JUDGMENT (Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2018 made in A.S.No.44 of 2017 on the file of Sub Court, Kangeyam and confirming decree and judgment dated 01.04.2016 in O.S.No.175 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif, Kangeyam.) 1. The un-successful plaintiff before the Courts below has filed the above second appeal, which has been admitted by this Court on 07.02.2020 on the following substantial questions of law: a) Whether the Courts below are right in dismissing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents / defendants in spite of the fact that appellant / plaintiff has proved her case by letting oral and documentary evidence? b) Whether the Courts below are right in disbelieving sale deed dated 20.01.2012(A) and appellant being the bona fide purchaser? 2. In order to answer the above substantial questions of law, it is necessary to allude to the facts of the case and by doing so, the parties are referred to in the same litigative status as before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff had filed a suit O.S.No.175 of 2012 for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the property described herein below: 4. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property and other properties belonged to one Muthusamy Gounder. Muthusamy Gounder had a son Ponnambalam, whose children were Duraisamy, Ramasamy and Muthusamy(father of the 4th defendant and husband of the plaintiff's vendor). It is the case of the plaintiff that under a registered Partition Deed dated 01.04.1950, Ponnambalam and his sons had partitioned the joint family properties. The properties in Pachapalayam village in survey field No.482A and other survey fields were allotted to the share of Muthusamy. The suit property is in possession of the said Muthusamy. It is the contention of the plaintiff that in Survey Field No.485, there are two tiled houses and in Survey Field No.488, there is a house and vacant site. The said Muthusamy had sold the property comprised in S.No.554 to one Duraisamy. Thereafter, he had bequeathed all properties including the suit property in favour of his wife, Kannammal under a registered Will dated 03.01.2000. Muthusamy and Kannammal had three children, Asokan, the 4th defendant, Raja Paneerselvam and Navarathinam, the only daughter. The said Muthusamy had sold the property comprised in S.No.554 to one Duraisamy. Thereafter, he had bequeathed all properties including the suit property in favour of his wife, Kannammal under a registered Will dated 03.01.2000. Muthusamy and Kannammal had three children, Asokan, the 4th defendant, Raja Paneerselvam and Navarathinam, the only daughter. After the death of Muthusamy, the fourth defendant had filed a suit O.S.No.170 of 2000 on the file of the Sub Court, Dharapuram. This suit was compromised and the suit property was allotted to the share of Kannammal. Thereafter, under a registered sale deed dated 20.01.2012, Kannammal sold the suit property to the plaintiff. Pending the suit, the fourth defendant had got himself impleaded by orders of Court in I.A.No.1015 of 2012. The plaintiff would contend that since there was an attempt on the part of the defendants to evict the plaintiff and as she and her predecessor-in-title have been enjoying the properties for several years and have perfected title to it, she had come forward to institute the above suit for the reliefs stated therein. 5. The defendants 1 to 3, who were the Government Officials, had filed a written statement inter-alia contending that the suit property was a Natham waste land and therefore, the title vested only with the Government and not on any other person. The suit property could not be bequeathed by Muthusamy, since he had no title to the same and consequently, the plaintiff's vendor also could not claim any right in the property. The plea of adverse possession would not be maintainable against the Government. The defendants 1 to 3 therefore sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. The fourth defendant had filed a written statement, in which, he would contend that the suit property was not allotted to Muthusamy under the Partition Deed dated 01.04.1950 and the Will was also denied. Further, even assuming that the Will is a valid one, any right that flowed under the Will to the said Kannammal had been given up by her on entering into the compromise in the suit O.S.No.170 of 2000. Therefore, it the contention of the fourth defendant that the plaintiff cannot claim any right or title or interest to the suit property. 7. The learned District Munsif, Kangeyam had framed the following issues: (i) Whether it is true the suit property originally belongs to Muthu @ Muthusamy gounder ancestrally? Therefore, it the contention of the fourth defendant that the plaintiff cannot claim any right or title or interest to the suit property. 7. The learned District Munsif, Kangeyam had framed the following issues: (i) Whether it is true the suit property originally belongs to Muthu @ Muthusamy gounder ancestrally? (ii) Whether it is true the said Muthu @ Muthusamy Gounder has executed the Will dated 03.01.2000? (iii) Whether the Will dated 03.01.2000 is legal, valid and binding on the vendor of the plaintiff? (iv) Whether it is true the Will dated 03.01.2000 was not acted upon by the beneficiary? (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration over the suit property? (vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction over the suit property? (vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction? 