JUDGMENT : Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.11 of 1992 on the file of the Sub Court, Ambasamudram dated 21.12.1999 reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 366 of 1978 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram dated 12.03.1986. 1. The plaintiff is the appellant. 2. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.366 of 1978 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram for declaration of title and permanent injunction over the second item of the suit schedule property. The suit was decreed in entirety by the trial Court. The defendant filed A.S.No.11 of 1992 before the Sub Court, Ambasamudram. The learned Subordinate Judge confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court with regard to the first item, but reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court with regard to the second item of the suit schedule properties. As against the same, the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal. 3. The contention of the plaintiff as regards the second schedule property is as follows: 4. The plaintiff's husband Sorimuthu Pillai had passed away on 20.07.1941. At that point of time, the plaintiff's son Nallasivam Pillai was aged about five years and the plaintiff's daughter Ramalakshmi was just 1 ½ years old. Since the plaintiff was without any support, her father Azhagusundaram Pillai had brought her to his native town Sivanthipurm Village. The second schedule property site was owned by the father of the plaintiff. He had gifted the said site in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1963 and possession was also handed over to her. The plaintiff put up construction at the cost of Rs.2000/- in the second schedule property in the year 1964. The plaintiff utilized the income from the first schedule property and also the sale proceeds of the house property located at Cheranmahadevi Village. The plaintiff's son Nallasivam Pillai had not contributed for the construction of the house property. Her son Nallasivam Pillai does not have any title or any interest over the second schedule property. The plaintiff is residing in the second schedule property for more than the statutory period and she has acquired title by adverse possession. The plaintiff had further contended that the defendant is the wife of her son Nallasivam Pillai. She had initiated O.S.No.152 of 1975 before the Sub Court, Tirunelveli and obtained a decree for maintenance. The plaintiff is residing in the second schedule property for more than the statutory period and she has acquired title by adverse possession. The plaintiff had further contended that the defendant is the wife of her son Nallasivam Pillai. She had initiated O.S.No.152 of 1975 before the Sub Court, Tirunelveli and obtained a decree for maintenance. In the suit, a charge decree has been created over the first and second schedule properties in the present suit. The defendant has filed E.P.No.20 of 1978 in the maintenance suit to bring the properties for Court auction for non-payment of the maintenance amount. According to the plaintiff, since the first and second schedule properties belong to the plaintiff, the defendant is not entitled to bring those properties for Court auction in E.P.No.20 of 1978. Since a charge decree alone has been passed in O.S.No.152 of 1975, the plaintiff is not in a position to file any claim petition in the said suit. Hence, the present suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. 5. The defendant filed a written statement contending that the plaintiff in collusion with her son Nallasivam Pillai (husband of the defendant) had filed this present suit only to prevent the defendant from enjoying the fruits of the decree in O.S.No.152 of 1975. She further contended that the plaintiff has given up her rights in the first schedule property in favour of her son Nallasivam Pillai and hence, the said Nallasivam Pillai is the absolute owner of the first schedule property. She further contended that the site of the second schedule property is owned by Thiruvaduthurai Adheenam and the same was given in favour of the Nallasivam Pillai. The said Nallasivam Pillai only was paying the rent to Thiruvaduthurai Adheenam. According to the defendant, her husband namely Nallasivam Pillai has put up construction in the second schedule property out of his own funds. All the records stand in the name of Nallasivam Pillai. She further contended that till the defendant filed E.P.No. 20 of 1978 to bring the property to Court auction sale, the property tax assessment was only in the name of her husband Nallasivam Pillai. In order to wriggle out of the charge decree, the plaintiff had changed the assessment from the name of the Nallasivam Pillai in her name. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. In order to wriggle out of the charge decree, the plaintiff had changed the assessment from the name of the Nallasivam Pillai in her name. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, arrived at a finding that the plaintiff has established her title over the first schedule property by producing Exhibits A1 to A4 sale deed. The trial Court decreed the suit for the first item. As regards the second schedule schedule property, the trial Court considered the oral evidence on the side of the plaintiff and the defendant and came to a conclusion that both the parties have not produced any documentary evidence with regard to the ownership of the site of the second schedule property. The trial Court further found that when the suit schedule property was constructed in the year 1964, the defendant's husband was very young and there is no document to establish that he was having any independent source of income so as to construct the house property in the second schedule property. The trial Court also found just because the property tax assessment stands in the name of the defendant's husband, it cannot be presumed that he is the owner of the suit schedule properties. The trial Court also relied upon the various tax receipts under which the plaintiff paid the house tax in the second schedule property. Based upon the said findings, the trial Court decreed the suit with regard to the second schedule property. 