11.Challenging that judgment, the plaintiff then filed A.S.No.108 of 1999. This appeal came up for consideration before the learned Principal District Judge, Salem. By judgment dated 20.06.2000, the learned II Additional District Judge, framed points for consideration and reappraised the evidence. It was found that the suit property consisted of two items namely, Door Nos.409, 410 and Door Nos.395, 396. It was observed that the first defendant had admitted that the plaintiff was collecting rents from the tenants in Door Nos.409 and 410. It was therefore held that the plaintiff was in possession of Door Nos.409 and 410. The learned Principal District Judge, relied on the evidence of PW2 who also stated that the plaintiff was residing in Door Nos.395 and 396 in support of the evidence of plaintiff herself. It was also found that the first defendant did not attend the funeral of his own father and he was not in possession. The learned Principal District Judge, also found that the documents relied on by the defendants and by the 1st Additional District Munsif, Salem, did not establish the possession of the defendants. It was specifically found that the trial court had been misled by the report of the Commissioner.
