Judgment :- In a suit for bare injunction, unable to get a decree before the courts below, the plaintiff has come to this Court, as appellant. 2. The suit property is an extent of 13 cents in Survey No.94/6. According to the plaintiff/appellant, this property belongs to him, as ancestral and he is enjoying the same continuously, for more than the statutory period. Thus claiming title, as well possession and alleging that the defendant has attempted to disturb his possession, the suit came to be filed before the District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi in O.S.No.860/82. 3. The defendant/respondent, who is the brother-in-law of the plaintiff, opposed the claim of the plaintiff contending that the suit property originally belonged to Nallamuthu Padayachi from whom, he and his brother had purchased under a registered sale deed dated 2.12.1950, from which date onwards, they are enjoying the same without any disturbance and therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that the suit property belongs to him ancestrally and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same are absolutely false, thereby praying for the dismissal of the suit. 4. The learned District Munsif after elaborate trial, concluded that the plaintiff has failed to prove the title claimed by him, over the suit property as well as possession and in this view, he dismissed the suit with costs on 31.8.1990, which was confirmed by the first appellate Court in A.S.No.163/90, since the learned Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam has not noticed any error or non appreciation of evidence in the judgment rendered by the learned District Munsif. 5. Aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the courts below, the plaintiff has filed this second appeal as if a substantial question of law is involved and the same should be decided. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. C.R. Prasannan and the learned counsel for the respondent, Ms. R. Poornima. 7. The substantial question of law framed in this case does not appear to be a substantial question of law, at all and it seems, only for the purpose of admitting the second appeal against the concurrent finding of the courts below, a question of law is formulated, as if the courts below have erred in basing decision on mere conjectures and surmises, misreading the documents and oral evidence. The appreciation of oral evidence and the assessment of the documents, unless interpretation is required regarding certain clauses, must be construed purely based on facts. In this case, the question involved before the courts below was, whether the plaintiff/appellant was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property on the date of filing of the suit. To decide this point, no question of law is ordinarily necessary and the same could be determined and decided, based on evidence that should be appreciated by the courts below, which could not be reappraised by this Court in the second appeal, unless it is shown that the decision deduced by the courts below, are against the evidence on record or perverse in nature. My endeavour to find out any finding perverse in nature or non appreciation of the evidence or findings against the evidence, ended in vain, because of the fact, both the courts below have properly appreciated the evidence, read the documents in its true sense has reached a perfect and justifiable decision and at any stretch of imagination, it could not be described as perverse in nature, warranting interference by this Court in the second appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend, that the courts below have not properly appreciated the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 as well as Exs.A1 to A3, thereby landed in an incorrect conclusion and to set it right, this Court should reappraise the evidence, which is not acceptable to me. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant would contend, that the defendant had established better title by producing a registered document of the year 1950, which cannot be doubted and thereby, he has proved his title as well as possession also, by examining himself, which is accepted by the courts below, not entitled to be reappraised. This contention deserves worthy consideration, than the point raised on behalf of the appellant. 10. The plaintiff though affixed the seal of ancestral property, over the subject matter of the suit, failed to substantiate the same. If it is ancestral in character, he could have inherited the same from his ancestors. If that is so, in the names of the ancestors, patta might have been stood. But no patta evidencing the above aspect is produced. The plaintiff though affixed the seal of ancestral property, over the subject matter of the suit, failed to substantiate the same. If it is ancestral in character, he could have inherited the same from his ancestors. If that is so, in the names of the ancestors, patta might have been stood. But no patta evidencing the above aspect is produced. Ex.A1 patta appears to have been issued on 11.11.82, which says the plaintiff obtained this property under hereditary, on the same date. The plaintiff had filed the suit on 11.11.82 after obtaining Ex.A1, on the same day. This document does not contain neither the seal of the Tahsildar, nor the signature also, except some initial nearby the designation 'Tahsildar'. The very fact that on the date of obtaining Ex.A1, the plaintiff filed the suit, on the same day, creates many doubt and they are not answered. Ex.A2 stands in the name of the plaintiff and Kuppayi and they are not related with the suit property. Other documents, Exs.A4 & A5 are subsequent to the date of the filing of the suit and therefore, it may not have any weighty evidentiary value. 11. Considering all these aspects and the interested oral testimony of the plaintiff witnesses, which could not be accepted in the absence of title, the Courts below have come to an unerring conclusion, that the plaintiff has not only failed to prove his title to be in possession of the suit property, but also failed to prove the actual possession and enjoyment of the same, on the date of filing of the suit. I am unable to find any infirmity in this finding or perverse in nature and in this view, the findings should be confirmed. 12. Viewing the case from the respondent's angle also, the above conclusion alone should emerge and there is no other possibility of taking any other contra view. The defendant in order to prove his right, in the suit property, relied on Ex.B3, registered copy of the sale deed, under which he had purchased not only the suit property, but also some other property, which was sold to the plaintiff under Ex.B1, thereby showing that the plaintiff himself has admitted about the genuineness of Ex.B3. The defendant in order to prove his right, in the suit property, relied on Ex.B3, registered copy of the sale deed, under which he had purchased not only the suit property, but also some other property, which was sold to the plaintiff under Ex.B1, thereby showing that the plaintiff himself has admitted about the genuineness of Ex.B3. Therefore, it is futile on the part of the plaintiff, to contend that the defendant is not the owner of the suit property, whereas he is the owner and his possession should be protected. 13. The fact that the defendant has not produced kist receipts would not automatically take us to the conclusion that he is not in possession of the property. Assuming for the purpose of the case, that the plaintiff is in possession of the property, on the basis of the alleged payment of kist, in the absence of right to be in possession, the said possession could not be protected, since the same is aimed against the true owner, who has established the title by Ex.B3. In this view also, the claim of the plaintiff for bare injunction, shall be dismissed. The Courts below, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, as well as properly reading the document and appreciating the evidence, have rendered a correct conclusion, which deserves confirmation. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.