JUDGMENT : This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 09.12.98 passed in A.S.No.134/96, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court Nagapattiam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.02.95 passed in O.S.No. 458/90, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruthuraipoondi. 2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court. 3. Suit for declaration and possession. 4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaint schedule property belongs to the plaintiff and the patta for the said property stands in the name of the plaintiff and the plaintiff temple is paying kist for the suit property and the defendants have trespassed into the suit property in or about July 1988 and put up a building thereon without the permission of the plaintiff and thereupon, the plaintiff issued a registered notice to the second defendant on 12.02.1990, calling upon him to vacate the suit property and pay the arrears of mesne profits of Rs.1,080/- calculated at Rs.30/- per month and the second defendant had sent a reply stating that his wife is the owner of the property and had purchased the same in 1981 and the plaintiff is therefore not entitled to seek the possession of the suit property and the above said contentions putforth by the defendants in the reply notice are false and hence, the plaintiff is constrained to institute the suit against the defendants for appropriate reliefs. 5. The case of the defendants, in brief, is that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. 5. The case of the defendants, in brief, is that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The first defendant had purchased the suit property with super structure by way of a sale deed dated 26.12.1981 from one Kamalathammal and accordingly in possession and enjoyment of the suit property in her own right and the second defendant is the husband of the first defendant and residing in the suit property along with the first defendant and the plaintiff has no title to the suit property and the issuance of the patta in favour of the plaintiff under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam Abolition Act 1963, would not confer ownership of the suit property on the plaintiff and the suit property has been always in the possession and enjoyment of the private parties from time immemorial and even if the plaintiff had any title to the suit property, the said right had been lost on account of the continuous, long and uninterrupted enjoyment of the defendants and their predecessors in interest beyond the statutory period by way of prescription and the suit property with a brick built tiled house thereof had been purchased under sale deed dated 09.10.1935 by one Santhanam Iyengar from Krishnamurthy Iyengar and after the death of Santhanam Iyengar, the properties belonging to him were divided amongst his legal representatives by way of a registered partition deed dated 23.07.1956 and the suit property had been allotted to the share of Kamalathammal and her two daughters and accordingly it is only Kamalathammal who had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by way of letting out the same to the tenants and accordingly, Kamalathammal thereafter alienated the suit property to the first defendant by way of a registered sale deed dated 26.12.81 and the plaintiff knowing fully well that it is only the defendants who are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property right from the date of the above said sale deed, has wrongly alleged that the defendants had trespassed into the suit property and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain the reliefs sought for and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. In support of the plaintiff's case PW1 has been examined, Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On the side of the defendants DW1 was examined, Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. 7. 6. In support of the plaintiff's case PW1 has been examined, Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On the side of the defendants DW1 was examined, Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. 7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the Courts below were pleased to dismiss the suit laid by the plaintiff. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been preferred. 8. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration: a. Whether a party aggrieved by the refusal of an amendment application, cannot challenge the same in an appeal against the decree ultimately passed? b. Whether an application to amend the plaint with regard to description of property, should not be allowed, especially when the same is within the limitation period? 9. The plaintiff claims that the suit property belong to it. The same is being disputed vehemently by the defendants. Per contra, the defendants have set up title on themselves as regards the suit property by way of sale deed dated 26.12.81. The defendants have also traced title to the suit property through their predecessors in interest as detailed in the written statement. 10. Be that as it may, the plaintiff having laid the suit claiming title to the suit property as belonging to it and the defendants having disputed the same in toto, it is for the plaintiff to establish, at the foremost, that the suit property belongs to it as claimed. However, it is found that not a shred of paper has been projected by the plaintiff to evidence that the suit property belong to it. As rightly determined by the Courts below, if really the suit property belongs to the plaintiff, as claimed, the same would have been reflected in the registers maintained by the plaintiff temple. However, the plaintiff has not chosen to place the registers maintained by it to establish prima facie that the suit property belong to it and the same had been reflected in the registers maintained by it. That apart, there is no material placed by the plaintiff to show that the suit property had been in its possession and enjoyment, at any point of time, either by way of letting out on lease or otherwise in the manner known to law. That apart, there is no material placed by the plaintiff to show that the suit property had been in its possession and enjoyment, at any point of time, either by way of letting out on lease or otherwise in the manner known to law. It is thus found that no proof has been let in by the plaintiff whatsoever either to establish its title to the suit property or its possession and enjoyment of the suit property as the absolute owner thereof. Other than marking the legal notice, reply notice and the rejoinder as Exs.A1 to A3, no other material has been placed by the plaintiff to hold safely that it has got a valid title to the suit property as such. 11. The pre-suit notice Ex.A1 has come to be issued by the plaintiff alleging that it has title to the suit property and the defendants had trespassed into the same and hence, claimed that the defendants should entrust the suit property to the plaintiff. The same has been repudiated by the defendants by issuing a rely notice marked as Ex.A2. The suit property has been described in the