JUDGMENT : The plaintiffs are the appellants herein. 2. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.441 of 1994 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram, for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The defendants 1 to 3 filed A.S.No.75 of 2000 before the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Ramanathapuram. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs. 3. The plaintiffs had contended that the suit schedule properties are having an extent of 5 acres and 30 cents located in Survey No.456/1 was originally a patta property which was conveyed under a registered sale deed, dated 05.12.1932, in favour of the plaintiff Pallivasal. From the date of the said purchase, the suit schedule property is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. Out of the said suit schedule properties an extent of 3 cents was gifted to the Ramanathapuram Panchayat Union on 29.08.1974. Another extent of 6 cents was gifted in favour of Ramanathapuram Panchayat Union for the construction of a Primary Health Centre. The suit schedule property is used as a Kabaristhan by the plaintiff Pallivasal. The plaintiffs further contended that there are many Karuvela trees in the said property which were regularly removed by the plaintiff Pallivasal. The plaintiffs came to know that the suit schedule properties have been wrongly classified as Government Poromboke. Hence, the present suit. 4. The defendants 1 to 3 who are revenue authorities filed a written statement contending that the suit schedule properties were not allotted to any individual or an institution but they have been reserved for public purpose. The defendants further contended that it is a public graveyard meant for Vani Muslims. The defendants further contended that the plaintiffs are entitled to use the said property only as a graveyard but does not have any right over the trees standing in the said property. The defendants further contended that the suit schedule properties have been classified as a Government Poromboke. The plaintiffs if at all had any right over the suit schedule properties they would have obtained patta during the settlement proceedings. Having failed to obtain patta, the plaintiffs cannot claim title over the suit schedule properties. The defendants further contended that the suit schedule properties have been classified as a Government Poromboke. The plaintiffs if at all had any right over the suit schedule properties they would have obtained patta during the settlement proceedings. Having failed to obtain patta, the plaintiffs cannot claim title over the suit schedule properties. The Wakf Board was arrayed in the 4th defendant in the suit and they have filed a written statement supporting the case of the plaintiffs. 5. The trial Court considered the Exhibit A1 sale deed in favour of the plaintiff Pallivasal and compared the same with the suit schedule property and arrived at a finding that the suit schedule property has been purchased under Exhibit A1 for the Pallivasal. The trial Court also arrived at a finding that under Exhibit A2 the suit schedule properties have been declared to be Wakf properties by a notification. The trial Court also considered the documents filed on the side of the defendants wherein it was stated that the suit schedule properties have been classified as Government Poromboke and in the remarks column it has been mentioned as Vani Muslim Mayanam. Based on the said findings, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. 6. The First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court on the ground that the plaintiffs have not established their title anterior to Exhibit A1 sale deed, dated 08.08.1932. The First Appellate Court also arrived at a finding that the plaintiff has not produced any patta or other revenue records standing in their name to establish their possession over the suit schedule properties. The First Appellate Court relied upon Exhibits B4 and B5 that were filed as additional documents in the first appeal. Exhibit B4 is a revenue account book and Exhibit B5 is the “A” Register. In these documents, suit Survey No.456/1 has been classified as Mayanam Poromboke. Based upon the said additional documents, the First appellate Court arrived at a finding that the suit survey number is a Mayanam Poromboke and the plaintiff Pallivasal does not have any absolute right over the suit schedule properties. Challenging the said judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs. 7. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Challenging the said judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs. 7. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the classification of land as poramboke in Inam Abolition proceedings, settlement record and revenue records is final and whether their correctness cannot be questioned before the Civil Court? 2. Whether the Appellate Court has not misdirected itself in brushing aside Ex.A-1 dated 08.08.1932 on the ground that the original is not available? 3. Whether the very classification of the land as burial ground poramboke in the Revenue Records does not probabilise the claim of the appellants and whether the Appellate Court has not misdirected itself in not deciding the case on preponderance of probabilities as required under Indian Evidence Act? 4. Whether the Appeal before the Lower Appellate Court without impleading the Wakf Board is maintainable? 5. Whether the Appellate Court has not misdirected itself in receiving additional evidence mechanically without complying with the mandatory provisions of Order 41, Rules 27 & 28 C.P.C and without affording adequate opportunities to the appellants to question the respondents with reference to those documents?” 8. