JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgement and Decree dated 30.07.2014 passed in A.S.No.2 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Pondicherry, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 15.11.2010 passed in O.S.No.359 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Pondicherry. 2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law : “Whether the judgments and decrees of the Courts below in granting the relief’s in favour of the plaintiffs are based upon the proper appreciation of the evidence, oral and documentary, adduced by the respective parties and the principles of law governing the same?” 3. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail. 4. Suffice to state that the plaintiffs have laid the suit against the defendants for declaration and recovery of possession of the B schedule property on the footing that the B schedule property forms part of the A schedule property and one portion of the A schedule property was purchased by the first plaintiff's mother-in-law Ambujammal and another portion was purchased by the first plaintiff's husband Bangaru Reddiar by way of the sale deeds dated 29.07.1909 and 09.12.1946 respectively and the plaintiffs 2 & 3 are the sons of the first plaintiff and the plaintiffs had been enjoying the plaint A schedule property by paying necessary tax etc., while so, the defendants without any entitlement or authority encroached into a portion of A schedule property i.e. B schedule property on 20.03.1999 and high handedly attempted to dig the earth for laying foundation therein and the plaintiffs objected to the abovesaid illegal acts of the defendants by lodging necessary complaint against them to the authorities concerned and inasmuch as the defendants had persisted in their acts, accordingly, it is the case of the plaintiffs that they had been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate relief’s. 5. The defendants would resist the plaintiffs' case by putting forth the case that the B schedule property originally was acquired by one Muniappa Chetty by way of the judgement dated 17.08.1901 and that he had two sons viz., Sappani Chettiar and Narayanasami Chettiar and that Perambala Chettiar was the son of Sappani Chettiar and Swarnambal was the daughter of Narayanasami Chettiar and by way of the oral partition, Perambala Chettiyar was allotted the northern ½ share of 5 Kuzhies and 3 veesams and Swarnambal was allotted the southern ½ share of 5 kuzhies and 3 veesams and that Perambala Chettiar had mortgaged the allotted share to one Manickam on 04.07.1932, who in turn assigned the same in favour of one Ramadoss in 1961 and thereafter, the sons of Perambala Chettiyar viz., Sivanesan and Selvarassu, the first defendant discharged the said mortgage in the year 1966 and that the other portion of the B schedule property, which was owned by Swarnambal, was sold to Pattammal, who in turn alienated the same to Ramadoss and then, it was alienated in favour of the second defendant and thus, the defendants are in the possession and enjoyment of the B schedule property on their own right and thereby, put up 8 shops on the western side and also constructed a brick built latrine and bathroom abutting the plaintiffs' house and neither Bangaru Reddiar nor the plaintiffs objected to the abovesaid construction put up by the defendants and furthermore, the defendants and their predecessor in title on account of their long and continuous possession and enjoyment of the plaint B schedule property for more than 60 years, had prescribed title to the same by way of adverse possession and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek and obtain the relief’s claimed in the plaint and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. Based on the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties, the Courts below were pleased to accept the plaintiffs' case. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been laid. 7. 6. Based on the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties, the Courts below were pleased to accept the plaintiffs' case. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been laid. 7. The plaint A schedule property is described as located in Kariamanickam Village comprised in R.S.No.232/4, Cadastro No.518 1/1, 518 ½ and 518/2 Patta No.224, within an extent of 5 Ares and 50 centiares or 10 Kuzhies and 8 veesams measuring east to west 92 feet and south to north 64 feet and situate to the east of R.S.No.232/15 and 232/16, west on street, south of old bank street and north of Dhirupathi Ammal Koil and the plaint B schedule property is described as a portion measuring east to west 24 feet and south to north 64 feet on the western side, in the above plaint A schedule property. Thus, according to the plaintiffs, the plaint B schedule property forms part of the portion of the plaint A schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the A schedule property had been purchased by the first plaintiff's mother-in-law Ambujammmal and the first plaintiff's husband Bangaru Reddiar in two portions by way of the sale deeds dated 29.07.1909 and 09.12.1946 respectively. The original French Notaire sale deeds dated 29.07.1909 and 09.12.1946 have been marked as Exs.A1 & A3 and the Tamil translation of the same have been marked as Exs.A2 & A4. On a perusal of the abovesaid documents, in toto, it is seen that as put-forth by the plaintiffs, Ambujammal and Bangaru Reddiar had acquired the portions of the plaint A schedule property as described therein and thus, it is seen that it is only the plaintiffs' predecessors in interest, who had title to the suit A schedule property as claimed by them. Furthermore, the schedule of lands standing in the name of Bangaru Reddiar marked as Ex.A5, the notice issued by the Thasildar, Land Survey Department to Bangaru Reddiar marked as Ex.A6, Chitta extract marked as Ex.A7 and the field map marked as Ex.A8 and the receipts for payment of land tax marked as Exs.A9 & A10, all would go to show that the plaint A schedule property had been in the possession and enjoyment of Bangaru Reddiar and the plaintiffs and accordingly, it is seen that the abovesaid documents had come to be issued in the name of Bangaru Reddiar. 8. Materials placed on record go to show that the property belonging to the defendants lying in R.S.No.232/15 and 232/16 is located on the western side of the plaint A schedule property. Accordingly, it is found that the defendants also during the course of their evidence through the mouth of DW1 has admitted that their property is comprised in R.S.No.232/15 and 232/16 bearing Cadastro No.510 and it is only the abovesiad property, which they had mortgaged and furthermore, also admitted that the abovesaid property belonging to them is situated to the west of the property belonging to Bangaru Reddiar and the same had been so described in the mortgage deed Ex.B6 as well as in the sale deed dated 24.11.1983 marked as Ex.B12 as well as in the rectification deed marked as Ex.B13. Therefore, it is found that the defendants in their documents have admitted that their property is lying to the west of the property belonging to Bangaru Reddiar. Now, as abovenoted, the plaintiffs have established their claim of title to the plaint A schedule property by way of the documents marked as Exs.A1 & A3. The defendants would claim