the judgment and decree dated 27.08.1997 of the District Munsif Court, Karaikudi in O.S.No.228 of 1996 is confirmed. 21. The Second Appeal is allowed with costs. Consequently the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.