7. The defendant filed a first appeal. The First Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court with regard to the first schedule property. The Appellate Court proceeded to hold that the plaintiff had not proved her contention that the second schedule property belongs to her father Azhagusundaram Pillai. She has not produced any document to that effect that her father Azhagusundaram Pillai has gifted the site to the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court also found that though the plaintiff has contended that she had sourced her money from the sale of some ancestor property for the construction of the house in the second schedule property, the plaintiff has not produced any document to the said effect. In the year 1964, the husband of the defendant was around 30 years old and he was working as a Village Munsif at that point of time. In the year 1964, the husband of the defendant was around 30 years old and he was working as a Village Munsif at that point of time. Hence, the trial Court was not correct in holding that the defendant's husband was so young or without any avocation to construct a house property in the second schedule property. The First Appellate Court also found that right from the date of construction of the house in the year 1964, the house tax assessment was standing only in the name of the defendant's husband. After matrimonial dispute between the defendant and her husband, the plaintiff has approached the Panchayat for transfer of assessment in her name and the same has not been to be objected to by the defendant's husband. In view of the said findings, the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court with regard to the second schedule property and dismissed the suit with regard to the second schedule property. Challenging the same, the present second appeal has been filed. 8. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Lower Appellate Court failed to note that burden and onus of proof looses its importance when both parties lead evidence? (ii) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is correct in its observation that oral evidence should not be given any importance in suits relating to Civil dispute (page 6 lines 36 to 38)? (iii) Whether the Lower Appellate Court erred in not believing the oral evidence let in by the Appellant especially that of PW2 who had been the local panchayat president and the member of Legislature for 2 terms and that of PW3 who had been working in Thiruvaduthurai Adheenam who known about that fact of the case? (iv) Whether the Lower Appellate Court failed to note that the parties like the Appellant cannot be expected to keep records of matters which had happened 20 years ago? (v) Whether the Lower Appellate Court erred in not believing the contention of the Appellant that suit 2nd schedule property is her absolute property and is not attachable for the discharge of the decree in O.S.No.152/75 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirunelveli? (vi) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in reversing the well considered judgment of the trial Court? 9. (vi) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in reversing the well considered judgment of the trial Court? 9. The learned counsel for the appellants had contended that the plaintiff has examined PW1 to PW3 to establish that the site of the second schedule property was originally owned by the father of the plaintiff and later, it was gifted to the plaintiff by her father. Thereafter, the plaintiff out of sale proceeds of her ancestor's property in Cheranmahadevi, she had put up construction in the second schedule property in the year 1964. By mistake, the property tax assessment was initially created in the name of the defendant's husband. Though the assessment was in the name of Nallasivam Pillai, the property tax was actually paid by the plaintiff. He further contended that after it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff, that the assessment stands in her son's name, she gave at least three representations to change the assessment in her name. Hence, just because of assessment was standing in the name of Nallasivam Pillai, the same cannot be presumed to confer title on the said Nallasivam Pillai. He further contended that since both the parties have let in evidence, the burden of proof pales into insignificance. He further contended that the First Appellate Court was not correct in its observation that oral evidence should not be given any importance in the suit relating to civil dispute and mostly documentary evidence plays a dominant role. He further contended that the plaintiff has examined Panchayat President and a member of the legislative assembly as PW2 to establish the fact that the construction was made in the site belonging to her father and out of her own funds. He further contended that the deposition of PW3 who is the employee of the Thiruvaduthurai Adheenam, will clearly establish the fact that the site of the second schedule property does not belong to the Thiruvaduthurai Adheenam. The First Appellate Court had erred in commenting upon the plaintiff that she has not filed documentary evidence which are more than 20 years old. He further contended that the trial Court after careful analysis of the oral and documentary evidence has arrived at a finding that the second schedule property is the absolute property of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court had erred in commenting upon the plaintiff that she has not filed documentary evidence which are more than 20 years old. He further contended that the trial Court after careful analysis of the oral and documentary evidence has arrived at a finding that the second schedule property is the absolute property of the plaintiff. But, the First Appellate Court has erroneously reversed the same without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence filed on the side of the plaintiff. Hence, he prayed for allowing the second appeal. 