JUDGMENT: Defendants 2 and 3 in O.S. No.538 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif, Madurai Taluk at Madurai, are the appellants in the second appeal. 2. The respondents herein filed the suit against one Chinnasami, the appellants herein, Muthusami and Raju for a permanent injunction restraining them from in any way interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The appellants are respectively the sons of one Savarikoothan, brother of the first defendant since dead. Their case was as follows: The suit property belongs to the second plaintiff ancestrally. The first plaintiff being her son doing cultivation for her, they are in possession and enjoyment and no one else is entitled to any right over the property. The entire kist receipts had been misplaced and with great efforts they have been able to produce chitta for fasli 1364 and adangal for faslis 1385 to 1987, chitta for fasli 1388 and adangal for faslis 1389 to 1994, and chitta for fasli 1395 standing in her name to show the second plaintiff’s possession. The plaintiffs’ bargain for sale of the suit property with defendant 1 to 3 fell through due to price variation. The first defendant with the active connivance of defendants 2 and 3, and his partisans defendants 4 and 5 on and from 28.8.1985 hinder the sale of the property by the plaintiffs and thereafter to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs. This has necessitated the filing of the suit. 3. Defendants 1, 4 and 5 remained ex parte. 4. Defendants 1 to 3 filed a written statement to the following effect: The averments regarding continuous possession and misunderstanding on account of failure to complete the sale are false. The suit properties originally belonged to one Veerapatran, father of the first plaintiff and husband of the second plaintiff. Veerapatran and the second plaintiff were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The patta was standing in the name of the second plaintiff. On 28.7.1948 Veerapatran along with the second plaintiff and for himself and on behalf of minor Jothi executed a registered othi in favour of Savarikoothan, father of defendants 1 to 3 in respect of the suit property. Savarikoothan took possession of the suit property. He was doing personal cultivation along with his sons. On 28.7.1948 Veerapatran along with the second plaintiff and for himself and on behalf of minor Jothi executed a registered othi in favour of Savarikoothan, father of defendants 1 to 3 in respect of the suit property. Savarikoothan took possession of the suit property. He was doing personal cultivation along with his sons. From the date of the registered othi, Savarikoothan and defendants 1 to 3 alone were in joint possession and enjoyment by doing personal cultivation. Veerapatran and his wife owed money to Savarikoothan. Savarikoothan filed S.C. No.233 of 1952 before the District Munsif, Madurai Taluk, on the amount due to him against Veerapatran and the second plaintiff and obtained a money decree and in E.P. No.398 of 1957 brought the suit property to sale. In the Court auction, the fourth defendant, who happened to be the maternal uncle of defendants 1 to 3, had purchased the suit property for a valuable consideration of Rs.2,001 subject to discharge of othi, dated 28.7.1948. The fourth defendant had also been issued with a sale certificate on 24.2.1959. Pursuant to the sale certificate, the fourth defendant took symbolic delivery through Court as per the order in E.A. No.542 of 1959 in E.P. No.398 of 1957 in S.C. No.233 of 1952 on 14.7.1959. As the suit property was in the physical possession of Veerapatran, the fourth defendant had purchased the suit property in Court auction. Savarikoothan, father of defendants 1 to 3, continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the othied property. After the Court auction sale, the plaintiffs had no right or any manner of interest in the suit property and they were never in possession and enjoyment. The othi was never redeemed. Savarikoothan alone was in possession and paying kist and other revenue taxes in his own name. Though the property was purchased by the fourth defendant, patta continued to be in the name of Koothayee Ammal. The Court auction purchaser did not effect transfer of name. Though the patta was standing in her name, the second plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment. The plaintiffs had to take advantage of the fact that there is non transfer of patta from the name of the previous owner to the name of the Court auction purchaser. The Court auction purchaser did not effect transfer of name. Though the patta was standing in her name, the second plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment. The plaintiffs had to take advantage of the fact that there is non transfer of patta from the name of the previous owner to the name of the Court auction purchaser. The fourth defendant after his purchase on 12.3.1984 for a valuable consideration of Rs.10,000 had executed a registered sale deed to defendants 1 to 3 and their brother one Veeran. In the sale deed, there is a direction to discharge the othi, dated 28.7.1948 standing in the name of Savarikoothan. Defendants 1 to 3 being sons of Savarikoothan succeeded to his estate along with Veeran. Defendants 1 to 3 and Veeran are absolute owners of the suit property and in possession and enjoyment by paying kist and other charges. They have also applied for change of patta and patta proceedings were also pending. They have raised crops in the suit property. They have also executed simple mortgage in respect of the suit property in favour of the fifth defendant. The fifth defendant other than this does not have any interest in the suit property. The plaintiffs never attempted to sell the suit property, nor the defendants, at any time prevented them as alleged in the plaint. The fourth defendant is a resident of Palani. He never came to the suit property on 28.8.1985 nor did he attempt to interfere with the plaintiffs’ alleged possession. The plaintiffs have not come to Court with clean hands. The name of the first defendant is Chinnakalai and not Chinnasamy. The suit property is not properly described. The suit is liable to be dismissed. 