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that Exhibit A1 sale deed is of the year 1932, which is an ancient document. Hence, it will not be humanly possible to produce any doument which is anterior to Exhibit A1 sale deed. He further contended that even as per the admitted case of the defendants, the survey was conducted in the said village only in the year 1958 and hence, there is no possibility of incorporating the survey number in Exhibit A1 sale deed of the year 1932. He further contended that the First Appellate Court had erred in accepting Exhibits B4 and B5 as an additional documents without following Order 41, Rule 27 and without conferring any opportunity to the plaintiffs to question the said documents. He further contended that just because patta has not been granted in favour of the plaintiff Pallivasal, the title of the plaintiff Pallivasal will not be lost. He further contended that the lower Appellate Court had erred in relying upon the classification made in the revenue records during the settlement proceedings for non suting the plaintiffs. In fact, the very classification made by the revenue authorities was under challenge before the Civil Court. He further contended that the lower Appellate Court had erred in relying upon the classification made in the revenue records during the settlement proceedings for non suting the plaintiffs. In fact, the very classification made by the revenue authorities was under challenge before the Civil Court. He further contended that the Wakf Board was arrayed as a 4th defendant in the suit and have filed a written statement supporting the case of the plaintiffs. When the revenue authorities filed a first appeal, they intentionaly omitted to implead the Wakf Board as one of the parties to the first appeal and hence, the first appeal is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the First Appellate Court had erred in insisting upon the production of Ryotwari patta by the plaintiff Pallivasal, when the settlement proceedings have been completed only in the year 1958 in which the classification has been wrongly made as Government Poromboke. Hence, he prayed for allowing the second appeal. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Survey No.456/1 has been classified as Government Poromboke and it is mentioned as Mayanam in the remarks column. The settlement proceedings have been completed in the year 1958, if the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property, they would have approached the revenue authorities and got patta. The very fact that the plaintiff Pallivasal had not obtained patta for the past so many years, will indicate that the suit schedule properties are Government Poromboke. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that Exhibit B1 FMB sketch, Exhibit B2 "A" register and Exhibit B3 adangal accounts will clearly indicate that the suit schedule property is a Government Poromboke. He further contended that the plaintiff Pallivasal is entitled to enjoy the suit schedule properties only as a Mayanam and not as an absolute owner. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the second appeal. 10. I have carefully considered the submissions on either side. 11. The plaintiffs rely upon Exhibit A1 sale deed, dated 08.08.1932 for claiming title over the suit schedule properties. The said document has been executed by Nayanammal and Mariyam Beevi in favour of four persons representing the plaintiff Pallivasal. The Eastern boundary of the said property is mentioned as graveyard belonging to the Pallivasal. 11. The plaintiffs rely upon Exhibit A1 sale deed, dated 08.08.1932 for claiming title over the suit schedule properties. The said document has been executed by Nayanammal and Mariyam Beevi in favour of four persons representing the plaintiff Pallivasal. The Eastern boundary of the said property is mentioned as graveyard belonging to the Pallivasal. D.W.1 in his evidence has admitted that the Eastern boundary of the suit schedule property is graveyard belonging to Pallivasal. Hence, we can safely arrive at a conclusion that the property purchased under Exhibit A1 is the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have filed Exhibit A2 which is a proforma of the notification of the plaintiff Wakf, dated 09.08.1956. The same has also been published in the Government Gazette on 17.10.1958. In the property list annexed to the proforma, the suit schedule property has been mentioned as a Serial No.4 having an extent of 5.40 acres and described as Pallivasal Punjai. A combined reading of Exhibits A1 and A2 will clearly indicate that the suit schedule properties belong to the plaintiff Pallivasal. The First Appellate Court has erroneously rejected Exhibit A1 sale deed on the ground that anterior title deeds or revenue records have not been produced. Exhibit A1 is of the year 1932 which is an ancient document and it is not humanly not possible to produce any document which is anterior to Exhibit A1. That apart, the Gazette publication under Exhibit A2 containing the property list of plaintiff Pallivasal will clearly indicate that the suit schedule properties belong to the Pallivasal and registered before the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board. Hence, the findings of the First Appellate Court that the plaintiff has not established his title by producing any document is not legally sustainable. The First Appellate Court has arrived at a finding that if really the plaintiff Pallivasal had purchased the suit schedule properties in the year 1932, they would have mutated the revenue records in their favour. Since no revenue record has been produced by the plaintiff Pallivasal. It has been presumed that the suit schedule properties are Government Poromboke. Even as per the admitted case of the revenue authorities, the survey and settlement proceedings were completed in the suit village only in the year 1958. In fact in the said settlement proceedings, the suit schedule property has been wrongly classified as a Government Poromboke. It has been presumed that the suit schedule properties are Government Poromboke. Even as per the admitted case of the revenue authorities, the survey and settlement proceedings were completed in the suit village only in the year 1958. In fact in the said settlement proceedings, the suit schedule property has been wrongly classified as a Government Poromboke. When the revenue classification indicates suit schedule property as a Government Poromboke, the plaintiffs cannot be expected to produce any revenue records in their name. In fact, the plaintiffs in the present suit are challenging the very classification made by the revenue authorities during the survey and settlement proceedings. Hence, the plaintiffs cannot be faulted with for not producing any revenue records in their favour. 