JUDGMENT (Prayer: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree made in A.S.No.25 of 2017 dated 27.10.2021, on the file of the Sub Court, Kallakurichi confirming the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.182 of 2010 dated 17.02.2017, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court at Kallakurichi.) 1. The 4th defendant in O.S.No.182 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Kallakurichi, is the appellant herein. 2. The suit in O.S.No.182 of 2010 had been filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff /Sekar, S/o. Aiyakannan, seeking declaration of title and injunction to protect possession with respect to the suit schedule property, which is described as punja land in Survey No.147/11 measuring 0.21 cents in Karanoor Village in Kallakurichi. 3. It is stated that to substantiate such claim, the 1st respondent/ plaintiff produced Ex.A1, the Sale deed in his favour, dated 02.04.2008 and also a Sale deed of his vendor as Ex.A2, dated 27.12.1979 and also to establish possession, the computerized extract of Chitta, No.822, which had been marked as Ex.A3. 4. An Advocate Commissioner had also been appointed and his Report and Sketch had been marked as Exs.C1 and C2. The 'D' namuna document from the Revenue Department had been marked as Ex.X1. The defendants also produced Chitta, 'A' register and Patta. 5. The defendant's lands are to the South of the plaintiff's lands. The necessity for the suit arose since, the defendants had claimed a right to use a particular lane, which was within the area of the plaintiffs land. 6. It was claimed by the defendants that the said particular strip of land was a public pathway. If it is to be a public pathway, then, the accompanying requirements to categorize it as a public pathway should be established. The only way and the surest way of such establishment would be to produce the revenue records or to summon the Revenue Officials as witnesses. 7. The burden was therefore on the defendants to establish that the said pathway was a public pathway and that though it is within the lands of the plaintiff, the defendants have a right to use the same. 8. The Trial Court had decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff had proved title by producing Ex.A1 and the plaintiff had also produced Ex.A3/Chitta to establish possession. 9. 8. The Trial Court had decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff had proved title by producing Ex.A1 and the plaintiff had also produced Ex.A3/Chitta to establish possession. 9. In view of those facts, the Trial Court namely the District Munsif, Kallakurichi, had decreed O.S.No.182 of 2010, by Judgment dated 17.02.2017. 10. Not satisfied with those reasons and extremely aggrieved by the reasons, the defendants had filed A.S.No.25 of 2017, before the Sub Court at Kallakurichi. 11. Before the Sub Court, Kallakurichi, though the defendants could have produced documents under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to substantiate that the pathway is a public pathway, for reasons best known they did not utilize such opportunity but relied only on the exhibits they had marked before the Trial Court. 12. The First Appellate Court also examined on the evidence recorded during the Trial Court and also opined that Ex.A1 proved title and that Ex.A3 proved possession. Holding so, the First Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal Suit by Judgment dated 27.10.2021. 13. The 4th defendant alone has filed an appeal before this Court. When one or more defendants has joined together to contest a particular case, and if the cause of action is the same or the contentions raised in the written statement are the same, it is only appropriate that they join together to agitate the issues further. 14. It might also be a case by just one of the defendants alone filing the Second Appeal, await the result and then, the other defendants might follow the suit. But here, there are concurrent findings of facts and unless it is established that such findings are extremely perverse, this Court cannot interfere with the same. 15. In the instant case, reliance placed on Exs.A1, A2 and A3 more particularly Exs.A1 and A3 cannot be stated to be perverse. They are documents which have been produced, declared admissible and relevant. 16. In view of the same, I find no reason to interfere with the Judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 17. The Second Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment of both the Courts below are hereby confirmed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.