R.MALA, J. - (1.)THE Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1999 made in A.S. No. 149 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.10.1998 made in O.S. No. 387 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sirkali.
(2.)THE averments in the plaint are as follows:-
(i) THE suit properties were owned by the plaintiff's father Duraiappa Padayachi and his brother Ayyadurai Padayachi. THEy were enjoyed in an undivided state by the joint family of Duraiappa Padayachi and his brother Ayyadurai Padayachi.

(ii) THE plaintiff is the eldest son of Duraiappa Padayachi.THE defendants 1 and 2 are the plaintiff's brother. THE third defendant is the son of Ayyadurai Padayachi.

(iii) After the death of Duraiappa Padayachi, the joint family properties were divided under a family arrangement between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiff's mother since deceased Thangappa Ayal, in respect of the wet lands of the family of Duraiappa Padayachi on 9.10.1977. 'A' schedule property mentioned in Karai Olai were allotted to the plaintiff. He is in possession and enjoyment of the same from 1977. So, he prescribed title by adverse possession.

(iv) In respect of dry lands, there was another partition taken place on 14.6.1978 and by which, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of 'B' schedule property. Each party was given a copy of Karai Olai. He is in exclusive possession from 1978, ousting other sharers and adverse to the interest of others and to their knowledge. Hence, he prescribed title by adverse possession.

(v) THE plaintiff issued a notice to the defendants on 22.5.1981 to effect the division of the house and partition deed to be executed in a stamp paper and for registration. A reply has been sent by the first defendant.

(vi) THE defendants have no right over the property. Now, they attempted to interfere with the possession. Hence, the plaintiff come forward with the suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment.

The gist and essence of written statement filed by the second defendant, adopted by the first defendant, are as follows:-

(i) The plaintiff is not in possession of 'A' schedule property. No cause of action for the suit. The plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2's father Duraiappa Padayachi has executed a settlement deed in favour of plaintiff in the year 1959 and settled 10 acres of land. Likewise, in 1972, he has settled 10 acres of land to the defendants 1 and 2. He also settled 10 acres to his brother Ayyadurai Padayachi. The settlement deeds have been duly executed, validly accepted and acted upon. They are in possession in pursuance of the settlement deeds.

(ii) In 'A' Schedule property - Item Nos. 19/2,19/6, 60/7, 84/1, 86/1 and 62/3 -3 acres 74 cents were allotted to the first defendant in the settlement deed. It is in his possession and enjoyment. Likewise, in 'A' Schedule property - Item Nos. 86/2 and 85/4 - 2 acres 41 cents has been settled by father Duraiappa Padayachi in favour of the second defendant. The plaintiff wantonly suppressed the same and come forward with the false suit.

(iii) The plaintiff has not taken possession in pursuance of the partition list dated 9.10.1977 and hence, it is not valid in law. On 17.7.1989, a panchayat was convened, in which, both the parties accepted to take the property as mentioned in the settlement deed and in respect of house also, the property has been divided. It was decided to execute a partition deed and got it registered. But, the plaintiff has wantonly suppressed all the material facts and come forward with the false suit.

(iv) The plaintiffs father Duraiappa Padayachi filed O.S. No. 526 of 1961 against the plaintiff and his brother Ayyadurai Padayachi for injunction and obtained an order of injunction, which shows that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit properties.
The plaintiff is never in possession of the suit properties. The defendants alone are in possession of the suit properties and they are enjoying the suit properties by raising the paddy and black gram. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
The trial Court after considering the averments both in the plaint and written statement had framed four issues and considering the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2, DWs 1 to 4 and Exhibits A-1 to A-15 and Exhibits B1 to B23, granted a decree of injunction. Against that, the defendants have preferred an appeal. The first appellate Court after considering the arguments of both counsels framed three points for determination and setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Against that, the present second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.

(3.)AT the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration:-
i) Whether the lower appellate Court erred in law in holding that Exhibits A-14 and A-15 are not admissible in evidence due to want of registration of the said documents.

ii) Whether the lower appellate Court erred in law in failing to hold that Exhibits A-4 and A-5 record a family arrangement and as such they need not be registered.

iii) Whether the lower appellate Court erred in law in failing o hold that in view of the admission in Exhibits A-2 and A3 the burden of proving that as to when the suit properties have come to the possession of respondents 1 and 2 is on the respondents 1 and 2 and that they have failed to prove the same.

Substantial Question of Law No. i and ii:- The appellant as plaintiff filed a suit for injunction stating that 'A' schedule property is the wet land and it was allotted to him in the partition list-Exhibit A-14 dated 9.10.1977. 'B' schedule property has been allotted to him in the partition list-Exhibit A-15 dated 14.6.1978. From that date onwards, he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. He is in open, long and continuous possession, so, he prescribed title by adverse possession. Since, the defendants attempted to interfere with his possession, he came forward with the suit and he prayed for an injunction. The respondents/defendants resisted the suit stating that the suit properties are purchased by the defendants 1 and 2's father Duraiappa Padayachi and his brother Ayyadurai Padayachi and during the life time of Duraiappa Padayachi, he executed settlement deeds in favour of his sons viz., plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. In pursuance of the settlement deeds, they are in possession. The alleged partition lists-Exhibits A-14 and A-15 are not admissible in evidence. Hence, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit. The trial Court after framing necessary issues and considering the oral and documentary evidence granted a decree of injunction. Against that, the defendants preferred an appeal. The first appellate Court observing that Exhibits A-14 and A-15 are admissible in evidence, set aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court and allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Against that, the plaintiff has come forward with the present second appeal.