JUDGMENT : Prayer: This Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgement and decree dated 01.12.2004 passed in A.S.No.130 of 2002 by the Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2002 passed in O.S.No.288 of 1999 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram. 1. Challenge in this second appeal is to the judgement and decree, dated 01.12.2004 passed in Appeal Suit No.130/2002 by the sub court, Padmanabhapuram, wherein the judgement and decree passed in O.S.No. 288 of 1999 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram are confirmed. 2. The Appellants have instituted the O.S.No.288 of 1999 on the file of the trial court for the reliefs of declaration of title, possession and injunction and recovery of 'B' scheduled wooden logs removed from 'A' scheduled property. 3. In the plaint, it is averred that the plaintiffs are owners of 54 cents in old S.No.651/c, Kothanaloor village. The 'A' schedule is 5 cents out of 54 cents on the southern end. 4. On 27.10.1981 the suit 'A' schedule property was purchased by Gnanadhas who is the husband of the first plaintiff and the father of the plaintiffs 2 to 4 from Raja Bhai. Even prior to his purchase, long prior to 1975, the plaintiffs predecessors in title have planted arecanut, coconut and anjali, jack and other trees in the suit property. The 54 cents plot is lying in 4 plots wherein the suit 'A' schedule property is the southern most portion. There is a small vaikkal further south of the plaint 'A' schedule property. The vendor of the first plaintiff’s husband, the husband of the first plaintiff and the plaintiffs have been enjoying the property upto the water-course portion of the vaikkal by planting trees as absolute owners and by effecting valuable improvements. The first plaintiff’s husband’s predecessors in title have planted one anjali tree long prior to 1975 and the plaintiffs and their predecessors in title have been in possession and enjoyment of the tree among the other trees. On 14.01.1988, the husband of the first plaintiff died leaving the plaintiffs as his heirs. In the resurvey and settlement, old survey 651/c is correlated to R.S.No.111/1 to 14. No notice was given to the vendors or to the plaintiffs. On 14.01.1988, the husband of the first plaintiff died leaving the plaintiffs as his heirs. In the resurvey and settlement, old survey 651/c is correlated to R.S.No.111/1 to 14. No notice was given to the vendors or to the plaintiffs. The re-survey authorities have no right to reduce the 54 cents property of the plaintiffs and to add along with the vaikkal on south. The wrong resurvey, which was done by the resurvey authorities and the resurvey plan will not affect the right, title, possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the 54 cents area purchased by them in old survey 651/c. The remaining properties are recorded as vaikkal poramboke. The property upto the water-course is the patta land. The state of Tamilnadu has no right, title or possession over the A schedule property or on the Northern property. On 13.11.1999, the first plaintiff with an object of using the above stated anjali tree for putting up of a house, cut the same. The logs of wood were placed near the house of plaintiffs. Upon a false information to the second respondent, without ascertaining the limit of the plaintiff’s property brought a tempo and took all the logs of the tree and arrested the second plaintiff. At Thuckalay police station, the second plaintiff was compelled to put the signature in a blank paper. The action of the second respondent is highly illegal and he has exceeded his power in taking away the logs of wood of the anjali tree of plaintiffs. Under the said circumstances, the present suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs. 5. In the written statement filed on the side of the defendants, it is averred that it is false to contend that Resurvey No.111/7 is a patta land in the name of Gnanadhas and on the south, there is a vaikkal comprised in Resurvey No.111/15. The cultivation on the southern side of the property are only recent. The anjali trees were natural grownup trees only in the vaikkal bund. Even according to the plaintiffs Resurvey No.111/7 of Kothanaloor village is a converted paddy field, hence there would be no such trees as alleged. There is no mistake in the resurvey operations. Resurvey became final in 1976. Notices as contemplated under the Act were issued to all the pattadars and the objections of the land owners were heard. Even according to the plaintiffs Resurvey No.111/7 of Kothanaloor village is a converted paddy field, hence there would be no such trees as alleged. There is no mistake in the resurvey operations. Resurvey became final in 1976. Notices as contemplated under the Act were issued to all the pattadars and the objections of the land owners were heard. Only after issuing the temporary patta it was made final in 1976. The plaintiff’s right and title is confined