10. Though the respondent has been served, there is no representation on the side of the respondent. 11. I have carefully considered the submission made on the side of the appellants. 12. As regards the first schedule property, the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have concurrently found that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and a decree has been granted in favour of the plaintiff. Challenging the same, the defendant has not filed any appeal. Hence, the present second appeal is restricted to the second schedule property. 13. The plaintiff has contended that the site belongs to her father Azhagusundaram Pillai and the same was gifted by her father in the year 1963. The plaintiff has not produced any document either to prove that her father is the owner of the site or her father has gifted the site in her favour in the year 1963. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that she had sold away her ancestral property at Cheranmahadevi village and out of the said funds she had put up construction in the second schedule property in the year 1964. Even for the said pleadings, there is no document to prove that she had alienated her property at Cheranmahadevi Village. 14. The plaintiff has further contended that her son Nallasivam Pillai was so young in the year 1964 and he has not contributed to the construction of the house in the second schedule property. According to the plaintiff, her son Nallasivam Pillai was five years old in the year 1941. Admittedly, the construction has been made in the year 1964. Hence, it is evident that at the time of construction, the said Nallasivam Pillai was 28 years old. According to the plaintiff, her son Nallasivam Pillai was five years old in the year 1941. Admittedly, the construction has been made in the year 1964. Hence, it is evident that at the time of construction, the said Nallasivam Pillai was 28 years old. That apart, even as admitted in the deposition of the plaintiff, the said Nallasivam Pillai was working as Village Munsif at the time of construction of the house in the second schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that the constructions were made only out of her own funds and the son was not wealthy enough to contribute for the construction of the said house. 15. The plaintiff has further contended that the assessment to the house property in the second schedule property was by mistake created in the name of her son Nallasivam Pillai. The assessment was standing in the name of her son, Nallasivam Pillai right from the year 1964, but she gave a representation to the Panchayat to change the assessment in her name. All the documents filed on the side of the plaintiff and the defendant would indicate that right from the year 1964 till 1975, the house tax assessment was standing only in the name of Nallasivam Pillai. But suddenly, in the year 1974-1975, the plaintiff had made representation to the Panchayat to change the assessment in her name and accordingly, it has been changed in the name of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the assessment continues in the name of the plaintiff. Relying upon the said property tax assessment, the plaintiff contends that she is the owner of the second schedule property and not her son Nallasivam Pillai. 16. It is evident from the records that a matrimonial dispute arose between the defendant and her husband in the year 1974 itself and the defendant has filed O.S.No.152 of 1975 before the Sub Court, Tirunelveli seeking maintenance. The said suit was decreed on 14.02.1976 and the defendant has filed E.P.No.20 of 1978 to bring both the items on sale due to default in payment of the maintenance. Hence, it is evident that the plaintiff has taken steps to delete the name of the Nallasivam Pillai from the property tax assessment and incorporate her name only after the matrimonial dispute between the defendant and her husband Nallasivam Pillai. 17. Hence, it is evident that the plaintiff has taken steps to delete the name of the Nallasivam Pillai from the property tax assessment and incorporate her name only after the matrimonial dispute between the defendant and her husband Nallasivam Pillai. 17. The defendant has specifically pleaded that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff being initiated by her son Nallasivam Pillai in order to prevent the defendant from enjoying the fruit of the maintenance decree. That apart, the plaintiff has not proved either the title to the site or with regard to the superstructure. The dispute between the parties is now based on tax assessment made by the Panchayat. It was originally in the name of Nallasivam Pillai and later, after matrimonial dispute, it has been changed in the name of the plaintiff. Hence, this Court can safely come to a conclusion that the plaintiff has not established her title over the site or superstructure in the second schedule property. The First Appellate Court after careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence has rightly rejected the claim of the plaintiff for the second schedule property. 18. In view of the above discussion, all the substantial questions of law are answered as against the appellants. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court is confirmed. The second appeal is dismissed. No costs.