JUDGMENT : This second appeal has been filed by the appellants/defendants against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.11.2008 made in A.S.No.39 of 2004 on the file of Subordinate Court, Paramakudi reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 30.01.2004 made in O.S.No.161 of 1998 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Paramakudi. 2. The respondents/plaintiffs herein have filed a suit in O.S.No.161 of 1998 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Paramakudi, seeking for the relief of declaration declaring that the suit schedule property is a track of Paramakudi Arasaradi Sri Yoga Muneeswarar Temple and also for the consequential relief of mandatory injunction for removing the construction put up by the appellants/defendants in the suit schedule property and also for recovery of possession in respect of the suit property. The learned District Munsif, Paramakudi by judgment and Decree dated 30.01.2004, had dismissed the suit. 3. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents/plaintiffs have filed an appeal in A.S.No.39 of 2004 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Paramakudi. The learned Subordinate Judge, Paramakudi by judgment and decree dated 28.11.2008 had allowed the said appeal and set aside the judgement and decree dated 30.01.2004 passed by the trial Court and granted the relief of declaration declaring that the suit schedule property is the property of Paramakudi Arasaradi Sri Yoga Muneeswarar Temple and consequently, directed the defendants to remove the construction put up in the suit schedule property. The learned Subordinate Judge, Paramakudi, has directed the parties to bear their respective costs. Feeling aggrieved by the same the appellants/defendants have filed the present Second Appeal. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, as described by the trial Court. 5. The averments made in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:- The suit schedule property and the property situated in the southern side of the suit property belongs to the Paramakudi Arasaradi Sri Yoga Muneeswarar Temple. In the suit schedule property there was a temple and the temple mahal are situated and in the northern side of the temple there was a vassal (gate), called as Kannithanavassal is situated. The suit track was used by the devotees for reaching river Vaigai. The said track belongs to the Sourashtra people, who are residing in Paramakudi. During festival session only through the suit track, the people have reached river Vaigai. The suit track was used by the devotees for reaching river Vaigai. The said track belongs to the Sourashtra people, who are residing in Paramakudi. During festival session only through the suit track, the people have reached river Vaigai. From the year 1997, the defendants put up a thatched shed and encroached the portion of the suit schedule property. Hence, for better enjoyment of the suit track and for removing the encroachment, the plaintiffs have filed a suit. 6. The averments made in the written statement filed by the defendants, in brief, are as follows:- It is denied that the suit property belongs to the plaintiffs and the eastern boundary of the suit schedule property was wrongly mentioned. Now only the Paramakudi Arasaradi Sri Yoga Muneeswarar Temple was constructed in the measurement of 4 X 10 X 10 feet. Adjacent to the property owned by the temple, the first respondent is having the property. On the northern side of the first defendant's property, the second and fourth defendants and subsequently fifth and sixth defendant are having their properties. In the entire suit schedule property, the plaintiffs are not having any right and enjoyment. The defendants are enjoying their property more than the statutory period. The plaintiffs filed the suit after reducing the value of the suit property. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief. 7. Based on the above said pleadings, the learned District Munsif, Paramakudi had framed necessary issues and tried the suit. 8. Before the trial Court, during trial, on the side of the plaintiffs the first plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and examined two more witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3. Further on the side of the plaintiffs six documents were exhibited as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-6. On the side of the defendants, defendants 2, 6 and 7 were examined themselves as D.W.1 to D.W.3 and marked 38 documents i.e., Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.38. During the time of trial, the Advocate Commissioner was appointed and thereafter, he filed a report in respect of the suit schedule properties with necessary documents. The report and plan filed by the Advocate Commissioner was marked as Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2. 9. During the time of trial, the Advocate Commissioner was appointed and thereafter, he filed a report in respect of the suit schedule properties with necessary documents. The report and plan filed by the Advocate Commissioner was marked as Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2. 9. The learned District Munsif, Paramakudi, after considering the materials placed before him found that the right and title of the property now alleged to be encroached by the defendants, is belonging to the defendants by way of sale deed and by way of adverse possession, further he came to the conclusion that the festival celebrated in the suit temple is not to be affected by means of buildings found in the suit schedule property and accordingly, dismissed the suit. 10. In the appeal filed by the respondents/plaintiffs in A.S.No.39 of 2004, the learned Subordinate Judge, Paramakudi had observed that the evidence given by the plaintiffs and documents exhibited on their side, are proved that the defendants encroached the suit track by putting a temporary thatched shed. Further there is a parallel track is found near to the suit track and thereby, the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs and allowed the appeal by granting the reliefs of declaration, mandatory injunction and recovery of possession. 