to 18.5 ares and the same is specifically given in R.S.No.111/7 of Kothanaloor village. Even after finalisation of resurvey, the plaintiffs and their predecessors admit their title for R.S.No.111/7 to an extent of 18.5 ares and paid tax since 1976. The plaintiffs and their predecessors have no title or possession over the poramboke land R.S.No.111/7 of Kothanaloor village wherein the anjali tree stood. Neither the plaintiffs nor their predecessors enjoyed any portion in R.S.No.111/15 of Kothanaloor village. The Revenue Authorities booked case against second plaintiff after measurement of the spot. Since the logs of anjali tree belongs to the state, it was taken to the taluk office. Since the second plaintiff paid the penalty, no criminal action was taken. The plaint claim is barred by limitation and hit by Survey and Boundaries Act. The defendants have sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. On the basis of the divergent pleadings raised on either side, the trial court has dismissed the suit. Against the judgement and decree passed by the trial court, the plaintiffs have preferred A.S.No.130/2002 on the file of the First Appellate Court. 7. The First Appellate Court after hearing both sides and upon re-appraising the evidence available on record, confirmed the judgement and decree passed by the trial court. The present second appeal has been preferred at the instance of the plaintiffs as appellants. 8. At the time of admitting the present second appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been framed for consideration: ''1.Whether the courts below are right in holding that the appellants are entitled only 18.5 ares in R.S.No. 111/7 having regard to the fact that as per exhibit A3 sale deed, Gnanadhas purchased 54 cents in Old Survey No. 651/c. 2.Whether the courts below are right in negativing the claim of the appellants since during the resurvey A schedule property was included in R.S.No.111/15 by mistake?''. 9. 9. The consistent stand taken on the side of the appellant is that the appellants are entitled to 54 cents as per Ex.A4 sale deed, which was purchased by their father Gnanadhas in old S.No.651/c. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellants are entitled to 54 cents as per Ex.A3 sale deed, whereas the Courts below wrongly held that the appellants are entitled to only 18.5 ares in R.S.No.111/7. The appellants before the trial court have sought for the relief of declaration of title, possession and injunction and recovery of 'B' scheduled wooden logs removed from 'A' scheduled property. 11. Per contra on the side of the respondents it is contended that the appellants are not entitled to 54 cents in R.S.No.111/7 and even as per their sale deed Ex.A3 in the schedule of property there is a mentioning about resurvey. In the sale deed Ex.A3, the details of the property was given as follows: “TAMIL” Whereas no extent was mentioned for resurvey 111/7. The Ex.A3 sale deed was dated 27.10.1981. Even at the time of purchasing the suit property by Gnanadhas , the resurvey of property has been mentioned in Ex.A3 sale deed. Definetly the father of the appellants namely Gnanadhas should have the knowledge of the resurvey. 12. The learned Government Pleader would further contend that the appellants were knowing very well about their extent as 18.5 ares in S.No.111/7 paid tax and that will be proved by their documents Ex.A13 the patta pass book. On perusal of Ex.A13, the patta pass book in the name of Ganadass tax has been paid for the property with an extent of 18.5 ares in S.No.111/7. 13. When it is clear in the patta pass book the extent of the land is only 18.5 ares in R.S.No.111/7 and when tax was paid for the above extent the appellants are not entitled to claim 54 cents. 14. Further when there is documentary evidence Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 filed on the side of the respondents to prove their contention that R.S.No.111/15 is a vaikal promboke belongs to the Government, the appellants have no right to claim that the above property is their absolute property. Having knowledge about the resurvey and paid tax to the property with an extent of 18.5 ares in R.S.No.111/7 the appellants have no right to say that no notice for resurvey was issued to them. Having knowledge about the resurvey and paid tax to the property with an extent of 18.5 ares in R.S.No.111/7 the appellants have no right to say that no notice for resurvey was issued to them. 15. The courts below have elabrately discussed about exhibits of both sides have correctly held that the appellants are entitled for only 18.5 ares in R.S.No. 111/7 and also rightly negatived the claim of appellants. 16. The first Appellate Court after considering the rival submission of both parties rightly confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court after discussing elaborately on every issue which called no interference. 17. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.