Judgment :- This Second Appeal is preferred against the concurrent findings of Courts below decreeing Plaintiffs suit for Permanent Injunction. Unsuccessful 5th Defendant is the Appellant. Respondents 2 to 5 are the Defendants 1 to 4 in the suit. For convenient, the parties are referred as per their array in the suit. 2. Suit property relates to 982 sq. ft. in S.No.2529/1 in Mannarkudi within the stated boundaries in the plaint schedule. Suit property originally belonged to one Mohammed Ismail Ravuthar and he has purchased the same under sale deed dated 18. 1934. Thereafter, there was partition on 08.05.1939 and as per the partition the property of an extent 3750 sq. ft. was allotted to Suleka Beevi and the property of an extent 2137 sq.ft. was allotted to Aleema Beevi. Plaintiffs family purchased the property from Suleka Beevi by a registered sale deed dated 03. 1942 [Ex.A2] and also the Plaintiffs family purchased the property from Aleema Beevi by a registered sale deed dated 19. 1944 [Ex.A3]. After that there was a partition in the Plaintiffs family on 29. 1954 [Ex.A6] and as per the said partition, the property was allotted to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff sold an extent of 3750 sq. ft. to one Balasubramania Chettiar by a sale deed dated 06. 1955 [Ex.A7]. In the remaining portion of the property which is in possession of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff has put up RCC construction in the property to an extent of 1155 sq. ft. and the remaining property on the eastern side 982 sq. ft. is kept vacant. Alleging that Defendants have attempted to trespass into the suit property on 22. 2000, Plaintiff earlier filed suit in O.S.No.104/2000. According to Plaintiff, there was a compromise between the Plaintiff and Defendants and as per the said compromise; Plaintiff had withdrawn the said suit in O.S.No.104/2000. Further case of Plaintiff is that Defendants have not acted as per the compromise. Again on 112. 2002, Defendants made an attempt to trespass into the suit property and hence the suit in O.S.No.140/2002 for Permanent Injunction. 3. Resisting the suit, Defendants 3 to 5 have filed written statement denying the title of Plaintiff in the suit property. Further case of Plaintiff is that Defendants have not acted as per the compromise. Again on 112. 2002, Defendants made an attempt to trespass into the suit property and hence the suit in O.S.No.140/2002 for Permanent Injunction. 3. Resisting the suit, Defendants 3 to 5 have filed written statement denying the title of Plaintiff in the suit property. According to Defendants 3 to 5, in Ex.A6 partition deed, suit property was not allotted to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff has trespassed into the property owned by Mannarkudi Municipality and put up construction and therefore, Mannarkudi Municipality is a necessary party to the suit. Defendants 3 to 5 have denied any attempt of trespass into the suit property either in 2000 or in 2002. Defendants 3 to 5 have also denied any compromise with the Plaintiff in the earlier suit in O.S.No.104/2000. It is further averred that Defendants are residing at Singapore and so the alleged cause of action is not correct. 4. On the above pleadings, five Issues were framed. On the side of Plaintiff, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A17 were marked. On the side of contesting Defendants, Power Agent of 3rd Defendant and the father of Defendants 4 and 5 were examined as DWs.1 and 2 respectively and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. Advocate-Commissioners report and plan and Taluk Deputy Inspectors Plan were marked as Exs.C1 to C4 respectively. 5. Based upon Exs.C1 to C4, trial court held that Defendants 4 and 5 have purchased the property only on the southern side and could claim no right in the suit property. Upon analysis of oral and documentary evidence [Exs.A2 to A6], trial court further held that Plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and that Defendants 4 and 5 are not in possession of the suit property and therefore, they cannot resist the suit for Permanent Injunction and on those findings, decreed the Plaintiffs suit. 6. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the trial court, Defendants 3 and 5 have filed appeal in A.S.No.53/2006. Upon analysis of documents, lower Appellate Court held that Plaintiff had proved to purchase 5887 sq. ft. and the same extent was allotted to the Plaintiff under Ex.A6 partition deed. Lower Appellate Court further held that there is nothing to prove that Plaintiff is in enjoyment of excess extent. Upon analysis of documents, lower Appellate Court held that Plaintiff had proved to purchase 5887 sq. ft. and the same extent was allotted to the Plaintiff under Ex.A6 partition deed. Lower Appellate Court further held that there is nothing to prove that Plaintiff is in enjoyment of excess extent. Even though, DW2-Uthirapathi [father of Defendants 4 and 5] had denied any encroachment in the suit property, referring to Exs.C1 and C2, it was held that 5th Defendant has encroached upon 19 sq. ft. in suit S.No.2529/1. It was further held the defence plea that Plaintiff is in excess enjoyment has not been substantiated by any evidence and confirming the Judgment of the trial court, lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by Defendants 3 and 5. 7. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, 5th Defendant has filed this Second Appeal. Second Appeal was admitted on the following questions of law :- 1. Whether deposition made by P.W.1 Power Agent of the plaintiff as per Power of Attorney dated 11. 2003 (after filing suit) should be rejected as incompetent in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2005 (2) SCC 217 (Janki Vashdeo) case? 2. After withdrawing the earlier suit O.S.No.104/00 under Order 23 Rule 1 C.P.C. for filing comprehensive suit after recording the chief examination, again the present suit with the same prayer for bare injunction can be maintained in law. 3. The plaintiff claiming title under Ex.A5 partition deed (parent title deed) wherein for C schedule (3750 sq. ft.) the eastern boundary is mentioned as Chatiurity Canal and Govinda Chettiyars plot without lineal measurements mentioning as "less or more" and as "Asala Bandham" in the suit changed the eastern boundary as S.No.2545 in the suit property and whether the boundaries will prevail over the extent of land? 8. Placing reliance upon (2005) 2 SCC 217 [Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another v. Indusind Bank Limited and others], Mr.K.S.Sundar, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that Power of Attorney of Plaintiff appointed in 2003 cannot appear in the witness box and depose onbehalf of the Plaintiff. It was further submitted that in Ex.A16 [28.09.1998] sale deed infavour of Appellant/5th Defendant, northern boundary is shown as S.No.2530 and while so, Plaintiff cannot claim right on the northern side of Appellant/5th Defendants property. It was further submitted that in Ex.A16 [28.09.1998] sale deed infavour of Appellant/5th Defendant, northern boundary is shown as S.No.2530 and while so, Plaintiff cannot claim right on the northern side of Appellant/5th Defendants property. In support of his contention that boundaries will prevail over the extent, learned counsel for the Appellant relied upon AIR 1999 Madras 377 [Sadhurajan v. Sriramulu Naidu and others]. 9. Placing reliance upon (2006) 5 SCC 545 [Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal], learned counsel for the Appellant further argued that when the legal effect of terms of document was not properly interpreted, exercising jurisdiction under Sec.100 C.P.C. High Court could certainly interfere with the findings of the trial court. 10. Taking me through the Judgment of the Courts below, Ms.K.M.Nalini Shree, learned counsel for the 1st Respondent-Plaintiff submitted that Courts below have recorded concurrent findings that Plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. It was further submitted that upon analysis of evidence and report of Advocate-Commissioner, Courts below recorded concurrent findings that only the Defendants are the encroachers being in occupation of 19 sq. ft. excess and while so, Appellant cannot resist the Plaintiffs suit for Permanent Injunction. It was mainly argued that to substantiate the defence plea, Defendants have not filed any documents or other materials and Courts below rightly decreed the Plaintiffs suit and exercising jurisdiction under Sec.100 C.P.C., High Court cannot interfere with the findings of the Courts below. 11. The first substantial question of law is whether deposition by PW1-Chelladurai, Power of Attorney of the Plaintiff should be rejected as incompetent in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2005 (2) SCC 217 . Order 3 Rules 1 and 2 CPC empower the holder of Power of Attorney to "act" onbehalf of the principal. The word "acts" employed in Order 3 Rules 1 and 2 CPC confines only to in respect of "acts" done by the Power-of-Attorney holder in exercise of power granted by the instrument. 12. In (2005) 2 SCC 217 [Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another v. Indusind Bank Limited and others], the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider whether Power of Attorney can depose on behalf of his principal. Reiterating the views of Rajasthan High Court in Shambhu Dutt Shastri v. State of Rajasthan [(1986) 2 WLN 713 (Raj)], the Supreme Court held as under:- "17. Reiterating the views of Rajasthan High Court in Shambhu Dutt Shastri v. State of Rajasthan [(1986) 2 WLN 713 (Raj)], the Supreme Court held as under:- "17. On the question of power of attorney, the High Courts have divergent views. In the case of Shambhu Dutt Shastri v. State of Rajasthan [(1986) 2 WLN 713 (Raj)], it was held that a general power-of-attorney holder can appear, plead and act on behalf of the party but he cannot become a witness on behalf of the party. He can only appear in his own capacity. No one can delegate the power to appear in the witness box on behalf of himself. To appear in a witness box is altogether a different act. A general power-of-attorney holder cannot be allowed to appear as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff in the capacity of the plaintiff. 