11. In the said circumstances, while at the time of admitting the Second Appeal, this Court has formulated the following Substantial Questions of Law, for consideration:- 1. Whether the lower appellate Court has committed an error in law in not considering the question of limitation by making an erroneous observation that no issue regarding limitation was framed by the trial Court? 2. Whether the finding of the lower Appellate Court regarding the title claimed by the plaintiffs is perverse? Substantial Question of Law No.1 12. It is an admitted fact that during the time of giving evidence, D.W.1 to D.W.3, who are defendants in the suit, admitted that the construction made in the alleged encroached portion are temporary in nature. Further they admitted that due to “muniottam”, there may be a chance for existing track opposite to the Muneeswarar statue. Further, D.W.3 has stated that the said Paramakudi Arasaradi Sri Yoga Muneeswarar Temple was in existence for the past 100 years and specifically, he admitted that the property purchased by him is situated on the western side of the suit property. 13. Further, D.W.3 has stated that the said Paramakudi Arasaradi Sri Yoga Muneeswarar Temple was in existence for the past 100 years and specifically, he admitted that the property purchased by him is situated on the western side of the suit property. 13. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that in respect to the title claimed by the plaintiffs they have not produced any documents to show their title and enjoyment. On the other hand, on the side of the defendants, certain documents were produced for proving their possession. Further added on the side of the defendants that in the judgment rendered by the trial Court it was clearly observed that in revenue records the name of the temple and the name of the temple street was not mentioned. On the other hand, in the revenue records the name of the defendants are properly entered, even after knowing the same till now the plaintiffs are not taking any steps to change the name of the defendants in the revenue records. It is the further contention of the defendants that the excess land now alleged to be possessed by the defendants cannot be given to the plaintiffs without any measurement. 14. Now coming to the point of measurement, it is to be noted that Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2 which are the report and plan filed by the Advocate Commissioner was prepared with the help of the Surveyor. It is evident from the said report that the temple calling as Paramakudi Arasaradi Sri Yoga Muneeswarar Temple was situated in the south of the suit schedule property, further from the said temple there was an existing track was present and extented till reaching the river Vaigai. In Ex.B.4, which is the sale deed pertaining to the year, 1891, the name of the said temple was mentioned. It shows that the temple in question is in existence from the year of 18th Century onwards. In the said circumstances, if really the defendants have not encroached the suit track, there was no necessity for them in putting up a temporary shed. Only based on the said circumstances, the first appellate Court had granted the reliefs in favour of the plaintiffs. 15. In the said circumstances, if really the defendants have not encroached the suit track, there was no necessity for them in putting up a temporary shed. Only based on the said circumstances, the first appellate Court had granted the reliefs in favour of the plaintiffs. 15. It is true that in respect the relief of mandatory injunction, the suit has to be filed within a period of three years, but in the plaint, it is nowhere pleaded about the date on which the defendants are encroached the suit track. Being the plaintiffs, it is their duty to show the date on which the encroachment was commenced. The first appellate Court had considered the issue and decided in favour of the plaintiffs stating that there is no issue in respect to the limitation before the trial Court. In the said situation, it is necessary to see Section 3 of Limitation Act. As per the said section, every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period, shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence. Section 3 of the Limitation Act clearly enjoins upon the Court to the power of dismissing the suit, whether the plea of limitation is or is not taken by the respondents. Accordingly, the observation made by the first appellate Court is nothing, but erroneous in respect of the plea that the suit is barred by limitation. 16. However on going through the defence set up by the defendants, it is the contention that they are perfected title to suit property by way of long possession and enjoyment. Thereby, it is the duty cast upon the defendants to prove that they are in possession of encroached area more than the period prescribed under the law. 17. In this regard, even though there was a oral evidence from the D.W.1 that the defendants are continuously enjoying the said alleged encroached area over the period more than that the period prescribed under the Act, in order to prove the same, the defendants have not produced any relevant documents. It is the contention of the defendants that the revenue authorities issued patta in favour of the defendants in respect to the encroached area. This Court observed in various decisions that the patta is not a document to prove the title. It is the contention of the defendants that the revenue authorities issued patta in favour of the defendants in respect to the encroached area. This Court observed in various decisions that the patta is not a document to prove the title. It is already stated that 38 documents are marked on the side of the defendants as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.38 to prove their case, among said documents, the defendants have not produced any single patta stands in the name of either one of the defendants. So giving evidence without any relevant documents cannot be accepted. However, the documents produced on the side of the defendant is sufficient to prove their possession. More than that the plaintiffs themselves admitted that the defendants are in the possession of the suit schedule property. 