12. It is settled possession of law that any classification made by the revenue authorities during the settlement proceedings is not final and the Civil Court can decide the question of title. The First Appellate Court has erroneously relied upon the classification made by the revenue authorities during the survey and settlement proceedings to non suit the plaintiffs. Under Section 4 of Wakf Act, 1954, the State Government has appointed as a Commissioner of Wakfs and the survey Commissioner has submitted his report to the State Government under Section 4 (3), indicating the suit schedule property is belonging to plaintiff Pallivasal. The said report was examined by the Board and it has been published in the official Gazette as contemplated under Section 5 (2) of Wakf Act, 1954. As per Section 6 of the said Act, any dispute regarding the declaration of a particular property as a Wakf should be raised before the Civil Court within a period of one year from the date of publication of the list of Wakf. In the present case, the Gazette publication has been effected under Exhibit A2 on 17.10.1958 indicating that the suit schedule properties are Wakf properties belonging to the plaintiff Pallivasal. Incidentaly, only in the same year the survey and settlement proceedings have been completed in the suit village. Hence, there is every possibility of conflict between the revenue authorities and the Wakf Board authorities. Without assertaining the Gazette publication made on 17.10.1958, the revenue authorities have chosen to wrongly classify the suit schedule property as Government Poromboke. Incidentaly, only in the same year the survey and settlement proceedings have been completed in the suit village. Hence, there is every possibility of conflict between the revenue authorities and the Wakf Board authorities. Without assertaining the Gazette publication made on 17.10.1958, the revenue authorities have chosen to wrongly classify the suit schedule property as Government Poromboke. Hence, the classification made by the defendants 1 to 3 regarding the suit schedule properties as Government Poromboke is not legally sustainable and is in clear violation of a Gazette publication made under Exhibit A2. 13. The First Appellate Court has received Exhibits B4 and B5 namely village accounts and “A” register pending appeal as additional documents. The said documents have been relied upon by the First Appellate Court to reverse the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Admittedly, the First Appellate Court has not followed the procedure contemplated under Order 41, Rule 27 and has received the additional documents across the bar without examining anyone as a witness. Unless the persons connected with the document are examined, the other side will not get an opportunity to question the validity of those documents. Hence, the procedure undertaken by the First Appellate Court in receiving Exhibits B4 and B5 as additional evidence is not legally sustainable. Moreover, there are no pleadings with regard to Exhibits B4 and B5 in the written statement filed by defendants 1 to 3. Hence, the findings rendered by the First Appellate Court relied upon Exhibits B4 and B5 are liable to set aside. 14. In view of the above said discussion, the substantial questions of law are answered as follows: 1. The classification of the suit properties as a Government Poromboke during survey and settlement proceedings is not final and the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to decide about the correctness of the classification and also the title of the suit schedule properties. Hence, the First Appellate Court had erred in relying upon the classification during the settlement proceedings to non suit the plaintiff. 2. Exhibit A1 sale deed, is dated 08.08.1932 and it is an ancient document. When there is no allegation of any fabrication, the non production of the original of Exhibit A1 cannot be faulted with. Hence, the finding of the First Appellate Court that Exhibit A1 cannot be relied upon is not legally sustainable. 3. 2. Exhibit A1 sale deed, is dated 08.08.1932 and it is an ancient document. When there is no allegation of any fabrication, the non production of the original of Exhibit A1 cannot be faulted with. Hence, the finding of the First Appellate Court that Exhibit A1 cannot be relied upon is not legally sustainable. 3. Even though the revenue records indicate that the suit schedule properties are a Government Poromboke, the remarks column clearly indicates that it is the burial ground of Vani Muslims. This description in the remarks column will clearly probabilise the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties are used as graveyard by the plaintiff Pallivasal. 4. The Wakf Board was arrayed as a 4th defendant in the suit. They have published a Gazette notification on 17.10.1958 indicating that the plaintiff Pallivasal is a registered Wakf and the suit schedule properties are Wakf properties. The Wakf Board has filed a written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff. However when the defendants 1 to 3 filed the first appeal, they have not chosen to implead the Wakf Board as one of the respondents in the appeal. Hence, the decree as far as the defendant is concerned has become final. The Wakf Board was only arrayed as 4th defendant in the suit. The 4th defendant has not chosen to file an appeal since they supported the case of the plaintiff. Hence, not impleading the Wakf Board in the first appeal will not make the appeal filed by D.W.1 to 3 as not maintainable. 5. The First Appellate Court has received Exhibits B4 and B5 across the bar and marked them as additional evidence without following the procedure contemplated under Order 41, Rule 27. Hence, the reception of the said documents is not legally sustainable and the reversal of the judgment based upon Exhibits B4 and B5 is liable to be interefered with. 15. In view of the above said discussion, substantial questions of law 1, 2, 3, and 5 are answered in favour of the appellants. The second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court is set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial Court is restored. No costs.