JUDGMENT : [PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.138 of 2008, dated 15.11.2010, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Theni confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.168 of 2006, dated 28.3.2007, on the file of District Munsif, Theni.] 1. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant before this Court. The suit is for declaration of title and for permanent injunction, with an alternative prayer for possession and for mandatory injunction. 2. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred a first appeal in A.S.No.136 of 2008 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence the appellant is before this Court. 3. According to the appellant/Plaintiff, the suit property originally belongs to his father Chinnasamy and after his death, in the year 1985, the appellant succeeded the suit property. It was also averred that the revenue documents stand in the name of appellant and during the month of January 2004, when the appellant obtained an Encumbrance Certificate in respect of the suit property, it came to his knowledge that respondents 1 to 4/Defendants 1 to 4 created some encumbrance over the suit property, so as to defeat the title and right of the appellant over the suit property. Therefore, the appellant was constrained to file a suit for the relief as mentioned above. 4. The respondents 1 to 4/defendants 1 to 4 filed a Written Statement denying the title as well as the possession of the appellant over the suit property. It was the specific case of the respondents that the suit property was purchased by the first respondent's father Mayandi Thevar from the father of the appellant on 16.12.1955 by way of an unregistered sale deed. It was also contended by the respondents 1 to 4 that the said Mayandi Thevar had enjoyed the suit property from the date of purchase and after his death, the respondents 1 to 4 succeeded to his interest and from then onwards, they had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It was further submitted that taking advantage of the absence of entry in the revenue records in favour of respondents, the appellant had filed this speculative suit. 5. It was further submitted that taking advantage of the absence of entry in the revenue records in favour of respondents, the appellant had filed this speculative suit. 5. Before the trial Court, the appellant was examined as P.W.1 and yet another independent witness was examined as P.W.2.The appellant marked 11 documents as Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 on his behalf. On behalf of the respondents, the second respondent was examined as D.W.1 and three independent witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents as D.W.2 to D.W.4. The respondents also marked 15 documents on their behalf as Ex.B1 to Ex.B15. The trial Court, on appreciation of both oral and doumentary evidence available on record, found that the appellant as plaintiff in a suit for title, had failed to establish his title and consequently, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.138 of 2008.The appellant also filed an application to raise additional evidence and the sale deed executed in favour of the appellant's father, dated 23.05.1945 was marked as Ex.A12 and other revenue documents were marked as Ex.A13 to Ex.A23.The First Appellate Court found that the suit property was sold by the appellant's father to the first respondent's father under Ex.B1 for a value of Rs.60/-. Since the value of the subject-matter of sale was less than Rs.100/-, the same need not be registered. Subsequently, the property had been dealt with by the respondents' family by mortgaging the property in year 1992. The first respondent executed a settlement deed in respect of the suit property in the year 1998. These two transactions namely mortgage of the suit property and settlement of the suit property had taken place long prior to the filing of the suit. Therefore, the first appellate Court concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant had preferred the present Second Appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below by mainly submitting that the title of the appellant was proved by additional document marked as Ex.A12 before the First Appellate Court and hence the finding that the appellant had failed to establish his title over the suit property, cannot be accepted. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below by mainly submitting that the title of the appellant was proved by additional document marked as Ex.A12 before the First Appellate Court and hence the finding that the appellant had failed to establish his title over the suit property, cannot be accepted. The learned counsel for the appellant by referring to the revenue documents filed in support of his case, submitted that the additional documents produced before the first appellate Court as Ex.A12 coupled with the other revenue documents proves the appellant's title and possession over the suit property and the finding rendered by the first appellate Court as if the appellant had failed to prove his title over the suit property is vitiated by non-consideration of material evidence available on record. 7. As far as the additional evidence filed before the first appellate Court is concerned, it will not improve the case of the appellant in any way, because even as per the pleadings of the respondents, the property was purchased by the father of the first respondent from the father of the appellant. Therefore the original title of the appellant's father over the suit property had been admitted through the written statement. The respondents purchased the suit property under Ex.P21 from the father of the appellant. Though Ex.B1 is an unregistered sale deed, in view of the fact that the value of the subject-matter of the sale dealt with under Ex.B1 was mentioned as Rs.60/-, there is no necessity for the parties to go for a compulsory registration. Therefore the non registration of Ex.B1 will not vitiate the document. The Courts below, considering the age of the sale deed executed in favour of the first respondent's father namely Ex.B1, raised a presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act and held that under Ex.B1, the father of the first respondent acquired title over the suit property. The said finding cannot be brushed aside easily. 8. Apart from Ex.B10, the Encumbrance Certificate produced on behalf of the appellant proves that the property had been dealth with by the respondents subsequent to the purchase. The entries in Ex.A10 Encumbrance Certificate makes it clear that the suit property was mortgaged by the first respondent in the year 1992. Subsequently in the year 1998, he had executed a Gift Deed in favour of his son. The entries in Ex.A10 Encumbrance Certificate makes it clear that the suit property was mortgaged by the first respondent in the year 1992. Subsequently in the year 1998, he had executed a Gift Deed in favour of his son. These two registered transactions of the year 1994 and 1998 well before the filing of the suit, prove that the property had been enjoyed by the respondents family subsequent to the purchase. The appellant said to have acquired knowledge about the registered transactions of the respondents in respect of the suit property after getting Encumbrance Certificate namely Ex.A10. The said document is dated 24.02.2004. However, the present suit has been filed by the appellant only on 9.2.2006. If really, the appellant had right and possession over the suit property, on acquiring the knowledge about the registered documents, under which the property had been dealt with by the respondents, the appellant would have filed the suit immediately on acquiring knowledge of the registered transactions of the respondents. Long in-action on the part of the appellant makes it clear that the property was sold to the first respondent's father long back and they had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. This Court finds no question of law much less substantial question of law in the Second Appeal and hence the same deserves to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. There is no order as to costs.