5. The plaintiffs filed a reply statement denying the averments in the written statement of defendants 1 to 3 and further stated as follows: Savarikoothan and his sons have never been in possession of the suit property. They never cultivated the same. The fourth defendant had, even according to him, taken only symbolic or paper delivery. He never took possession. He did not pay the other amount within the time and get the othi discharged. As the plaintiffs’ possession continued, Court auction proceedings are not valid. In those proceedings, othi was also discharged. They never cultivated the same. The fourth defendant had, even according to him, taken only symbolic or paper delivery. He never took possession. He did not pay the other amount within the time and get the othi discharged. As the plaintiffs’ possession continued, Court auction proceedings are not valid. In those proceedings, othi was also discharged. The plaintiffs and the fourth defendant, who claims to have purchased the suit property in Court auction, have created a collusive document on 12.3.1994. It is not necessary to make an endorsement of discharge in an othi, which has got over. The Concocted documents will not bind the plaintiffs. After the period of limitation, mere execution of documents without possession cannot bind either the person who executes or the person who purchase. When the suit has been filed on the basis of the possession, the question relating to tile is out side the scope. The plaintiffs’ right has become complete. When the revenue records were not changed, the fourth defendant has owner is the figment of imagination. Those averments have nothing to do with the suit claim. There is a well in the suit property. There is a well-right to the suit land. 6. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings and the oral and the documentary evidence held against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit by judgment and decree, dated 16.10.1987. However, on appeal, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. 7. It is as against that, the present second appeal has been filed. 8. At the time of admission the following two substantial questions of law were raised for decision in the second appeal. “(1) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in accepting the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to Ex.A-1 when there is no pleading with regard to the said document and when it is a well established principle of law that no evidence could be looked into which has not been pleaded by the parties to the suits? and (2) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of injunction based on Exs.A-2 to A-15 when the trial Court has categorically held that the columns relating to personal cultivation or cultivator have been left blank?” 9. and (2) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of injunction based on Exs.A-2 to A-15 when the trial Court has categorically held that the columns relating to personal cultivation or cultivator have been left blank?” 9. Mr.Venkateshan, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the plaintiffs cannot claim title and maintain the suit as if they are cultivating tenants. They have also relied on Ex.A-1 purporting to be a lease deed entered into between Savarikoothan, father of defendants 1 to 3, and Veerapatran, father of the first plaintiff and husband of the second plaintiff, and this is not pleaded and when there is no pleading, they cannot put forward a totally different case. Possession, according to the counsel, is referable only to othi and not Ex.A-1. The case in the plaint is that they are ancestral properties. One other factor which would weigh against the plaintiffs is that Veerapatran, who is the lessee under Ex.A-1, is very much alive and he has not joined as a plaintiff. They have come forward with a false case and they are not entitled to succeed.10.Per contra, Mr.Ganesan, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the pleadings, the documents and the oral evidence are all before Court and the Court has ample powers to decide the case on the materials available. The learned counsel further submitted that the possession of the plaintiffs can be protected without going into the question of title, which is totally irrelevant. The learned counsel relied on the following judgments: (1) Ramasamy Moopanar v. Rathnammal, (1976)2 M.L.J. 363 ; (2) Rajeswari v. Rathnammal, (1994)1 M.L.J. 401 ; and (3) Vargheese Daniel v. Balakrishnan, (1998)3 M.L.J. 645 : (1998)2 C.T.C. 602 . 11. Meeting this point, Mr.Venkatseshsan submitted that this is not a mere case of variance of pleading, but total abandonment of the case by the plaintiffs. In my view, the contention of Mr.Venkataseshan has much force. The plaintiffs came forward with a case of title, they gave it up and in the course of evidence set up a case of lease. The lessee/ Veerapatran, admittedly alive, is not examined. The lease, now ought to be relied upon, is not pleaded. In my view, the contention of Mr.Venkataseshan has much force. The plaintiffs came forward with a case of title, they gave it up and in the course of evidence set up a case of lease. The lessee/ Veerapatran, admittedly alive, is not examined. The lease, now ought to be relied upon, is not pleaded. The principle that where one party does not seek relief on the basis of the plea of the other party but only on the facts established on record, though they are at variance with his own pleading, relief can be granted will not apply to the facts of the present case. The plaintiffs have nowhere whispered in the plaint about the lease on the basis of which the lower appellate Court has granted a decree. The case put forward in paragraph 4 of the plaint is that the suit property belongs to the second plaintiff ancestrally and is in her possession and enjoyment. Even in the reply statement there is no reference to the lease now sought to be taken advantage of. On the contrary, there is a definite denial of title of the defendants to the suit property. The lower appellate Court was in error in relying on Ex.A-1 in the absence of pleading with regard to the said document. This will immediately attract the established principle of law that no evidence can be looked into for a plea not raised. 