plaint as situated in Nagapattinam Registration District, Thiruthuraipundi town, Mettu street in survey number 184/5 measuring five cents. Other than the above said description, no other particulars of the suit property are mentioned, particularly, the boundaries within which the same is located etc., It is thus found that the suit property has been very vaguely defined in the plaint. In the legal notice marked as Ex.A1, the plaintiff has alleged that it has title to the property located in survey number 188/1 measuring nine cents. It is thus found that even in the legal notice issued, the plaintiff has not given the description of the suit property as projected in the plaint and on the other hand, issued a legal notice only with reference to the survey number 188/1 measuring nine cents. When the same has been repudiated by the defendants vide reply notice marked as Ex.A2, the plaintiff thereafter had chosen to send a rejoinder contending that the survey number has been wrongly mentioned and the survey number should be read as 184/5. Thus, as per the rejoinder of the plaintiff, the suit property is stated to be located in survey number 184/5 measuring nine cents. Thus, as per the rejoinder of the plaintiff, the suit property is stated to be located in survey number 184/5 measuring nine cents. On the other hand, the suit has been laid by the plaintiff as being located in survey number 184/5 measuring five cents only. It is thus found that there is a material contradiction as regards the description of the suit property projected by the plaintiff in the legal notice as well as in the plaint. This would only go to project that inasmuch as the plaintiff is not owning any title to the suit property as per law and not been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property at any point of time and further as the defendants had not encroached into the suit property as claimed by the plaintiff, it is seen that the plaintiff is unable to give the correct particulars of the suit property in the legal notice and also unable to establish its claim of title, possession and enjoyment of the suit property as projected in the plaint. 12. The witness examined on behalf of the plaintiff as PW1 has admitted that the boundary recitals found in Ex.B1 are correct and it is thus found by the Courts below that the property covered under Ex.B1 has been acquired by the defendant as projected by them. It is thus found that as per Ex.B1, the suit property is only measuring five cents and not nine cents as claimed in Exs.A1 and A3. As above seen, the plaintiff has also not described the suit property by giving boundaries to the same as required under law. Accordingly, it is found that the Courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff has miserably failed to establish its title, possession and enjoyment of the suit property as claimed. 13. The plaintiff has complained that the defendants have encroached into the suit property from July 1988 and thereby put up super structure thereon. On the other hand, according to the defendants, the super structure had been in existence in the suit property from time immemorial and the same gets fortified even by the description of the property comprised in Ex.B1, wherein it is stated that the tiled structure is available in the property at the time of the purchase of the same. On the other hand, according to the defendants, the super structure had been in existence in the suit property from time immemorial and the same gets fortified even by the description of the property comprised in Ex.B1, wherein it is stated that the tiled structure is available in the property at the time of the purchase of the same. Further the defendants have also produced the receipts for the payment of property tax for the super structure lying on the suit property. It is thus found that as contended by the defendants, the super structure had been in existence on the suit property over a long period of time and accordingly, the defendants continued to occupy the same, right from the days of their predecessors in title, following Ex.B1, in their favour and in such view of the matter, the plea of the plaintiff that the defendants had trespassed into the suit property on July 1988 falls to the ground and cannot be sustained in any manner. 14. The contentions putforth that the defendants have failed to establish or trace their title from their predecessors in interest as putforth in the written statement and therefore, the plaintiff's case should be accepted as such cannot be countenanced. The plaintiff has laid the suit claiming the reliefs of declaration and possession and the defendants have thrown a stiff challenge to the same. As rightly held by the Courts below, it is for the plaintiff to establish its claim of title to the suit property as projected. The plaintiff having failed to establish its claim of title to the suit property cannot be allowed to pick holes in the defendants' version and thereby succeed in his case without placing any proof whatsoever for gaining reliefs sought for. 15. It is found that an attempt has been made by the plaintiff at a belated stage to amend the plaint with reference to the description of the suit property. However, the same had come to be rejected by the Courts below. The plaintiff has not thrown any challenge to the same in the manner known to law. 15. It is found that an attempt has been made by the plaintiff at a belated stage to amend the plaint with reference to the description of the suit property. However, the same had come to be rejected by the Courts below. The plaintiff has not thrown any challenge to the same in the manner known to law. In such view of the matter, when it is found that the plaintiff had not given a proper description of the suit property, despite the same being pointed out by the defendants in the written statement and the defendants had also pointed out the same in the reply notice marked as Ex.A2, despite the same, the plaintiff having not come forward with the suit by giving a clear and correct description of the suit property as mandated under law and on the other hand, chosen to lay the amendment application belatedly, it is found that the rejection of the same by the Courts below cannot be faulted as such and furthermore, when the plaintiff has failed to establish its claim of title to the suit property, it is seen that plaintiff has failed to establish its claim of title to the property as projected by it by way of the amendment. It is thus seen that the Courts below had properly and correctly appreciated the materials on record and rightly dismissed the suit laid by the plaintiff and in such view of the matter, no interference is called for with reference to the same. The substantial questions of law formulated in this second appeal are accordingly answered against the plaintiff. In fact, in my considered opinion, there is no question of law much less any substantial question of law involved in the second appeal as such. Resultantly, I do not find any merits in the second appeal for the reasons aforestated. 16. In conclusion, the second appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.