Judgment G. Rajasuria This second appeal is focussed by the defendant, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 110. 2006 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nilgiris in A.S.No.31 of 2006 confirming the judgment and decree dated 3. 2006 passed by the learned District Munsif, Coonoor in O.S.No.268 of 1990, which was one for permanent injunction. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit seeking injunction restraining the defendant her men, agents, relatives or anybody claiming through her or in trust for her from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendant entered appearance and filed the written statement resisting the suit; whereupon, the trial Court framed the necessary issues, based on the pleadings. 3. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exhibits A-1 to A-8 were marked. On the defendant’s side, the defendant’s husband J.B. Mani was examined as D.W.1 and Exhibits B-1 to B-12 were marked. 4. Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit, as against which the defendant, preferred appeal for nothing but to be dismissed by the Appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Being disconcerted and aggrieved by the judgments of both the Courts below, this Second Appeal is focussed by the defendant on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law in the memorandum of second appeal: (a) Whether in law are not the decree and judgment of the Courts below vitiated in overlooking that when the title is disputed, a cloud is case and unless that is dispelled by seeking declaration, the suit is not maintainable? (b) Whether in law are not the courts below wrong in discussing title and granting relief of injunction in the absence of relief of declaration and is not the judgment a nullity as the trial Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit? (c) Whether in law have not the Courts below overlooked the settled law that there cannot be an injunction against a co-owner? (d) whether in law have not the Courts below failed to see that the plaintiff has to prove that he was in possession on the date of filing of the suit and has not the initial burden been erroneously shifted to the defendant? 5. (d) whether in law have not the Courts below failed to see that the plaintiff has to prove that he was in possession on the date of filing of the suit and has not the initial burden been erroneously shifted to the defendant? 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. 6. A plain poring over and perusal of the typed set of papers including the certified copies of the judgments of both the Courts below would display and demonstrate that the plaintiff filed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff purchased as per Exhibit A-2, the sale deed dated 11. 1971, the following extent of property; “TAMIL” which reflects the property described in the schedule of the plaint. The antecedent title deed Exhibit A-1 dated 13. 1962 executed by one Kadan in favour the said Gujjan also refers to the same description of the property as found in the plaint as well as Exhibit A 2. Accordingly, the plaintiff would put forth and set forth his claim that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the defendant is trying to interfere with the same. 7. Whereas gainsaying and impugning, remonstrating and refuting the allegations/averments in the plaint, the defendant would contend that Exhibit B-3, the sale deed dated 22. 1961 executed by the same Kadan in favour of J.P. Krishnan would refer to the fact that the total extent of 63 cents in Survey No.322/5 was not divided by metes and bounds and hence, he sold only 25 cents with boundaries in favour of Krishnan. As such, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would try to put across his point that when such was the undivided nature of the total extent of 63 cents during the year 1961 as revealed by Exhibit B-3, ail in a sudden, it was not known as to how, there could be 25 cents with metes and bounds as found set in Exhibit A-1 and that the explanation given on the plaintiffs side that there some oral partition and in that Kadan got the suit property by metes and bounds and accordingly, the boundaries emerged in, Exhibit A-1, was not acceptable. Forgetting for the moment, that the defendant’s sale deed Exhibit B-1 executed by Lakshmi wife of the said Krishnan also contained metes and bounds for the property described there in, the defendant had set forth such arguments. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has correctly drawn the attention of this Court to the finding of the trial Court under issue No.1 and highlighted that a pathway is running across, the said larger extent of land and in that, to the West of the said pathway, there is 27 cents of land; in that area along, the plaintiff is having his extent of land as per Exhibit A-2. Whereas there is no indication that the defendant purchased any extent to the West of such path way. The trial Court’s finding is that only to the East of that pathways alone, the defendant acquired certain extent of land. Put simply, on a deep analysis of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court correctly arrived at the conclusion. In such a case, I could see no material to interfere with the finding of facts. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would submit that a substantial question of law is involved because, in the pre-suit notice, stage itself, the defendant conveyed to the plaintiff that there is a title dispute and even in the plaint at para No.7, the averments would refer to some title dispute and in such a case, without a prayer for declaration of title the suit was untenable. 10. No doubt, it is a trite proposition of law that if the plaint averments would project a title dispute, a bare suit for injunction would not lie There should be a prayer for declaration of title also with regard to the suit property relating to which, injunction is sought But, however, in this case, the lower Court judgment would clearly convey and demonstrate that there is in fact no prima facie title dispute at all as the property purchased by the plaintiff is situated to the West of path way; whereas the property purchased by the defendant is on the East of the path way. Hence, in this factual matrix, I am of the opinion that the suit cannot be held as bad for want of a prayer for declaration of title and the defence is based on a misconceived notion only. As such, the substantial question of law No.(a), does not arise at all. 11. The learned counsel for the defendant would advance his argument to the effect that both the Courts below were not justified in going deep into the title dispute and rendering its judgment. It is a common or garden principle of law that even in an injunction suit, incidentally the title could be gone into and with that intention alone both the Courts below looked into the documents of title and rendered its verdict. Accordingly, the proposed substantial question of law (b) does not arise. 12. The proposed substantial question of law (c) has emerged out of the wrong notion that there cannot be any injunction against the co-owner. Here the suit is not between the co-owners but between strangers, who purchased the properties with different set of boundaries as highlighted correctly by the lower Court. Accordingly, the proposed substantial question of law (c) also does not arise. 13. As far as the proposed substantial question of law (d) is concerned, both the Courts below correctly understood the concept of burden of proof and analysed the evidence of plaintiff and rendered its judgment in favour of the plaintiff. However, while doing so, the defendant’s plea was also considered and they never expected that the defendant should prove the case in toto even before when the plaintiff proving his case. In fact, the approach of both the Courts below was a discernible one, warranting no interference with their judgments. Accordingly, the proposed substantial question of law (d) also does not arise. 14. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.