18. Now on go through the details of sale deed exhibited on the side of the defendants it appears those documents are all related to the property, situated not within the suit schedule property. Thus in any way the defendants have not proved that they are in possession of the suit track for more than the statutory period. The first appellate Court in its well considered judgment, clearly observed that the defendants are in possession in the area exceeding to the measurement, which was mentioned in their respective sale deeds. In this regard, D.W.1 has specifically stated that there was a patta stand in the name of the Ramalingam for the area belongs to the temple. 19. It is an admitted fact that all the encroachers put up their constructions in temporary nature, it is presumed only for the purpose of removing the same during the time of performing Kumbabisekam or in the time of festival seasons they put up the temporary structure. The exhibits marked on the side of the defendants proved that recently Kumbabisekam performed to the Paramakudi Arasaradi Sri Yoga Muneeswarar Temple. The said fact also proved that the encroachment was made recently after Kumbabisekam. So, without any document we cannot hold that the suit was filed for the relief of mandatory injunction not within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the observation made by the first appellate Court in respect to the limitation is no way diluted the case of the plaintiffs and the same is answered as above in favour of the plaintiffs. Substantial Question of Law No.2:- 20. Accordingly, the observation made by the first appellate Court in respect to the limitation is no way diluted the case of the plaintiffs and the same is answered as above in favour of the plaintiffs. Substantial Question of Law No.2:- 20. The lower appellate Court confirmed the title in favour of the plaintiffs only in accordance with the evidence given by D.W. 1 to D.W.3, particularly, as per the admission made by the D.W.1 to D.W.3. It is the evidence given on the side of the defendants that parallel street was situated on the western side of the suit land, further the same was used by the defendants for reaching their houses. More than that the said street was situated with the height of one feet comparatively with the suit land. Further, it was admitted on the side of the defendants that for the property purchased by them, there was a separate patta and for the property now alleged to be encroached, there was a two separate patta was issued by the revenue authorities. Now on deep analyzes of the said evidence, it reveals that the adjoining portion alleged to be encroached by the defendants is the property of others. However as already stated in order to prove that the defendants were issued with separate patta, the so called patta were not produced on the side of the defendants. Apart from that, the construction made by the defendants therein, are all temporary in nature. 21. Even though the plaintiffs did not produce any documents in respect to the title, the admission made on the side of the defendants will prove the existence of the suit land. In Ex.B.8, Ex.B.11 and Ex.B.12 the suit land was mentioned as one of the boundaries to the sale deed stands in the name of defendants. The report of the Advocate Commissioner has clearly proved that the defendants are having the property more than that they are having the right. Mere issuing the patta in favour of the third party did not confer any right in favour of the person issued with the patta. The entries made in the revenue records are nothing but the expressive opinion given by the revenue authorities. Mere issuing the patta in favour of the third party did not confer any right in favour of the person issued with the patta. The entries made in the revenue records are nothing but the expressive opinion given by the revenue authorities. It is the clear evidence that since the name of the God is the Arasaradi Sri Yoga Muneeswarar, there was a belief that there may be a street is in existence opposite to the eye of the said ideal. Being the Hindu, most of the people having the different faith and customs in respect of the each temple, which is having some characteristic ideology. Only based on the same, the people are worshipping the said God. Accordingly, the circumstances will clearly prove the existence of the suit land and the first appellate Court has also observed the same principle and then only granted the decree in favour of the plaintiffs. In the said circumstances, the well-merited judgment rendered by the first appellate Court is a perspective one and interference is not necessary. Accordingly, the substantial question of law No.2 is answered and decided in favour of the plaintiffs. 22. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed, by confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 28.11.2008, passed in A.S.No.39 of 2004, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Paramakudi reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 30.01.2004 in O.S.No.161 of 1998 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Paramakudi. No costs.