8. The plaintiff had examined herself as P.W1 and marked Exs.A1 to A13. On the side of the defendants 1 to 3, the Deputy Tahsildar was examined as D.W1 and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. The fourth defendant was examined as D.W2 and Exs.B3 to B6 were marked. 9. The learned District Munsif, Kangeyam, after considering the evidence on record, held that in the Partition Deed-Ex.A3, the suit property does not find a mention. Even in the Sale Deed Ex.A4 executed by Muthusamy in favour of Duraisamy, the suit property is not shown as a boundary, though it was so contended by the plaintiff. Ex.A8- Re-Survey Adangal extract would describe the suit property as a Natham waste land and the same is not described as a Natham house site. Further, there is no document filed on the side of the plaintiff to show the continued possession of the property by the plaintiff and prior to that by her predecessor-in-title. Therefore, the plea of adverse possession has also not been proved. That apart, Ex.A10-Will had not been proved in the manner known to law. The Will does not contain any details of the properties, which have been bequeathed in favour of the said Kannammal. Therefore, the learned Judge has held that no right flowed from Ex.A10-Will, as the same had not been proved. Therefore, the suit was dismissed. Challenging the same, the plaintiff had filed an appeal in A.S.No.44 of 2017 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dharapuram. Therefore, the learned Judge has held that no right flowed from Ex.A10-Will, as the same had not been proved. Therefore, the suit was dismissed. Challenging the same, the plaintiff had filed an appeal in A.S.No.44 of 2017 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dharapuram. The Appellate Court also came to the very same conclusion and confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Challenging the concurrent judgment and decree of the Courts below, the plaintiff is before this Court. 10. Pending the appeal, the plaintiff has taken out a petition in C.M.P.No.13145 of 2022 in S.A.No.1 of 2020 for receiving an additional evidence. This document is styled as a Sale Certificate in a Court auction sale conducted in E.P.No.540 of 1935 on the file of the District Munsif, Dharapuram. However, the description of the property does not corelate with the suit schedule property. Further, there is no pleading with reference to the said document in the plaint. Therefore, this document cannot be received as additional evidence and consequently, C.M.P.No.13145 of 2022 seeking to receive the additional evidence is dismissed. 11. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 12. The plaintiff has come to Court to have her title declared to the suit property. She traces her title to the property to a Partition Deed-Ex.A3 dated 01.04.1950. Thereafter, it is her case that the suit property was bequeathed to her vendor Kannammal under the Will dated 03.01.2000 marked as Ex.A10. On the strength of Ex.A10, the plaintiff's vendor had sold the property to her under the Sale Deed dated 20.01.2012. That apart, the plaintiff has also pleaded that she and her predecessor-in-title have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property for well over several decades and have therefore perfected title to the property. The plea to this effect has been taken in paragraph IX of the plaint, which is extracted herein below. 13. The property in question is a vacant site. Though the plaintiff has contended that she and her predecessor-in-title have been in possession of the suit property for well over the statutory period, the pleadings does not specify as to when the possession had become adverse and against whom, the same had turned adverse. The plaintiff has already claimed a right to the property on the basis of the title, i.e., under Ex.A3-Partition Deed, Ex.A10-Will and Ex.A1-Sale Deed. The plaintiff has already claimed a right to the property on the basis of the title, i.e., under Ex.A3-Partition Deed, Ex.A10-Will and Ex.A1-Sale Deed. Therefore, it is needless to state that the plaintiff cannot take two contradictory pleas. The document under which the plaintiff would claim title is Ex.A10-Will. It is the case of the plaintiff that under Ex.A10-Will, the suit property had been bequeathed to Kannammal. The document does not contain details about the properties that have been bequeathed and that apart, the said document has not been proved in the manner known to law as contemplated under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act. The plaintiff has not chosen to examine her vendor to prove the same. It is also not her case that the attesting witnesses are not available. Both the Courts below have rightly rejected Ex.A10-Will on the ground that it has not been proved in the manner known to law. Once the immediate document of title under which the plaintiff claims the right stands unproved no right will flow from the said document to the plaintiff. Therefore, the finding of the Courts below as regards Ex.A10 is well considered and I see no reason to overturn the said findings. The Courts below have also found that there is no mention about the suit property both in the Partition Deed-Ex.A3 or in the Will-Ex.A10. The suit property is also not the subject matter of the earlier suit O.S.No.170 of 2000. Since the plaintiff claims title through Kannammal and as the Will Ex.A10 has not been proved, the sale in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.A1 does not create right to the plaintiff over the suit property. The substantial questions of law are therefore answered against the plaintiff. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.13140 of 2022 is closed.