Judgment :- The above civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 23.9.2003 made in C.M.A.No.37 of 1999 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur, Vellore District thereby reversing the fair and decretal order dated 25.8.1998 made in I.A.No.1100 of 1998 in O.S.No.616 of 1998 by the Court of District Munsif, Tirupattur. 2. Tracing the history of the above civil revision petition, what comes to be known is that the petitioner herein has filed the above suit in O.S.No.616 of 1998 before the lower Court for a declaration declaring the minor plaintiff's right, title and interest in the plaint schedule property and for consequential injunction against the defendants 1 to 5 from ever trespassing, interfering or causing any disturbance or hindrance to the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the portion of the plaint schedule property in S.No.337/2CA measuring East West 15 feet, North South 20 feet totalling 300 sq.feet, declaring the sale deed dated 13.3.1995 executed by the 5th defendant in favour of the defendants 3 and 4 as null and void, declaring the sale deed in respect of second item of property covered and the sale deed dated 15.9.1998 executed by the defendants 3 and 4 in favour of the first defendant as null and void and for costs. 3. It further comes to be known that the petitioner herein has also filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.1100 of 1998 in O.S.No.616 of 1998 seeking temporary injunction and the learned District Munsif, in consideration of the facts pleaded by the parties, having perused the materials placed before him viz.the oral and documentary evidence and having heard both the parties, would discuss the same in an elaborate manner and would ultimately allow the above I.A.No.1100 of 1998. Aggrieved against the said fair and decretal order, the respondents 1 to 4 herein have preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.37 of 1999 on the file of the Court of Subordiante Judge, Tirupattur and the learned Subordinate Judge, in consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, as pleaded by the parties before the lower Court, having framed three points of his own for consideration and having answered the points for consideration, would ultimately allow the appeal thereby setting aside the fair and decretal order passed by the lower Court. It is only testifying the validity of the said fair and decretal order, the petitioner/plaintiff herein has come forward to file this civil revision petition on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of revision. 4. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents as well would only adhere to the respective judgments of the lower Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner greatly relying on the fair and decretal order passed by the trial Court i.e. the Court of District Munsif, Tirupattur, Vellore District, as per its order dated 25.8.1999 granting an order of injunction pending disposal of the suit and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the other side would, in the very same manner, stick to the fair and decretal order passed by the appellate court in C.M.A.No.37 of 1999 without arguing on any point of law. Since both the fair and decretal orders have been placed before this Court, tracing the arguments of the learned counsel is not going to be of much use and therefore under the impression that those factual position could be ascertained drawing the necessary and relevant materials from the judgments and the other materials placed on record, this Court is of the view to proceed with the discussion so as to arrive at a valid decision. 5. The case of the revision petitioner, as put up before the trial Court, is that he filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to declare the sale deed dated 13.3.1995 executed by the 5th defendant in favour of defendants 3 and 4 as null and void further declaring the sale deed in respect of the second item of the property dated 15.9.1998 executed by the defendants No.3 and 4 in favour of first defendant as null and void and to declare the minor plaintiff's right, title and interest in the plaint schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction against defendants 1 to 4 from causing interference or disturbance or hindrance to the minor plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the portion of the plaint schedule properties falling in S.No.337/2C4 measuring 15 x 20 feet and for costs as per the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.616 of 1998. 6. 6. While filing the suit under the relevant provisions of law, the petitioner has also filed an Interlocutory Application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking a restraint injunction order in the same manner as prayed for in the plaint pending disposal of the suit on averments such as that the petition property and other properties were ancestral family properties of the 5th defendant, who is none other than the father of the minor petitioner, and by virtue of a partition dated 24.11.1983, 'A' schedule properties fell to the share of 5th respondent; that the 5th respondent effected a oral partition in or about 1991 and the 5th tiem of the property in S.No.337/2, which has been subsequently sub-divided as S.No.337/2C covered under the partition deed was subdivided, which was reduced into writing as 'koorchit' dated 10.4.1992; that the property in S.Nos.337/2C2 and S.No.337/2C4 are assigned to the minor plaintiff and he was put in possession of the same permitting to pay the kist, tax, electricity charges etc. thus the said properties becoming the absolute properties of the minor petitioner and while so, the 5th respondent sold the suit property in favour of the respondents No.3 and 4 on 13.3.1995, who in turn sold the same to the first respondent on 15.9.1998 and consequent to the same, the respondents 1 to 5 attempted to trespass into the suit property on 18.12.1998, which was thwarted and hence the suit and application for the reliefs extracted supra. 7. 7. The counter filed by the first respondent has been adopted by Respondents No.2 to 4 and the 5th respondent has remained exparte wherein respondents 1 to 4 have admitted the partition held on 24.11.1983 and the allotment of `A' schedule in favour of 5th respondent and would submit that there was no oral partition in the year 1991 nor did the same get reduced into writing on 16.4.1992 nor has the petitioner been put in possession of the suit properties nor the petitioner has become the owner; that the 5th respondent who was the independent owner of the suit properties and in possession had not only sold the properties to the third and fourth respondents on 13.3.1995 but also put them in possession and enjoyment and that the sale deed is binding on the minors and thereafter they sold the properties on 15.9.1998 in favour of the first respondent, who from that date onwards is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and all other averments regarding possession, payment of kist and other demands are denied as false and ultimately would end up that it is a vexatious suit and in these circumstances, there is no necessity for any trespass to take place and therefore would ultimately oppose the petition praying to dismiss the same with costs. 