12. As regards Exs.A-12 to A-15 sought to be relied on by the plaintiffs, as rightly pointed out by the trial Court, there are columns blank and they cannot at all advance the case of the plaintiffs. It is established legal principle that the person seeking injunction should come to Court with clean hands. In the instant case, the plaintiffs have suppressed that Veerapatran is alive and he is not before Court. They cannot claim title and at the same time maintain the suit as if they are cultivating tenants. 13. It is established legal principle that the person seeking injunction should come to Court with clean hands. In the instant case, the plaintiffs have suppressed that Veerapatran is alive and he is not before Court. They cannot claim title and at the same time maintain the suit as if they are cultivating tenants. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the judgments of V.Sethuraman, J. in Ramasamy Moopanar v. Rathnammal, (1976)2 M.L.J. 363 and contended that in a suit for injunction based on possession, the plaintiff need not prove title, that the question of title is not relevant for the purpose of considering the eligibility for injunction prayed for by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff is entitled to injunction on the basis of his possession. 14. In Kandaswamy Gounder v. Kandasamy Gounder, (1979)2 M.L.J. 238 , the facts were as follows: "One N had a daughter C and a grand daughter K. By his will in 1924 N gave a life-interest in the suit property to C and the absolute reminder to K. N died in 1941. In 1948 C and K granted a lease in favour of the plaintiff. A died in 1952. Thereafter C, in 1953 executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. C died in 1969. K’s husband filed a suit for declaration of the sale to plaintiff as void and for possession. The suit was decreed and an appeal therefrom was dismissed. K’s husband took out execution. Thereupon the plaintiff filed the present suit in 1973 for an injunction to restrain K’s husband from interfering with his possession. In his written statement in the suit by K’s husband, the present plaintiff had claimed to be a bona fide purchaser for value. He had not put forward any case on the basis that in any event he was a ‘cultivating tenant’ within the scope of the Tamil Nadu Act XXV of 1955. In the suit before Court, he sets up such a claim. The defendant K’s husband contended that the plea was not open to the plaintiff and was barred by res judicata." It was held that- "The Act XXV of 1955 was enacted for the protection of cultivating tenants in certain areas in the State of Madras from unjust eviction. In the suit before Court, he sets up such a claim. The defendant K’s husband contended that the plea was not open to the plaintiff and was barred by res judicata." It was held that- "The Act XXV of 1955 was enacted for the protection of cultivating tenants in certain areas in the State of Madras from unjust eviction. For this Act to apply, at the time when it came into force, a person must have been a tenant, so that there was need for any protection to him from unjust eviction. If he was not a tenant at the time when the Act came into force, he could not claim protection on the basis that he had continued in possession of the land after the determination of the tenancy agreement. Only when at the commencement of the Act he was a tenant he would be a tenant who continued in possession of the land after the determination of the tenancy agreement in consequence of the denial of the landlord’s title by him. But that was not the position here, as the tenant had merged with the ownership in the year 1953. This is not one of those cases where his ownership is itself in dispute. During the period between 31st October, 1953 and 9th December, 1969, there was not dispute about his being the owner of the property. The only question was whether he was entitled to claim ownership subsequent to that date. He could not maintain his ownership after the date, as the vendor had only a little interest in the property which determined on her death. The result was that he would not be entitled to the protection under the Act." 15. We have already noted that pursuant to a small cause decree against Veerapatran and his wife/second plaintiff, the suit property was brought to sale and in E.P. No.398 of 1997 the fourth defendant purchased the property. Symbolic possession was taken in E.A. No.542 of 1959 and on 12.3.1984 defendants 1 to 3 and their brother one Veeran purchased the property from the 4th defendant for Rs.10,000 and ever since they had claimed to be in possession. They had also mortgaged the property to the fifth defendant. When the first plaintiff’s father and the husband of the second plaintiff Veerapatran is alive, the plaintiff had not shown as to how they are entitled to the properties. They had also mortgaged the property to the fifth defendant. When the first plaintiff’s father and the husband of the second plaintiff Veerapatran is alive, the plaintiff had not shown as to how they are entitled to the properties. The judgment of the lower appellate Court is in the nature of special pleadings for the plaintiffs. When their very case is one based on title, the lower appellate Court declares them as cultivating tenants and gives protection by granting decree for injunction. 16. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents do not in any way help the case of the respondents. Consequently, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellants. The second appeal stands allowed. The judgment and the decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside and those of the trial Court restored. No costs.