18. The aforesaid judgment was quoted with approval in the case of Ram Prasad v. Hari Narain [AIR 1998 Raj 185 : (1998) 3 Cur CC 183]. It was held that the word "acts" used in Rule 2 of Order 3 CPC does not include the act of power-of-attorney holder to appear as a witness on behalf of a party. Power-of-attorney holder of a party can appear only as a witness in his personal capacity and whatever knowledge he has about the case he can state on oath but he cannot appear as a witness on behalf of the party in the capacity of that party. If the plaintiff is unable to appear in the court, a commission for recording his evidence may be issued under the relevant provisions of CPC. 19. In the case of Pradeep Mohanbay (Dr.) v. Minguel Carloss Dias [(2000) 1 Bom LR 908] the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court held that a power of attorney can file a complaint under Section 138 but cannot depose on behalf of the complainant. He can only appear as a witness. 20. However, in the case of Humberto Luis v. Floriano Armando Luis [(2002) 2 Bom CR 754] on which reliance has been placed by the Tribunal in the presence case, the High Court took a dissenting view and held that the provisions contained in Order 3 Rule 2 CPC cannot be construed to disentitle the power-of-attorney holder to depose on behalf of his principal. The High Court further held that the word "act" appearing in Order 3 Rule 2 CPC takes within its sweep "depose". We are unable to agree with this view taken by the Bombay High Court in Floriano Armando [(2002) 2 Bom CR 754]. 21. We hold that the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shambhu Dutt Shastri [(1986) 2 WLN 713 (Raj)], followed and reiterated in the case of Ram prasad [AIR 1998 Raj 185 : (1998) 3 Cur CC 183] is the correct view. The view taken in the case of Floriano Armando Luis [(2002) 2 Bom CR 754] cannot be said to have laid down a correct law and is accordingly overrules." 13. It is well settled that Power of Attorney cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matter of which only the principal can have personal knowledge and in respect of which principal is to be cross-examined. 14. Restriction of Power of Attorney deposing onbehalf of principal appears to be only in respect of the matter which only the principal can have personal knowledge. In the case on hand, Plaintiff claims through various documents and Plaintiffs case revolves upon the documents. When PW1 [Power of Attorney of Plaintiff] has deposed with reference to the documents, it cannot be said that the core of evidence was within the personal knowledge of the Plaintiff. Therefore, it cannot be said that Courts below acted erroneously in acting upon the oral evidence of PW1-Chelladurai, Power of Attorney of the principal and this substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 15. Next substantial question of law is whether order of Injunction can be granted when the Plaintiff is in possession of excess land beyond his title. Plaintiff purchased 3750 sq. ft. in S.No.2529/1 under Ex.A2, sale deed [04.03.1942] from Suleka Beevi. Plaintiff also purchased 2137 sq. ft. in S.No.2529/1 under Ex.A3 sale deed [16.09.1944] from Aleema Beevi. Under Ex.A6 [29. 1954] partition deed, Plaintiff got 5887 sq. ft. and Plaintiff sold 3750 sq. ft. under Ex.A7 [06. 1955] to one Balasubramaniam. Plaintiff was entitled to the remaining extent of 2137 sq. ft. Referring to Exs.C1 to C4, Courts below recorded concurrent findings that Plaintiffs house is in 1161 sq. ft. The vacant space which Plaintiff is claiming right is only 982 sq. ft. ft. and Plaintiff sold 3750 sq. ft. under Ex.A7 [06. 1955] to one Balasubramaniam. Plaintiff was entitled to the remaining extent of 2137 sq. ft. Referring to Exs.C1 to C4, Courts below recorded concurrent findings that Plaintiffs house is in 1161 sq. ft. The vacant space which Plaintiff is claiming right is only 982 sq. ft. and therefore, Plaintiff cannot be said to be in possession of excess extent. Based upon Exs.C1 to C4 and evidence of PW1-Chelladurai [Power of Attorney] and the evidence of PW4-Mr.C.E.Ganesan [Advocate-Commissioner], lower Appellate Court recorded the following finding :- Lower Appellate Court held that 1/5 & 1/6 [in Ex.C4] are in a single stretch and in enjoyment of the Plaintiff. Courts below also pointed out that Appellant has not filed any objection for the Advocate-Commissioners report. 16. Father of Defendants 4 and 5 was examined as DW2. 