8. During enquiry, Exs.A.1 to A.17 would be marked on the part of the petitioners such as partition deed dated 24.11.1983, koorchit dated 16.4.1992, pattas three in number, the kist receipt, tax receipt, electricity receipts, the settlement deed dated 18.4.1994, sale deeds dated 13.3.1995 and 15.9.1998, the rough plan etc. On the part of the respondents, 10 documents would be marked as Exs.B.1 to B.10 such as the sale deed dated 24.5.1976, settlement deed dated 18.4.1994, sale deed dated 13.3.1995, sale deed dated 15.9.1998, patta dated 10.2.1999, building plan, house tax receipt, mortgage loan deed dated 10.6.1996, Cooperative Housing Society Certificate and the patta change order dated 18.1.1999. 9. On the part of the respondents, 10 documents would be marked as Exs.B.1 to B.10 such as the sale deed dated 24.5.1976, settlement deed dated 18.4.1994, sale deed dated 13.3.1995, sale deed dated 15.9.1998, patta dated 10.2.1999, building plan, house tax receipt, mortgage loan deed dated 10.6.1996, Cooperative Housing Society Certificate and the patta change order dated 18.1.1999. 9. The trial Court, in consideration of these materials placed on record and having a discussion on the facts and circumstances of the case and in appreciation of the materials made available, would ultimately arrive at the conclusion that the minor petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and would ultimately pass an order of injunction pending disposal of the suit and the said order having been testified before the appellate Court in C.M.A.No.37 of 1999, the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur by the respondents 1 to 4, the appellate Court having framed its own points for consideration and having discussed every aspect of the case issue-wise, would ultimately arrive at the conclusion holding that it is not the petitioner, but the first respondent, who is not only the pattadar but also in possession along with the house building for which there is sufficient evidence and since the first petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the petition mentioned property pursuant to Ex.B.4 and that the minor petitioner is not in possession and enjoyment of the same, the appellate Court would ultimately reverse the findings of the trial Court thus allowing the appeal petition and setting aside the fair and decretal order passed by the Court of District Munsif, Tirupattur with costs throughout and it is this fair and decretal order which is the subject matter of the above civil revision petition. 10. 10. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, it could be put in a nutshell that it is a suit for declaration that the sale deeds executed by the 5th respondent who is none other than the minor's father and the minor next friend's husband in whose favour there was a partition in the year 1991 wherein the suit properties along with some other properties fell to his share which as per the sale deed dated 13.3.1995 has been sold by him to the respondents 3 and 4 and they having enjoyed the same for some years, have sold the same to the first respondent under the sale deed dated 15.9.1998 further putting him in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is claimed on the part of the respondents that the first respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and therefore they would ultimately oppose not only the suit but the injunction application filed on the part of the petitioner also praying for interim order of injunction pending disposal of the suit. 11. Though the trial Court was able to arrive at the conclusion that the minor was in possession and enjoyment of the petition mentioned properties, still, the trial Court has forgotten to analyse that whether it is the minor petitioner or any other for the matter is in what capacity in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. 11. Though the trial Court was able to arrive at the conclusion that the minor was in possession and enjoyment of the petition mentioned properties, still, the trial Court has forgotten to analyse that whether it is the minor petitioner or any other for the matter is in what capacity in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Though it is claimed that the minor is entitled to the suit properties, unless a decision is taken in the suit regarding the sale deed executed by the 5th respondent in favour of the respondents 3 and 4 and these respondents in favour of the first respondent which are sought to be declared null and void, the minor, at the moment, cannot have the locus standi to claim that he is in possession of the suit properties either as one who is entitled to the same or in any other manner and without showing the locus standi whether he is in possession as the owner or as a tenant or as a permissive occupier or in such other legal capacities neither the minor petitioner herein nor any other for the matter could claim any legal right to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit property which is unacceptable and not recognised bylaw. Therefore, unless the petitioner is able to establish his legal locus standi to be in possession, the question of considering whether he is in actual possession or not itself is not possible in law. While the position of law is such, the findings of the trial Court that the documents exhibited in 'A' serious go to show that the minor is in physical possession of the property cannot be appreciated by this Court. 12. On the contrary, prima facie evidence is very strong suggesting that it is the first respondent who has not only purchased to the suit property but also in physical possession of the same as it has been discussed and decided by the first appellate Court in C.M.A.No.37 of 1999 and therefore this Court is in perfect agreement with the conclusions arrived at by the appellate Court and is not able to substitute the same with the reasoning of the trial Court. Therefore, prior to deciding the suit, it is dangerous to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner who is not able to prove his prima facie locus standi that he is in possession and hence the interference of this Court sought to be made into the fair and decretal order passed by the first appellate Court in C.M.A.No.37 of 1999 is neither necessary nor feasible in the circumstances of the case and hence the following order: In result, (i) the above Civil Revision Petition does not merit acceptance and the same is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. (ii) The fair and decretal order dated 23.9.2003 made in C.M.A.No.37 of 1999 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur thereby reversing the fair and decretal order dated 15.8.1999 made in I.A.No.1100 of 1998 in O.S.No.616 of 1998 by the Court of District Munsif, Tirupattur is hereby confirmed. (iii) However, in the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the trial in the suit has to be expedited for a valid decision to be arrived at so as to answer all the questions involved in the suit, which would solve many a complication. Hence, the Court of District Munsif, Tirupattur is directed to expedite the trial procedure in the suit so as to deliver the judgment on merits and in accordance with law with due opportunity for both to be heard in full within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.6498 of 2004 is also dismissed.