that the plaint B schedule property forming part of the plaint A schedule property originally belonged to Muniappa Chettiar by way of the judgment deed dated 17.08.1901. However, the defendants have not explained in detail as to how by way of the abovesaid judgment, Muniappa Chettiar had been conferred the right in respect of the plaint B schedule property lying in R.S.No.232/4 of Kariyamanickam Village. However, the defendants have not explained in detail as to how by way of the abovesaid judgment, Muniappa Chettiar had been conferred the right in respect of the plaint B schedule property lying in R.S.No.232/4 of Kariyamanickam Village. Therefore, when with reference to the abovesaid claim of title to the plaint B schedule property by the defendants through Muniappa Chettiar has been seriously challenged by the plaintiffs, at least prima facie, the defendants should have placed acceptable and reliable documents to evidence that Muniappa Chettiar had acquired title to the plaint B schedule property as putforth by them. However, the defendants have not placed the copy of the judgment dated 17.08.1901 to trace their claim of title to the plaint B schedule property through Muniappa Chettiar. In such view of the matter, their claim that Muniappa Chettiar had title to the plaint B schedule property by way of judgment dated 17.08.1901 falls to the ground. Furthermore, though the defendants would claim that they had dealt with the plaint B schedule property by way of execution of various mortgage deeds, however, as rightly found by the Courts below, the mortgage deeds projected by the defendants are not shown to be related to the suit property comprised in R.S.No.232/4. On the other hand, as could be seen from the evidence of DW1, they are found to be relating to the property comprised in R.S.Nos.232/15 and 232/16 and when the abovesaid property is admitted to be lying to the west of the property owned by Bangaru Reddiar and when the defendants have failed to establish their legal claim of title to the suit property through Muniappa Chettiar, as rightly determined by the Courts below, the mortgage deeds projected by the defendants would not confer any valid title upon them in respect of the plaint B schedule property as such, accordingly, it is seen that as rightly determined by the Courts below, no acceptable and reliable evidence has been projected by the defendants to establish their claim of valid title to the plaint B schedule property as projected in the written statement. In such view of the matter, the claim of the defendants that they had acquired title to the plaint B schedule property through Muniappa Chettiar and also through the heirs of Muniappa Chettiar as such cannot be countenanced in any manner. In such view of the matter, the claim of the defendants that they had acquired title to the plaint B schedule property through Muniappa Chettiar and also through the heirs of Muniappa Chettiar as such cannot be countenanced in any manner. Accordingly, it is seen that the defendants knowing fully well that they do not possess a valid claim of title to the plaint B schedule property, accordingly, pleaded that they had also prescribed title to the plaint B schedule property by way of adverse possession on account of their long and continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. However, as rightly determined by the Courts below, when the defendants have failed to establish their claim of possession and enjoyment of the plaint B schedule property as putforth by them and none of the documents projected by the defendants do not advance their claim of title to the plaint B schedule property at any point of time and thereby, the pleas of adverse title projected by the defendants in respect of the plaint B schedule property being found to be untenable, it is seen that the Courts below are wholly justified in negativing the claim of title put-forth by the defendants in respect of the plaint B schedule property both by way of pucca title as well as by adverse title and therefore, no interference is called for with reference to the same. 9. During the course of arguments, the defendants' counsel would contend that the first appellate Court had erred in rejecting their application for appointment of an advocate commissioner to inspect the suit property and if the same had been entertained, the defendants would have put-forth their claim of title as well as the plaint B schedule property forming part of their property and therefore, according to her, the dismissal of the commissioner application by the first appellate Court is erroneous and requires interference. However, when the suit is based upon the title and both parties had been vying with each other for claiming title to the suit property by way of the projection various pleas, in such view of the matter, it is seen that the inspection of the plaint B schedule property by the advocate commissioner would not in any manner be useful to sustain the claim of title to the same by either of the parties. In such view of the matter, the dismissal of the commission application by the first appellate Court is found to be not unjustified and on the other hand, as rightly determined by the first appellate Court, the parties having taken the specific pleas for claiming title to the disputed property, should establish the same by projecting the necessary documents pointing to the same. However, in so far as the this case is concerned, when it is found that the plaintiffs have established their claim of title to the plaint A schedule property as well as the possession and enjoyment of the same by producing the various documents and on the other hand, the defendants having failed to establish their claim of the plaint B schedule property as putforth by them and accordingly, they have taken the plea of adverse possession and however, having also failed to establish the said plea by projecting acceptable and reliable materials, in such view of the matter, as rightly put-forth by the plaintiffs' counsel, when the documents projected by the defendants do not point that the same refer to the disputed property as such and admittedly, when the property belonging to the plaintiffs are situated to the east of the defendants property, furthermore, when the documents projected by the defendants do not described the same by giving Cadastro number and patta Number with clear particulars, in such view of the matter, it is found that the mortgage deeds projected by the defendants by itself would not confer their claim of title to the disputed plaint B schedule property and in such view of the matter, it is seen that the judgment and decree of the Courts below upholding the plaintiffs' case and rejecting the defendants' case do not warrant any interference. 10. In the light of the abovesaid factors, it is found that the Courts below have on a proper appreciation of the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the principles of law governing the same, had correctly granted the relief’s in favour of the plaintiffs by rejecting the defence version and the substantial question of law formulated in the second appeal is, accordingly, answered against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs. For the aforesaid reasons, the second appeal fails and accordingly, is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.