5th Defendant had purchased the property in S.No.2529/1B – 577 sq. ft. under Ex.A16 sale deed [28.09.1998]. In his evidence, DW2-Uthirapathi has stated that @rh;nt vz;/ 2529-1y; vt;tst[ brhj;J fpuak; bgw;Ws;nsd; vd;gJgw;wp vdf;F "hgfk; ,y;iy@/ But as seen from Ex.C2, 5th Defendant is in possession and enjoyment of only 408 sq. ft. in S.No.2529/1. But there is no supporting document of title showing that vendor of 5th Defendant [Mumtaz Begum] had title to 577 sq. ft. in S.No.2529/1. There is also no correlating evidence or prior documents to hold that 5th Defendant and her vendor could claim more than what is in possession of 5th Defendant. 17. Learned counsel for the Appellant has drawn Courts attention to the plan issued by Mannarkudi Municipality where S.No.2529/1B is shown just on the southern side of S.No.2530/2A. It was therefore contended that the northern boundary for S.No.2529/1B is S.No.2530 and while so, Plaintiff cannot claim any right over the northern portion. Placing reliance upon AIR 1999 Madras 377 [Sadhurajan v. Sriramulu Naidu and others], it was contended that boundaries will prevail upon the extent. 18. The above contention advanced placing reliance upon the plan issued by Mannarkudi Municipality does not merit acceptance. Appellant has not produced the said plan before the Courts below. To show that the northern boundary of S.No.2529/1B is S.No.2530, no evidence was adduced. When the said plan issued by Mannarkudi Municipality was not filed before the Courts below, it is not open to the Appellant to advance argument on a new material. Appellant has not produced the said plan before the Courts below. To show that the northern boundary of S.No.2529/1B is S.No.2530, no evidence was adduced. When the said plan issued by Mannarkudi Municipality was not filed before the Courts below, it is not open to the Appellant to advance argument on a new material. In the trial court, Defendants have only produced three documents viz., Power deed executed by Mohamed Rafeeq infavour of Shajahan [Ex.B1 dated 212. 2003]; Sale Deed executed by Natesa Chettiar infavour of Syed Mohamed Ravuthar [Ex.B2 dated 24.09.1970] and Tax receipts [Ex.B3-series]. In fact, Appellant/5th Defendant has not even produced her sale deed. Only the Plaintiff has produced the sale deed [Ex.A16] infavour of the Appellant. Appellant has not even chosen to produce her title deed or her prior documents of title. 19. Ex.C2-plan issued by Taluk Deputy Inspector, Tiruthuraipoondi reflects location and actual enjoyment of respective parties. Property of Appellant is shown on the southern side of the suit property – S.No.2529/1. While so, Defendants cannot take advantage of the plan issued by Mannarkudi Municipality. Excepting the oral evidence of DW2, Appellant has not adduced any evidence to substantiate the defence plea. Exs.C1 and C2 reflects the actual lie of suit property and also possession of the Plaintiff. Based on Exs.C1 to C4, Courts below recorded concurrent findings as to Plaintiffs possession in the suit property. 20. It is well settled that in a suit for Injunction, the primary question to be considered as one of possession on the date of filing of the suit. Person in possession though without title can resist interference from another who has no better title than himself and get Injunction. 21. When the Plaintiff has made out a case for grant of Injunction, Defendants should have produced best attainable evidence to resist the Plaintiffs claim. Apart from oral evidence of DW2 [father of Appellant], no other evidence was adduced by the Appellant. When the Plaintiff has proved his possession, is entitled to protect his possession against any person who have better title. 22. Upon appreciation of evidence, Courts below recorded concurrent findings that Plaintiff has established his possession by filing documents and is entitled to the relief of Permanent Injunction. When the findings of the Courts below is based on evidence and materials on record, exercising jurisdiction under Sec.100 C.P.C., concurrent findings of the Courts below cannot be interfered. 22. Upon appreciation of evidence, Courts below recorded concurrent findings that Plaintiff has established his possession by filing documents and is entitled to the relief of Permanent Injunction. When the findings of the Courts below is based on evidence and materials on record, exercising jurisdiction under Sec.100 C.P.C., concurrent findings of the Courts below cannot be interfered. No substantial questions of law are involved in this Second Appeal warranting interference with the findings of Courts below. 23. In the result, Judgment of the lower Appellate court in A.S.Nos.53/2006 dated 27.06.2006 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Mannarkudi confirming the Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.140/2002 dated 14.03.2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mannarkudi is confirmed and the Second Appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.